On sexual lib

socalled liberation

Never forget the sexual side of the destruction of the white race. Below, “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide,” a Roger Devlin address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia.

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream.

But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime?

The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

Liberalism, 17


Execution of Torrijos and his men in 1831 by Antonio Gisbert. Spanish King Ferdinand VII took repressive measures
against the liberal forces in his country.


Criticism and support

Liberalism has drawn both criticism and support in its history from various ideological groups. For example, some scholars suggest that liberalism gave rise to feminism, although others maintain that liberal democracy is inadequate for the realization of feminist objectives.

Liberal feminism, the dominant tradition in feminist history, hopes to eradicate all barriers to gender equality—claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order. British philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society.

Less friendly to the goals of liberalism has been conservatism. Edmund Burke, considered by some to be the first major proponent of modern conservative thought, offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and to the natural equality of all humans. Conservatives have also attacked what they perceive to be the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity. However, a few variations of conservatism, like liberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including “small government and thriving capitalism.”

Some confusion remains about the relationship between social liberalism and socialism, despite the fact that many variants of socialism distinguish themselves markedly from liberalism by opposing capitalism, hierarchy, and private property. Socialism formed as a group of related yet divergent ideologies in the 19th century such as Christian socialism, Communism (with the writings of Karl Marx), and Social Anarchism (with the writings of Mikhail Bakunin), the latter two influenced by the Paris Commune. These ideologies, as with liberalism and conservatism, fractured into several major and minor movements in the following decades.

Marx rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century. Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents leading national governments in many countries. Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it. Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy; instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods. Principles that can be described as “liberal socialist” have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe. Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, and R. H. Tawney. Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.

Social democracy, an ideology advocating progressive modification of capitalism, emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Yet unlike socialism, it was not collectivist nor anti-capitalist. Broadly defined as a project that aims to correct, through government reformism, what it regards as the intrinsic defects of capitalism by reducing inequalities, social democracy was also not against the state.

Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist even calling American liberalism “bootleg social democracy” due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States that liberals have tried to rectify. Another movement associated with modern democracy, Christian democracy, hopes to spread Catholic social ideas and has gained a large following in some European nations. The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the industrialization and urbanization associated with laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century.

Liberalism, 8


The radical liberal movement began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man (1791) was a response to Burke’s conservative essay Reflections on the Revolution in France.

paines-bookAn ensuing revolution controversy featured, among others, Mary Wollstonecraft, who followed with an early feminist tract, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Radicals encouraged mass support for democratic reform along with rejection of the monarchy, aristocracