“Not one of them should be allowed to vote, have any say whatsoever, or even reside in a future white homeland. We must turn our back on them completely, and let them live and perish in the hellholes that they helped the anti-whites bring about. What they have done to our people is so grotesquely awful that it should inspire authentic anger.”
Last year on the Occidental Observer Trainspotter said:
I can’t help having a bit of a soft spot for Buchanan. In some ways, I cut my political teeth as a teen by watching Crossfire back in the 80’s, and more importantly reading his column in my local paper. He was certainly a skilled debater and gifted writer, and while my own path soon led to the diversion of libertarianism, there is no question that Buchanan influenced me, and all things considered, for the better.
I particularly appreciated that his columns were laced with historical and literary allusions. As a teen in the pre-internet age, these references were invaluable to me and an important part of my education. It really set him apart from other columnists, as he captured the majesty of civilization in a seamless flow. Whatever one may think of Buchanan, he saw the world through rich historical eyes. For me, that was probably his greatest contribution.
Whatever punches he may have pulled, he was one of the few in the 80’s mainstream press that offered any substance at all. As time marched on, he became not merely one of the few, but the only. Now there are none.
With our “precious” freedom of the press, there is today not a single commentator in the mainstream that will advocate for whites at all. Not one.
Mainstream conservatism is unabashedly hostile to us and our worldview.
Of course, it’s possible that Buchanan will get another gig, and presumably he’ll continue his column for a time. The internet ensures that if he wants a voice, he can have at least a bit of one. But he’s no longer the vigorous firebrand of years gone by. He’s an old man now, and any comeback would simply amount to a swan song. Even if that happens, it would not alter the symbolic importance of what has transpired.
The real story, as Buchanan himself has more or less said, is not that he changed, but that America changed. Just a few decades ago, he probably represented the Silent Majority. I remember, as a kid in the 70’s and 80’s, when all white adults were politically incorrect, to put it mildly. This in a fairly prosperous, well educated and all white suburb.
But now, that world is gone. The people have been trained well, and even if they disagree with the PC orthodoxy, they know to keep it to themselves. And the all white suburbs of yore are now multiracial. Miscegenation is common, and white children few.
It’s a world in which Buchanan is irrelevant.
Now, at best, he represents a Silent Minority that shrinks by the day. I remember watching some of the Reform Party convention on C-Span back in 2000. The average age of the conventioneers appeared to be past 75. They were in pitiful condition: lots of wheelchairs and canes. If I hadn’t known better, I might have thought that I was viewing an event not merely at a retirement community, but a nursing home. It was sad, these representatives of an America that no longer existed. I couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of it at one sitting; what I saw genuinely disturbed me. What I saw when I went outside disturbed me even more.
Meanwhile, the non-whites continued to flood in, and leftist/jewish cultural levers continued to spew their poison.
It was obvious to me then that, whatever sentimental attachment that I might have had to it, Buchanan’s America was over. It had, at the very least, one foot in the grave. There was no longer any energy to it, or any real gravitas. Just the weary regret of old men who simply can’t believe that what is so obvious to them is not also obvious to everyone else. Old men with decent instincts, but who had absolutely no idea as to the nature and power of the forces arrayed against them, much less how to beat those forces. Old men who, I suspect in more than a few cases, returned from the convention to a home darkened by their mulatto grandchildren. All very, very sad. I suspect that a huge percentage of that 2000 crowd is now dead, along with their world.
The race blind mainstream conservatism that has displaced Buchanan’s more authentic flavor will itself suffer the same fate. Demographics are destiny, and the Jewish stranglehold on our key societal institutions remains unchecked.
Not to put too fine a point on it: it’s over.
To be a bit more precise, it’s over for traditional America, for Buchanan’s America. But it’s not over for us, in fact it’s only beginning.
We can still move forward, if we are able to let go of what is truly and well lost. Sad though it may be, America is one of those things.
White nationalism is all that is left, the only worldview that is capable of accurately identifying the existential crisis that we face, and the only worldview that offers a way forward… however long the odds. For all our faults and foibles, we if anything skew young, but at the very least have strong representation in all age groups. We have truth on our side, but more importantly, energy and the potential for real fanaticism. At the very least we are obsessives, and I mean that as a compliment.
There has been an ongoing debate within white nationalism between the “vanguardists” and the “mainstreamers.” I’ve always thought it was largely a false debate, but false or not, it is becoming moot. We aren’t welcome in the mainstream, and we’re not going to be welcome. There will be no long march through the institutions, as those doors are shut to us.
We’ve got to face the fact that we will not be allowed to reach the majority of the white population with our message. This, while tragic, is not fatal. Revolutionary ideas and movements are made by minorities, and we certainly can reach the more motivated, obsessive and fanatical of our people. Those are the people who, if we are to have a land of our own, will be instrumental in bringing it about. Only they, the “vanguard,” can get the ball rolling, and once they do, then the millions of our people who retain healthy racial instincts (and large numbers do) can enter into the equation. But we have to work with the tools and capabilities available to us, which means vanguardism by default. It is not a bad thing for that to become crystal clear to us. It’s a good thing.
So, despite my soft spot for Buchanan, his firing is probably a net positive. There should be no illusion that the system is anything other than hostile to us, and his firing helps drive that point home.
The focus, energy, obsession and fanaticism need to be directed toward one and only one goal: the coming White Republic. All else is mere diversion or dead end.
As Buchanan himself has more or less said, it’s not that he changed, but rather that America changed. There was in fact a culture war… and his side lost. The culture moves inexorably to the left. Once mainstream conservatism abandoned the defense of whites as a people, this march to the left was inevitable. A new people require a new narrative, new heroes, and a new worldview.
The Worship of Mammon
by Evelyn De Morgan (1909)
A notion often promoted in mainstream paleo-con and WN circles is that modern day capitalism (often termed super-capitalism) is somehow substantially different than capitalism of whatever era they romanticize. Such a notion is absurd because it fails to recognize the antisocial nature inherent in capitalism.
Such destructiveness is demonstrated by the accumulation of financial power via usury which results in an extreme consolidation of wealth distorting so-called market forces, allowing oligopolies and/or monopolies to control markets and limit competition. In so doing they further consolidate their economic power by creating an economy in which purchasing decisions, competition and chances for individual enrichment suffer. Oligopolies and/or monopolies also subvert supposedly free markets and democratic institutions when they inevitably discover that legislation, and political parties and public office holders can be purchased as easily as any other commodity.
In effect, highly concentrated capital is able to nullify popular will via well-funded lobbying campaigns, dramatically manipulative electoral campaigns and molding public opinion to suit plutocratic interests. In practical terms the so-called private sector can be just as an effective oppressor as an omnipotent state although some would argue that the engineering of consent via highly a concentrated corporate media creates a propasphere that is far more capable of controlling dissent than any state could.
Paleo-con economic thought is like mainstream libertarianism in that they both prefer to believe the flagrant lie that capital is not inevitably concentrated and/or that such concentration does not distort the market nor cause social havoc.
Surveying the formally Occidental portions of the world makes it apparent that the political power of concentrated finance often can’t be overcome by regulatory regimes or tax policies consistent with the current liberal gestalt because the means by which such policies are crafted are owned by the very interests they seek to regulate. To the extent that various Western states have implemented social-democratic inspired controls over capital, the same dynamics of alienation remain in part because excessive statist regulation and taxes have simply shifted the power of capital to the state rather then to society at large. Within the context of the globalist order which the Occidental world has submitted itself to statist regulation of capital is ineffective as transnational finance has far more power culturally and politically than any nation state can possibly muster within its own boarders. This unfortunate reality has been the case from the earliest days of the East India Trading company and remains so today.
Racially aware paleo-cons are cognizant of the reality that culture is a biologically based construct and that demographics determine the destiny of nations. Unfortunately they fail to realize that capitalism shapes demographics to suit the interests of those able to control capital.
When racial paleo-cons look upon the Antebellum South under the soft, uncritical glow of an unfocused nostalgic yearning for that which never was, they choose to ignore the enslavement of Europeans and the misery that was inflicted upon free White men forced to compete with slave labor. In the case of Rhodesia and South Africa segregation and the concentration of political power in White hands did not translate into economic security for working-class Occidentals who were forced to compete with far more abundant Negroid labor while paying higher taxes to support parallel social services for two separate races. Elsewhere in the Western World slave labor came to be supplanted by an endless supply of low-cost alien labor when it became technologically and politically possible to do so during the second half of the 20th century.
If by some miracle the racial paleo-cons of the likes of American Renaissance take power tomorrow, bringing back segregation and ending the influx of alien peoples, the twin forces of third world fertility and capitalism’s need for ever cheaper labor will do away with whatever demographic gains the racial paleo-cons may achieve in short order. Because a nation’s demographics determine its destiny. Any such a White Nationalist democracy will be faced with disenfranchised alien masses that will have common cause with the plutocrats whose economic logic demands a system highly similar to what the formerly Occidental world has now.
While mainstream and racial paleo-cons alike pay homage to Burke’s famous call for self-determination from Madras to Manchester, they ignore that the traditionalism of both will perish when left to so-called market forces. Since capitalism views individuals as any other commodity, why should one expect tradition to be anything more then a marketing tool, discarded when something else can be sold with a greater return on investment? The same market forces which imported slaves nearly two centuries ago for higher profits while taking bread from the mouths of White laborers exports Occidental jobs for higher profits today.
With rare exceptions, rebellion within the context of a consumerist society has nothing to do with upholding traditionalistic values. Instead, uniqueness is based upon purchasing items which convey a pseudo rebellion likely to win approval from one’s peers or reaffirm the carnality and nihilism sanctioned by the media.
Occidentals must confront the discomforting reality that we are faced with a relentless marginalization and a looming extinction for the benefit of an elite that hold us in contempt, rather than as individual members of a transcendent order in which commonality of purpose extends beyond material advancement and fashionableness. When a societal consensus is based upon ever fluxuating fads and the need to produce wealth for others with ever greater efficiency and ever lessening stability, alienation is the inevitable result and all its various offspring like promiscuity, homosexualism, substance abuse, familial disintegration and delinquency will follow.(1)
Capitalism, and the individualism which gave birth to the classical liberalism of yore, and the liberty so cherished by those that claim to be conservatives, have seen the legal doctrines and institutions they cherish transformed into mere tools for competing interest groups and ascendant racial entities seeking to impose themselves over groups of individuals lacking any sense of common identity and purpose. Such an outcome is to be expected as Occidental peoples have had any sense of organically derived sense of purpose torn from them by design. Occidentals of all nations have no sense of an inherent uniqueness and value extending across countless generations of the past and those yet to be born, and are doomed to extinction as long as such a mindset persists. Occidentals merely produce greater profits for a global plutocracy which uses those returns to fund our displacement with no thought of communal purpose beyond our grandparents and grandchildren (if that).
Surveying the decaying remnants of the Occidental world after more then two centuries of Liberalism in action, broadly similar developments have, without exception, meant cultural devolution, the rise of the anti-culture and our demographic decline culminating in the apocalypse slowly unfolding upon us. Segregationist efforts and slavery have uniformly failed to preserve a liberalism meant to serve Occidental humanity because of the inerrant contradictions within liberalism necessitate either continued Devolution or Restorative revolution. Realizing the uniformity of the Dissipative effects of liberalism upon Occidental societies across time and locale as well as the near total dominance of the Transience ideal in our former societies, the only sensible conclusion one can reach is that liberalism cannot be fine-tuned or reformed into a Restorative force. We will not vote our way out of Annihilation and our tormentors won’t simply collapse, allowing a return to some halcyon era that never was. A viable attempt at a Restorative revolution has never been based upon liberalism because liberalism as an ideal intrinsically serves Transience.
Given that mainstream as well as racial paleo-cons lack the fortitude to realize the corrosive effects of capitalism and atomistic individualism upon what remains of the liberal democratic order, they cannot help but to bemoan the demise of our traditions while hoping that institutions controlled by racial aliens and deracinated Occidentals will once again serve the vision of the liberals of the late 18th century. A return to the liberalism of ages past presumes an electoral awakening of masses of lemmings motivated by gut and groin. Since history and current experience proves otherwise the continued paleo-con adherence to such a fantasy demonstrates a Fourierian contempt for reality every bit as unreal as skull shapes being explained by Boasian anthropology.
A legal code is nothing more than a mechanism for articulating and balancing competing interests for the greater good of a society, as reflected within the confines of texts recognized as reflecting some transcendent truth. For a collection of texts to have such authority depends upon a nation being defined in terms of a people with a sense of common purpose, history and destiny. To pretend that such an authority can be instilled in a fractious collection of rival cultures bound by force and avarice (as is the case in the post-Occidental West) simply cannot hold up to even a mildly honest bout of cognizance.
The vast material disparities and attendant political / societal dispossession we suffer should be seen as an inevitable consequence of capital becoming ever more focused resulting in the amplification of the social and economic Hobbesian struggle of all against all. Given that paleo-cons have chosen to accept the foundational elements that have gutted our civilization and will continue to do so, it is sensible to conclude that constitutionalism has no chance of reviving Burke’s proud submission to the responsibilities of class and providence revealed in custom. Instead, recent generations have inherited the negation of those things, resulting in the end of common identity and purpose which has been replaced by the current anti-culture abhorred by all who reject the modern crapulence of liberalism.
What now is termed paleo-conservatism is simply a sentimental attachment to the vestigial institutions of a largely mythical and deceased liberalism. Paleo-conservatism is in practice nothing more then the collective delusion of viewing an apparition as viable basis for restoring society to an idealized past.
Raspail is right when he sees us as Hermit Crabs inhabiting the bounty of an ancestry we neither build upon, preserve, appreciate nor recognize. Instead they identify with a romanticized concept of institutions and doctrines that once gave prosperity within a highly unique historical and demographic context which they refuse to understand. That such a context also conflated license for freedom making our current decrepitude inevitable is also ignored. Paleo-cons of all sorts as well as libertarians have done so partly out of ignorance and nostalgia, but also out of cowardice. The cowardice I speak of is that what they imagine to be prudence is nothing more than a hope, in opposition to reason that submission will ingratiate them, to those that loath them and control the institutions that destroyed the ideals held dear so as to be co-opted by their tormentors. In the end all the paleo-cons of any description can hope for is the demented fantasy that, contrary to evidence and reason, revolutionary change can be avoided by merely fine tuning the legal code; withering the state, praying more fervently, or that assimilation will magically transform aliens into Occidentals as we fade as an anthropological curiosity.
Such a perspective is a biological and ideological distraction the Occidental world hasn’t been able to afford for several generations. A genuine conservatism, given the current demographic and institutional context, must be revolutionary in its rejection of the foundational assumptions of liberalism. Paleo-conservativism and libertarianism never have and will never rescue a decadent, deracinated people from oblivion, nor even have made a credible attempt at doing so.
By contrast National Revolutionary doctrine has done so several times during the last century. Occidental man requires a revolutionary traditionalism totally divorced from liberalism. Anything else is merely an overly traveled road to the extinction of Occidental humanity.
(1) Alienation within the Revisionist Integralist / Organicist context refers not to the Marxist use of the term but rather to a process by which individuals, social groups or entire societies become disassociated from the values of Permanence.
Alienation is a product of the anti-culture in which societies and the constituents that comprise them cease to maintain a communion with the land and as an integral component of generations current, past and coming with a common purpose and identity. The forming of identity on the basis of shared banalities in the form of propasphere generated sports or media consumption present the most obvious and ubiquitous manifestations of alienation although in some instances thematic strains within such unwholesome diversions can be harnessed into efforts that have some utility to the Restorative cause.
This is the second installment of Liaucius’ article “An Overly Traveled Road to Extinction.” For the first installment of this article see: here.
As an adherent of the Revisionist Integralism / Organicism school my critique of paleo-conservatism is metapolitical in nature rather than drawn from a historicist perspective or bound by a narrowly conceived ideological preference. (1) As such, I would maintain that a foundational consideration of the paleo-conservative disposition is needed.
Fundamentally, paleo-conservatism should be about the preservation of that which makes a people or a nation state unique. Yet within the American context that uniqueness has unfortunately come to mean classical liberalism, capitalism, constitutionalism and a less permissive form of Christianity.
The single greatest flaw with such an ideology is that the things it wishes to preserve are already dead. The constitutional republic of the founders so revered by the paleo-cons is like any other legal doctrine: it can’t help but die along with the societal conditions that gave rise to it.
It died when the states ceased to be sovereign entities able to withdraw from the union. The ordinal constructs that succeeded it are as alien to the vision of the 18th century liberals that created the constitution as the founders compared to the typical Obama voter or Howard Stern fan. When American paleo-cons speak of an American Order they incorrectly presume that a consistent legal and governing doctrine upon which public life is ordered has suffered degradations overtime while still being salvageable and relevant by means that have never been meaningfully articulated. Such a view ignores the legal doctrines of the Confederated Republic era or simply presumes it to be a consistent, logical precursor to a perfected legal doctrine that began in 1789 and degraded to a major extent sometime after 1861 yet still represents an ideal that can be restored via the subverted institutions that have perverted America beyond recognition if some unspecified populist course of action is taken by a population wholly removed from the societal framework that gave birth to it.
In philosophical terms a major challenge to the notion of ordinal continuity so beloved of American paleo-cons and the angst about the decline of the republic is the reality that history has thus far given birth to six distinct American ordinal eras. With the exception of the Federated Republic and the First Federal Republic, the fundamental reordering of American life has involved a commixture of constitutional amendments and the practical nullification of constitutional rule via legislation, executive orders and the natural Dissipative effects inherent in liberalism. (2)
The paleo-conservative notion of the American Order is premised upon an institutional and civic societal construct that has hasn’t existed for several generations. Instead, it’s more accurate to see American history defined by ordinal epochs characterized in terms of the degree to which Occidental folkways and mores within society had been dominating, in decline, or nonexistent. Within the American context Permanence had always been undermined by the Degenerative aspects inherent in classical Liberalism. When Dissipationist forces became ascendant to such an extent that the order of the area became fundamentally changed a new, more degenerate order with a new set of systemic contradictions came into being giving birth to a new ordinal era.(3)
In the briefest of all possible terms these ordinal eras are:
1) The Confederated Republic (1781-1788). This period was characterized by an extremely decentralized and weak confederation of effectively sovereign agrarian states whose cooperative association formed a republic defined by the radical liberalism of the late 18th century and an expansionist racial supremacy led by Occidentals. This order was Generative in nature.
2) The First Federalist Republic (1789-1861) .This period was characterized by strong sub-national governments that voluntarily became part of a federated national state defined by a less radical form of liberalism and an expansionist racial supremacy led by Occidentals. Although agrarian economic interests dominated a large portion of the country, industrial elites had obtained substantial financial and political power during this era. This order was Generative in nature.
3) The Second Federalist Republic (1861-1912). This period was characterized by sub-national governments with high degrees of autonomy involuntarily forced to remain part of a federated national state with significant centralization of power which was typical of 19th century liberalism. For most of this period America was still defined in terms of an expansionist racial supremacy led by Occidentals although an ascendant Jewish minority held major influence in media, finance and government. This period was also characterized by experiments with imperialism and a decline of agrarian societies and a typically liberal consolidation of wealth. This order was characterized by a tension between Regenerative and Dissipationist forces with dominion of the former, but in decline.
4) The Third Federalist Republic (1913-1954). This period was characterized by sub-national governments with significant but declining autonomy consistent with the progression of 20th century liberalism. America was for most of this ordinal era defined in terms of a preservationist racialism that had fully abandoned the Celtic/Nordic/Western core identity in favor of a pan-European ideal held together by propositional nationalism. Although still nominally led by Occidentals, an ascendant Jewish minority held a major (or arguably a dominant) position in media, finance and government. This period was also characterized by experiments with imperialism, the establishment of Chesterson’s Servile State, and the ascendancy of globalism. This order was characterized by a tension between Regenerative and Dissipationist forces with the latter ascendant.
5) The First Post-Federal Republic (1954-2001). This period was characterized by sub-national governments with moderate and declining autonomy and centralization of power consistent with typical late 20th century liberalism. America was for most of this period defined in Cultural Bolshevik terms of racial nihilism, globalism and Chesterson’s Servile State. America’s ruling elite by this time was characterized by a mixture of racialist Asian, Mestizo and Negro factions as well as deracinated Occidentals subservient to Jewish power. This order principally represented Transience with Regenerative forces in steep decline.
6) The Second Post-Federal Republic (2001 to the present). This period is characterized by sub-national governments without any meaningful degree of autonomy forced to remain part of a federated national state with a far greater centralization of power consistent with typical 21st century liberalism. The current American order is defined as an increasingly militant expression of Cultural Bolshevism which is manifested in terms of racial nihilism, familial collapse, globalism and an increasingly common form of authoritarianism created by the merger of finance and statist authority. America’s current ruling elites differ from that of the previous order in terms of the militancy used in the service of the destruction of America’s Occidental remnant and its growing insolvency. This order represents the triumph of Transience with Regenerative forces playing a negligible societal role.
The essence of the paleo-con perspective on the constitution is that it can somehow resurrect a classically inspired form of liberalism while ignoring the reality that the foundational elements of Liberalism are naturally Dissipative. Instead of representing a force of Continuance the constitution has been reinterpreted and restructured to serve successive orders whose values are fully divorced from those created by those that founded your nation state.(4)
One endlessly hears commentary about the sacred glory of the constitution and debate among paleo-cons over its relevance in various contemporary controversies. Constitutionalists at best ignore and often celebrate that the constitution failed to protect Occidental children from literally being militarily forced to attend publicly funded indoctrination centers extolling the virtues of miscegenation while being physically abused by racial aliens.
In fact the constitution made of such travesties a celebrated basis of decades of legal doctrine. Although the constitution failed to prevent Occidentals in America from being dispossessed by an endless tidal wave of flotsam from the third world, it has granted the invaders legal equality with those that created your nation state. The constitution failed to prevent America becoming a client state of Israel just as it failed to prevent the rise of Bush’s Orwellian surveillance state.
The constitution has been powerless to stop the ascension of a multi billion-dollar industry based upon sexual debasement and an economic order in which tens of millions of Americans live the lives of serfs for global enterprises which buy legislators, presidents and judges. Although Constitutionalism has done absolutely nothing to prevent cultural Bolshevism dominating American life, it has given legal license to every manner of social malignancy one can imagine. And yet for more than one hundred and fifty years American paleocons cling to the fantasy that the very same legal / governmental doctrine that gutted the republic they love will somehow restore it back to the halcyon days of the 1950s, the early 1900s, the antebellum South, 1789 or whatever nostalgic fantasy they aspire to.
The reason that such a tragedy has come to pass is because such an outcome is a consequence of the individualistic nature of liberalism without which cultural Bolshevism simply would not have been possible.
What little remains of the paleo-con movement is committed to racial egalitarianism and the notion that Occidental civilization can be perpetuated by races other then the one that created it. Mainstream paleo-cons believe that racial aliens can be assimilated to accept and even advance Occidental culture ignoring the realities of racial psychometrical differences and evolutionary psychology, and historical evidence to the contrary. In short, they embrace a major cause of Occidental decline (multi-racialism) and even uphold it as an example of enlightened Western values while bemoaning the societal disintegration it engenders.
Although racially conscious paleo-cons have been relegated to the margins of political and cultural discourse for several decades, they have continued to embrace classical liberalism because they fail to understand that the liberalism of the 18th century has cultural Bolshevism as its logical consequence.(5)
In part this stems from the egalitarianism and individualism expressed in the American constitution. America as a nation state can’t be understood to be an organic national entity in any meaningful sense of the term since it was not the product of the confluence of blood and soil and the folkways produced from such a dynamic. Rather, the old republics came about as an expression of the liberal idealism of the late 18th century and as such they exemplified a rejection of Occidental traditionalism with its emphasis upon communal responsibilities, privileges and hierarchy which are the foundational elements of Occidental social existence. The afore-mentioned confluence animates a society by defining its strengths and contradictions as well as determining what attempts are made to resolve said conflicts from the standpoint of furthering national uniqueness and survivability.
Liberalism is expressed economically as capitalism and socially as atomistic individualism.
Restorative forces are incompatible with capitalism because social interactions are determined largely by financial prowess and conformity to fleeting consumerist fads. Within such an environment communing with ancestors and descendants becomes impossible when individuals can at best think in terms of family welfare and the occasional act of charity while typically they become defined by crass materialism or merely serfs living at the edge of subsistence.
Footnotes appear in the first comment, below.
The blogger Trainspotter has complained a lot about how is it possible that after decades of pro-white activism the actual fruits on American society have been, well, exactly zero! Why?
As a distant observer of the American White Nationalist scene, I am struck by its utter irrelevancy in public discourse outside of being a fund-raising tool for anti-Occidental activists* and as a subject of lurid speculation. In part, this distressing situation is a product of the typical pathologies and corruption endemic to counter culture groups but I am not inclined to cover the endless scandals that have in large part defined the White Nationalist scene during the last fifty years or so. While the character issue and other matters should be attended, the issue of what exactly American Occidental advocacy presently entails in terms of an ideological foundation is of paramount importance.
Currently paleo-conservatism dominates what little racialist discourse occurs in the States. While notable exceptions to the dominance of paleo-conservatism have occurred, they have never come close to rivaling its popular appeal or political influence within the WN scene. Given that the mainstream of racialist thought in the states since the reconstruction era has been remarkably consistent, it matters little if one refers to it as Americanism, racial populism or racial paleo-conservatism in terms addressing its ideological validity. Before considering the present-day applicability of the paleo-con doctrine I think a consideration of the golden era of modern American racialism is worthwhile simply because it provides an excellent case study of the consequences of the character issue alluded to earlier as well as the utility of a racially based paleo-conservatism as a governing ideology.
The golden age of American racialism coincided with the birth of what is commonly referred to as the Second Klan Era, which was founded by the publisher of The Jeffersonian newspaper and U.S. senator Thomas Watson in 1915. Watson built the Klan into a nationwide organization with more than four million members (about 15 percent of the white male Protestant population of the country at the time) that was particularly powerful in the Midwest and Southern states. The influence attained by the Second Klan Era far exceeded the accomplishments of American racialism at any time since as they managed to gain control state legislatures in Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon as well as electing a governor in Indiana and several Congressmen and Senators. Most impressive of all, they managed to heavily influence the Democratic Convention of 1924 and helped get a Klansman on the Supreme Court.
The combination of segregation, constitutionalism, opposition to Southern / Eastern European immigration, Protestant fundamentalism, isolationism and economic populism were all popular causes fully within the mainstream of public social and political thought at the time. Simply put, the Second Klan Era enjoyed a nearly ideal historical context in which to transform America into a society far more reflective of Occidental values. Yet they achieved little in terms of societal reform and lapsed into obscurity very quickly. The reason for this failure was largely a result of the limitations of the paleo-conservative ideology they promoted, as will be shown.
The Second Klan Era was largely, with the notable exception of The Black Legion, committed to working within the confines of electoral politics for the purpose of advancing its public policy agenda. That agenda consisted of the preservation of the constitutional order of the day, maintaining the predominance of Europeans of Nordic, Western and Celtic origins in cultural and political terms; restoring Protestant fundamentalism to a place of preeminence, the maintenance of American neutrality, advancing prohibition and advancing the economic populist agenda of the time.
Needless to say, the reelection of Wilson in 1916 resulted in America’s subsequent entry into the First World War (as well as numerous imperialistic adventures in Central and South America during the 1920s), and the entry into the League of Nations ended American neutrality and weakened its sovereignty. On the domestic front Klan influence failed to slow the flood of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, the suffragette movement’s triumph, the decadence of the 1920s or the rise of the anti-Occidental mass media during the 1930s. In short, they failed to preserve the societal order that defined America at the turn of the century or protect the ethnic and religious interests they held dear despite being given an ideal opportunity to do so.
While the Klan was heavily involved in promoting prohibition and progressive economic policies popular during first two decades of the 20th century, the passage of such measures happened because they were promoted by popular sentiment across major portions of the political spectrum (including Negroes, organized labor, fundamentalist Protestants and women) as well as the efforts of significant portions of the political establishment that were entirely unsympathetic to the Klan. As a result, it is very unrealistic to view the Second Klan Era as anything more then one of several significant factions promoting progressive reforms and prohibition. Given that progressivism died with the postwar depression of the early 1920s and the rise of social-democratic style labour unions, whatever impact the Klan had upon the growth of progressivism was wholly inadequate to prevent its decline outside of the deep South and portions of the Midwest during the 1920s and 1930s.
The collapse of the Second Klan Era began in large measure as a result of Stephenson scandal of 1925. Under Stephenson’s guidance, Klan membership swelled to 300,000 in the State of Indiana and, in the 1924 elections, Klan-backed candidates won all but one of Indiana’s U.S Congressional seats as well as the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and the Secretary of State. Stephenson was the most charismatic leader the Klan ever had as he was a gifted orator and a popular leader throughout much of the country as well as the Grand Dragon of Indiana which was a major Klan stronghold at the time. Yet all he is remembered for now is the extremely brutal kidnapping, rape and subsequent suicide of Madge Oberholtzer. The resultant media coverage devastated the Klan and turned formerly cordial elite opinion against the organization resulting in a dramatic and rapid decline of its influence and popularity.
In 1936 the kidnapping and murder of Charles Poole and the subsequent crackdown on the Black Legion (a paramilitary offshoot of the Klan active in Illinois, Michigan and Ohio) sped the disintegration of what remained of the Klan forcing its sale in 1939 and it subsequently bankrupted because of tax avoidance in 1944, thereby ending the Second Klan Era and hastening the decline of racially-based paleo-conservatism. The lesson provided by the Black Legion is that poorly planned, sporadic political violence can’t threaten state power but it does motivate repression and the political marginalization of would be revolutionaries.
Any post-mortem analysis of the Second Klan Era naturally raises the matter of what would have happened had the rape and subsequent death of Oberholtzer been concealed, or conjecture about how history might have been different had Stephenson been able to control his depraved instincts. Such conjecture doesn’t seem fruitful given that sexual psychopaths tend to behave in ways that are incompatible with the rational life of self-sacrifice needed of anyone that aspires to revolutionary political leadership. In light of the savagery directed against Oberholtzer it appears obvious that his bestial nature couldn’t be controlled nor concealed indefinitely. His arrest for sexual assault in 1961 after spending decades in prison seems to confirm his unsuitability for life among Occidental people although other aspects of his conduct during the 1920s paint a very troubling portrait of the man as well as the organization that he led.
On a more fundamental level, the problem of the Second Klan Era was metapolitical in nature, which is to say that they ceded the parameters of discourse which predetermined the sorts of policies and tactics they adopted. Accepting the paleo-conservative notion of Americans meant that the Second Klan Era accepted contemporary egalitarian notions about democracy while promoting a narrow form of racialism. Practically what this meant was that they hoped to restrict enfranchisement to the old Nordic / Western / Celtic racial base with no meaningful thought given to how to practically exclude the already substantial Southern and Eastern European populations within the confines of universal suffrage, nor how the established party system could be dissuaded from catering to emerging demographics. Long term Negro demographic trends in the South and Midwest made the Klan’s strategy of regional race-based enfranchisement unviable in the long term, which wasn’t surprising given the overwhelming financial, institutional and cultural strength of the establishment that dominated the rest of America.
Although an aristocratic remnant survived in the South as late as the 1930s, an adherence to democratic dogma and the economic / social populism of the period meant that the acceptance of the foundationalisms of capitalism negated any consideration of natural hierarchies as a basis for establishing both rights and responsibilities, as well as a means of providing for greater social cohesion. The old Southern aristocracy provided a bulwark against Eastern financial interests in the antebellum and reconstruction eras, making such a choice tactically questionable and ideologically puzzling for an allegedly conservative movement based in the South. However, since no thought at all was given to syndicalism, guildism or corporatism, the Klan was left with populist prescriptions for state-based restraints upon the influence of capital which had proven to be a dead end by the beginning of the thirties.
While the Second Klan Era paid homage to the Confederacy, any serious discussion abut secession simply didn’t exist within its circles at the time. Instead, lots of effort was spent praising constitutionalism resulting in the Klan seeing itself as the standard bearer of a contemporary Americanism rather then as a revolutionary secessionist movement. Unaddressed was the matter of how the constitution failed to stop the transformation of the country into a society dominated by North Eastern plutocrats or how a regional movement like the Klan could formulate a long term defensive strategy against a national leadership animated by a deep malevolence to all that the Klan stood for.
When one considers the obvious unsuitability of its foundationalisms to the era and practical experiences that should have been gleaned from what was then recent history, it is reasonable to presume that the Second Klan Era was content with being a regional force with no long term strategy for remaining relevant. It appears instead that they hoped that somehow state level autonomy could be maintain when then current societal trends and the living history indicated that regional autonomy was slated for extinction by the very metapolitical construct that the Klan defended.
A consideration of contemporary written material clearly indicates that the Second Klan Era lacked any metapolitical foundation or coherent ideology but instead was a manifestation of incoherent but well intended sentiments opposed to Occidental dispossession in the American South and Midwest. In a practical sense, the Second Klan Era was purely defensive and reactive and destined to fail even if Stephenson’s sexual psychopathy could have concealed or repressed.
As mentioned earlier, the ideology promoted by the Klan and like-minded groups since the Reconstruction Era is extremely similar to the ideology promoted by the mainstream of American racialist groups such as Stormfront, American Renaissance, Liberty Lobby, VDARE, the Council of Conservative Citizens, various Klan factions, the American Nationalist Union, the recently disbanded National Vanguard and several other organizations as well.
Given the failure of paleo-conservatism to preserve Occidental interests in America within the nearly ideal historical context that presented itself to the Second Klan Era, honest men should question the suitability of the ideology within the current era even if most in the WN community refuse to do so, as has been the case for nearly ninety years.
The author meant in the first paragraph “anti-Occidental activists since the principle, practical service provided by WN groups in the U.S. seems to be to generate scary stories published by the ADL/OPP/SPLC etc., which get old Jewish ladies and paranoid urban hipsters to give money to those groups. It’s not much of a recomendation for American WN groups but it’s accurate unforunately.”
Both the promoters and opponents of homosexual marriage share a common false premise: that the legalization of homosexual marriage overthrows “heteronormativity,” i.e., the idea that heterosexuality is normal and other forms of sexuality are not. But the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false.
Actually, no one says that. Leftists see queer marriage as one important campaign in a giant ongoing war.
What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man.
Most of the so-called examples of homosexual behavior disappear on closer examination.
I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.
For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex. And if everyone had non-reproductive, recreational sex all the time, the human race would perish. Heterosexual behavior is normal, because only heterosexual sex can perpetuate our species, provided conception is not blocked by birth control.
So the real issue is not even homosexual versus heterosexual, but reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. That’s all there is to it.
Um, no. Homosexual behavior is inherently morbid, heterosexual behavior is not. Queer behavior is on a par along with drug / alcohol abuse and other anti-social behavior. Whether a taste is inborn or developed, it’s socially destructive and should be looked down on, and certainly never given any kind of legal status. What Johnson doesn’t observe that’s most significant today is that (1) homos today, unlike in all prior history, can find one other easily; (2) queers have a global support network thanks to political backing and media / communications technology.
This results in queers being able to form what the left calls communities—basically, pockets of morbidity. In these death cultures new and quite dangerous diseases are created and existing diseases are exacerbated. Thanks to jewish political clout, these diseases are untied, in the public mind, from the homosexual behavior that spawned and spread them, and actually, such chutzpah!, blamed on the surrounding squares. It’s not Gaetan Dugas, an extremely promiscuous queer, who’s responsible for spreading Queer-Related Immune Deficiency (Q-RID), it’s Ronald Reagan, the ninety-year-old president, who’s responsible for spreading AIDS (“Acquired” [LOL] Immune Deficiency Syndrome). How was it acquired? Well, doc, I sucked 500 dicks in 400 days.
Heterosexuals engaged in normal activity don’t know whether their sex will result in offspring, so the division between productive and non-reproductive sex is not so simply made. We do know that every act of anal sex between homosexuals is inherently morbid—diseased. Big, big difference.
Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control.
Birth control is not the reason societies decline. Birth control is merely something people use to avoid pregnancy, not the cause of the desire to avoid pregnancy.
Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.
I mean, this is like arguing with a fundamentalist instead of a human because it’s easier. That’s one step above a strawman, I suppose, but there’s little else to commend it. Yes. You’re correct. The human race never is, has been, or will be in danger of dying off because of fag activity. No serious man ever so contended. 1% of the population can’t have that effect—unless it be through spreading lethal disease, which is not entirely out of the question, considering Q-RID and the various drug-resistant strains homo behavior has created or exacerbated.
The basic problem with Johnson’s article is there’s no acknowledgement of the Frankfurt School. We know that jews aim to destroy the white race. We know that their top experts see the best way to do this is by using the official vectors (government, schools, media) to promote a General Loosening. The creation and the glorification of the homosexual identity are part of this. But only a part. Deviant sex, drug use, self-worship (self-esteem)—whatever it is, the jewish goal is to get the goy focused with himself, his stupid, worthless feelings and opinions, thereby taking his eyes off the world and its unbending factual reality.
If you do what the jews advise, soon enough you will have so many personal problems you’re unfit to participate in politics. Which is the intent. The promotion of homosexuality is simply part of this. In Aryan society, queer behavior is the proclivity of a tiny, weird minority. A minority that is generally laughed about privately but left alone. Even those engaged in it hide the fact, since it never occurs to them, any more than to the normals, that their tastes are healthy or deserving of some kind of public acknowledgement, let alone respect or legal stature.
In a jew-controlled society, the queers are encouraged to think of their deviance as healthy, normal and natural. Even more than that—as a positive good. Something to take pride in. Something to celebrate. Something to hold parades for. A term is coined to disparage anyone who shakes his head at the world turned upside down. He’s now a “homophobe.” If he dares laugh or make objection to the new scheme of things, he finds himself publicly ridiculed, without a job, and very likely cut off from his scared friends and family.
The political use of homosexual behavior is what matters. Queer marriage is simply another milestone in the promotion and normalization of deviance in order to facilitate destruction. By itself it doesn’t mean all that much, except that a few more resources are shifted away from normal people to diseased / deranged people. But from the resource-shifting point of view, queer “marriage” is trivial, given our open borders and anti-white tax and welfare policies. The main thing is that the concept of marriage and family are further degraded, since the law is on the side of the degradation. This produces confusion in people, as is the intent. Confusion leads people to make bad choices.
Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing. But heteronormativity is based in nature, not in convention. Sexual reproduction has existed before human beings formed languages and conventions. Indeed, sexual reproduction existed before mankind evolved. The birds and the bees do it too. So heteronormativity is not a social construct and cannot be changed by society. It can only be covered up, lied about, and ignored—at society’s peril.
The queers believe, some of them honestly, that they have changed the public’s mind. They believe they have, through their gritty marches and public activism since Stonewall, converted people to thinking their side is morally right. Just as the negroes did. The truth is that, just as with the so-called civil rights movement, the public was simply browbeaten by a hateful media into accepting a new order accomplished anti-democratically by judicial edict. People’s minds haven’t been changed. They’ve just seen a thousand times there’s a price to be paid for speaking up. Disagree with The Cult on race, you’re aracist. Disagree with The Cult on sexual behavior, you’re a homophobe.
Both these, and other, labels can get you sued, fired, ostracized—even murdered. Who wants that? So the people keep their heads down, and content themselves with expressing any doubt in private, or not at all. Meanwhile, the 1% minority, along with the 2% minority that owns the mass media, preens and chortles over its great victory. The community, they say, supports “gay” rights. The community has changed its mind. It had a moral awakening. It decided to get on the right side of history. But homosexual behavior will never be anything but ludicrous and disgusting to the majority of the population. The public has been successfully intimidated out of expressing open criticism of deviant sexual behavior, but its basic views have not changed.
It is easy to understand why homosexual marriage proponents believe they are overturning heteronormativity. It is harder to understand why the opponents of homosexual marriage make the same claims, since presumably they think that heteronormativity is based on nature or divine will, neither of which can be altered by man, even by the US Supreme Court. Yet the opponents of heterosexual marriage claim that legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the key to preserving the institutions of marriage and family life.
The point isn’t what they can build, it’s what they can destroy. And we have the who and the why. They say it themselves. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Your essay could have been written by James A. Dobson (Focus on the Family) or any other conservative fundraising hack.
This makes no sense for two reasons.
First, if heteronormativity is based in nature or divine commandment, not in law, then it cannot be changed by changing laws. (Human laws can, of course, strengthen natural laws by adding additional punishments and incentives to follow nature.)
Leftists are cultists. They are not interested in reality, since reality shows them to be liars and weirdoes. Their solution to nature disagreeing with them is speech codes and laws. This won’t change anything fundamental, but it will keep the air- and mind-waves free of anything that would make them cry. And that is good enough. See Paula Deen.
Second, the institutions of marriage and family life have been pretty much destroyed already. But during the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.
No, heterosexuals have nothing to do with it. The elite setting the agenda bear all the responsibility. They have passed the easy divorce laws. They copied the Soviet family laws in their guidelines for settling child disputes. The agenda is anti-white. Deliberately so. This is not a matter of debate. You can’t have stable families in a nation with a gigantic government touching every area of life and extracting huge taxes to pay for it all. No one has any time or energy left to fuck, let alone fuck productively. Throw in a popular culture that is nothing but 24/7 streaming garbage about hotness, masturbation, homosexuality, getting drunk / wasted / high and mass sports—nothing’s left. You’re either working, sleeping, or thinking about fucking. Well, the legal / media communist jews know exactly what they are doing. Destroying families. Destroying men.
Destroying the very ideas of manliness, womanliness, or families. The very use of family without an article is subversive, and deliberately so, even though many who use it that way—i.e., “the importance of family”—don’t grasp the fact. Barbara Bush, for example, or I could cite other conservatives, do this. A family is anything, who are we to say? It’s certainly not a man, his wife, and his children. They’re all independent agents, who might temporarily combine, if it suits their interests. Well, that’s true for the Strong Women and children. Not for the men. They’re only a group if they’re queers. As family men, they have no rights. They have duties only. To pay their deadbeat dad bills when the court orders. To worship the chictator. And humbly to admit how goofy, doofy and clumsy they are. Just watch any sitcom or commercial if you need an example.
Since homosexuals are a tiny minority, and only a tiny minority of that minority wish to marry in any case, I think that homosexual marriage opponents owe us an explanation as to how, exactly, such a small group of people could mess up marriage any more than straight people already have.
Johnson doesn’t grasp what’s going on. The point of the queer marriage drive is to destroy the family. Destroy enough families, you’ve destroyed society; not to give queers the right to marriage. Something most queers don’t want, since anonymous, promiscuous sex is the heart of their culture, if you want to call it that.
The point is to disempower any legal or social structure that defends anything “patriarchal,” as the feminists and jews call it. These are people at war, or pretending to be at war (jews), with the biological nature of men and women. They denounce the observation that men and women do differ sexually and biologically as “essentialism,” and it is one of their high crimes. Funnily enough, they’re all about this essentialism when it comes to queers. It’s not homosexual behavior, not a choice, it’s an identity. It’s who they are. They are essentialists when it comes to queers, but not when it comes to men and women, or races.
If one really wanted to defend marriage and strengthen the family, one should do the following.
1. End no-fault divorce
2. Criminalize adultery
3. Criminalize alienation of affections
4. End child support for unwed mothers
5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm
6. End adoption by unmarried individuals
7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families
8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single
These policies would significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and family life. And the burdens and benefits of these measures would fall on the heterosexual population, where they belong.
Mostly good things, but the point is to find out who is behind the pushing of homosexuality and why, and to what end. Homosexuals did not persuade the majority they were right. The people running the media did that. And it wasn’t persuasion of anything beyond “you’d better shut up or we’ll mock and ridicule you and get you fired.”
But none of our pro-family politicians and moral crusaders shows any interest in such measures. And that, to me, is the sign that the whole anti-homosexual marriage campaign is just another phony Right-wing con job: (1) scapegoating homosexuals for the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage and the family, (2) and channeling the discontent, energy, idealism, and money of a certain segment of the Right (albeit a pretty hopeless segment, from my point of view) into just another dead end, a battle that, even if it were won, would do nothing to halt the demographic decline of our race.
Much like the Jared Taylor he verbally fellates, Johnson’s main concern here is to see that homosexuals aren’t blamed. I repeat—that is main concern. You can figure out why.
With Taylor, of course, it’s jews. As the public face of a White NAACP, funded and directed by jews, Taylor’s job—above all else—is to see that the awakening / burgeoning white identity movement does not blame the jews who put us in the position we’re now in. Instead, we must ever and always blame our own grandparents! You know how they directed the nation’s politics in between slaughtering hogs and growing muskmelons.
Johnson’s engaged in “blame whitey” by another means, which is particularly ironic in light of his “right-wing con job.” The Mormon church in Utah was behind most of the California campaign, as the left gleefully and hatefully exposed, and there is no reason to think they were kidding. Hell, their side won. How often do right-wing con jobs actually win? It was the left-wing court that reversed the popular vote. Which is par for the course. Exactly what we see on race. And illegal aliens. See California’s, again, Prop. 187. It’s a tiny elite setting the agenda. Let’s not blame generic heterosexuals for the imposition of a tiny-elite agenda. It isn’t far. It isn’t accurate.
I used to think that these mainstream Right-wingers were merely stupid and / or deluded. A lot of the rank and file are. But they are generally far better than their leadership. The ones on top are so consistently wrong-headed and ineffectual that it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are agents of the enemy, working to misdirect and dissipate Right-wing dissent lest it give rise to a genuine populism that would threaten the hegemony of our ruling coalition of Jews and raceless, rootless plutocrats. I think that the purpose of their campaigns may be to run out the clock until whites are a minority and there is no hope of change within the present system.
Who is he kidding? Everyone has known this for 100 years. I’ve quoted Joe Sobran a thousand times, and Greg Johnson has read it. “It was all a game; a way of making a living”—Joe Sobran on professional conservatism. They’re raising money from the rural hinds and bourgeois Fox watchers. The real agenda is set by jews. The superficial stuff, there’s a degree of freedom. The serious stuff, the racial stuff—the conservatives are exactly the same as the liberals. Racism is evil, squawk. Racism is the worst thing in the world. Hitler is the worst man ever. The Nazis were the ultimate bad guys. Churchill is the best. man. ever.
The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years. White Americans are increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, our demographic decline. But frank appeals to white racial interests are still taboo on the American Right. Instead, the mainstream Right at best offers us race-neutral proxies for racial interests (opposition to “illegal” immigration, libertarian individualism, etc.) and at worst promotes distractions (opposing gay marriage and flag burning, or promoting school prayer) or outright demographic suicide (opposing abortion). Thus I think that White Nationalism will never move forward until the mainstream Right is thoroughly defeated and discredited. I just hope that, by that time, it is not too late to save our race.
Good to see Greggy has finally come around to my position. Before, and remember he was bragging about defeating me in argument over this point, he was all about influencing existing elites. Now he’s all Linder-squawking “we must defeat the conservatives and Republicans.” Maybe he offered Pat Buchanan a blowjob and was rebuffed in a way he felt unmannerly. It’s really hard to say. Although it’s easy—and fun!—to speculate.
Like I said, and you can read it in Strategy forum, attack the conservatives. Quit appeasing them. Quit pretending they’re on our side. Our side is basically everyone who’s not a feminist, sex deviant, non-white—anyone who is normal. Any normal white man or woman.
That is who White nationalism represents, potentially. We fight for white normals with the other groups—the jew-left, and the jew-right. The jew-left relies on its sheer power, rather than its persuasive ability. Its ideas are, after all, directly opposed to the ideas and interests of the average white man. But it can use public schools and mass media and political authority to mislead him as to this fact. The right is more attractive to this average man because its ideas are either right or less obviously wrong. What’s not obvious is what you have to listen to me to learn, or take decades discovering—even where the professional right is right it doesn’t mean it. It won’t fight over anything essential. Starting with race. And pretty much ending there too. Because if you don’t believe that racial difference exist and matter then you’re too dumb to figure in politics beyond serving as someone’s fodder. And if you are smart enough to see that they do, yet you still won’t lead or fight, you’re likewise irrelevant.
So the right has written itself out of the equation, from the Realpolitik perspective. But it still exists as powerful media and political machine. It’s just that its agenda is not what it seems. Rather than protecting and advancing certain principles, even if imperfectly, it has instead changed into a simple money-making scheme. What’s advanced and defended are individual careers, not peoples (races) or positions. Republicans and conservatives are mouthers. They don’t mean. White nationalism is the only school that can mean it. But most people aren’t even aware that it exists. Except in Greece!
Glad to see you joining the fight, Greggy. The next step in your intellectual maturation is to quit pretending the “alternative” or “radical traditionalist” or non-respectable conservatives are any different from the regular ones. I’ll check back in 2018.
I have argued that homosexual marriage is an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics. The most important thing to do to increase white fertility and improve white parenting is to strengthen marriage and decrease non-reproductive sex among heterosexuals. I have also argued that the gay marriage issue is being promoted by the phony Right as a distraction from far more important issues. But I am not going to deal with the merits of demerits of homosexual marriage as a policy, because I need to devote more reading and thought to the matter. I do, however, want to end this piece by at least raising the possibility of a society that combines “heteronormativity” with tolerance.
The right didn’t pick that fight, the left did. The professional right accurately saw it as a way to raise money. It’s the leftist media setting the agenda, after all. I love how you continue to think you can just pick and choose your fights rather than fighting on all fronts at all times. And if you disagree, remember it’s your ilk who doesn’t want to force the enemy into a head and call that head jews. Which, after all, fits. Is accurate. There is no term, certainly, more accurate than jews, and only Englishmen who will be thrown in prison if they say otherwise say otherwise.
The only real way to maintain high standards is to recognize that people will fall short of them in some ways. That means a certain amount of latitude and tolerance. A society that cannot tolerate deviation from its norms will inevitably lower its standards to make it easier for more people to comply. And the end of that process is complete nihilism, for if integrity to one’s values is the highest value, in the end, it will be one’s only value. For the easiest way to insure perfect integrity and to make hypocrisy impossible is to value nothing but being oneself at the present moment, i.e., to collapse any difference between the real and the ideal, to affirm that whatever happens to be real at any given moment is the ideal. In short, the only way to always practice what one preaches is to preach nothing but one practices. And that boils down to doing whatever one feels like from moment to moment, a kind of groundless self-affirmation which is pretty much the moral and cultural dead end toward which liberalism is leading.
This wouldn’t be a problem in a society without a gigantic government involved in every detail of personal life. Who do you think is promoting queerness? Government and media. It’s not coming from the grassroots. It’s a top-down phenomenon. People support homosexuality and talk like it’s a good thing out of conformity or fear. Not because they actually like and support.
Most of them honestly don’t even know what faggotry truly is, since, after all, they aren’t fags. Where are they going to learn the truth about faggotry? From sex education? From fag depictions on prime-time tv? From the newspapers? From politicians? The whole thing is a giant charade, proof only of the power of the tiny minority setting the national agenda. Put the nation on a stable racial basis, reduce the role of central government to collective racial defense, watch the homosexual issue (issue is jewspeak for problem) disappear.
Why can’t we have a society in which parents of homosexual children say, “We’re sorry that you are not going to give us grandchildren. It is a misfortune. But we still love you as our flesh and blood, and we know you will still be a good son to us, a good brother to your siblings, and a good uncle to your nieces and nephews”? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals accept that they fall short of the norm, rather than tearing down norms merely to feel good about themselves? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals are grateful to the heterosexuals who gave them life and glad that others are carrying on their families and their race as a whole? I believe that there are already quite a few people who think this way. But their voices are not being heard.
It’s more subtle than that: whatever good homosexuals can do, and there is much, can be done best if they are objects of average-man hatred and ridicule. Homosexuals flourish, in their various talents, when their actors are locked in the closet. Keep it on the down low, as the niggers say. That’s how you do it. Have your bars. Have your places. But not publicly acknowledged. Accept some cop busts. Accept executions where you show any interest in those under eighteen. If you want to go public, then you ought to be charged for the diseases you create and spread with your behavior. And once those are acknowledged, it’s a very tiny step to the case that anyone with these proclivities is so dangerous that he ought simply to be executed as a botch that potentially threatens public health.
“I hate Hitler” —Matt Heimbach
At the recent Council of Conservative Citizens Matt Heimbach talked about “Christian principles,” the impossibility to expel “a hundred million of non-whites” from the US either using “nuclear weapons or neutron bombs” and that “that’s not desirable either—as a Christian… we identitarians… our faith in Jesus Christ…”
In spite of all that, since Heimbach seems to put race first he may be considered in my category of “Christians that I do respect.” However, at Occidental Dissent an apparently non-Christian commenter opined about his speech:
Heimbach seems to think we can achieve this peacefully. Yeah, that’s a nice pipe dream.
Secession caused a war, as well as the German racial ethnostate. We lost both times, and that more than anything has defined our current situation.
Minus the system failing or some kind of worldwide cataclysmic event, I don’t see much hope on the horizon, unfortunately.
He seems to want to partition the US instead of conquering it and removing all non-Whites, because that’s not feasible and it’s too violent. Well how the hell does he think even partitioning and removing non-Whites that live in the area he wants is going to happen?
We face violent opposition even at the local level, Heimbach knows this himself. Even having a civil discussion with these people is difficult. How many times are these types of conferences cancelled because the location was threatened and bullied into refusing the event.
Later on the same thread, a Christian commenter added:
Matthew Heimbach proposes a quaint and peaceful ethno-state for white people somewhere within the confines of the north American continent. Nothing the Federal government could not crush in less than a week. Unless there is some kind of “Fight Club” permeating every level of our government, you are really asking for a genocide. No, Dorothy, you can’t click your heels three times and get back to Kansas. I am still amazed that Southerners like Matt just don’t get how foolish his proposition is.
However, I did like his comment that the solution to 1984 is the Spain of 1936. Unfortunately, we are living in 2013 Amerika. The scales have been tipped too far to the left. The cult of equality has blinded the well-meaning. We have been sucker-punched and will have to stand trial for defending ourselves like George Zimmerman.
It is a shame if Matt “hates Hitler”. Either his emotion has gotten the better of him or he is pandering to the left. Never hate, especially that which you do not know. If he ever studied the man Hitler, he would not “hate” him but he might learn something from him.
I would recommend Heimbach to read the articles under the heading “On the need to undemonize Hitler” at the sidebar of this blog.
The traitorous people at Alternative Right that recently published an anti-Hitler article are even worse than the candidates for the US presidency in the last elections: a race that quickly turned on who kissed more kike asses. Yes: AltRighters claim to be pro-white advocates but their words tell otherwise. In today’s comment at Counter-Currents Lew said:
After a particularly vitriolic debate, a Jewish liberal boasted to me there are hundreds of Jewish activists operating in the WNist [white nationalist] and alt right online communities. He claimed that most of them pose as WNists, allies or sympathizers while simultaneously spreading divide and rule, undermining morale and trying make WNists look foolish. Even claimed they work the WNist sites in teams and coordinated groups. FWIW [from what I’ve witnessed] Jews aren’t always honest, and he may have just been taunting.
Perhaps. But some of the commenters’ behavior at AltRight and elsewhere in the net, parroting the current narrative on Hitler and World War 2, should move us to consider the possibility that some Jews are trying to confuse us, or at least that some Whites are kissing their masters’ asses too much.
In the same thread that Lew posted the above comment Ulf Larsen said:
People who write silly articles like the Liddell piece [the anti-Hitler rant at AltRight] don’t understand how serious our situation is, and they don’t at all understand our enemies—our existential enemies. It boils down to this: Liddell and his kind are children, in all relevant political respects. If he doesn’t understand that historical giants like Hitler are our old fighters, that this is essentially a continuation of the same fight they fought, he doesn’t understand much.
In fact, our enemies are to a large extent psychopaths and they don’t believe in fair play. The Jews can never be fooled into taking our side—no matter how “clever” and womanly servile you try to be.
No matter how much you genuflect to them and join in the ritual defamation of their old enemies. They would rather die. It’s their old trick, you know—they will not fall for it. And they only see your prostration as a sign of weakness.
The Jews have three properties that make them strong and successful: 1. Intelligence. 2. Group cohesion. 3. Chutzpah. They don’t ask for permission and they don’t ask for forgiveness. Only losers do that.
We need a few of things to win this fight: 1. A clear direction. 2. Energy focused only in that direction, with no hesitation. 3. Confidence and self-respect so strong that it is contagious, radiating so much will-power that people will fall in love with our cause—so strong shall it be that our people cannot resist joining us.
This is incompatible with whining about old fighters, no matter what you disagree about in the details. Only the enemy shall be attacked, and it is up to conservatives like Liddell if they want to join us or the enemy…
One thing that is absolutely certain is that we can never win if we have so low self-esteem that we need to ask our enemies for permission to fight. The only way to win is to attack the enemy. Conservatives refuse, by definition, to do that. That is why they never can win.
Hitler understood this; bourgeois and effeminate conservatives like Colin Liddell will never understand it. That’s why Hitler has something to teach us (and demands our respect), and “ask-the-Jews-for-permission-Liddell” has nothing to contribute to our cause.
I believe that, like other contemporary conservatives, Alternative Right is a complete goner. Let me explain it with a juicy online anecdote.
Not long ago I visited a nationalist site of Spain. The author complained that, unlike the old conservative Spaniards, the new conservatives are kissing the Spanish kikes’ asses in the hopes of being allowed to advance their conservative agenda. The author rightly said that they will never be fooled by such crude tactics, and that after the licking (in the Spanish slang it goes closer to anus licking than ass kissing) what’s left in the conservatives’ mouths is only “el sabor de mierda” (the taste of shit).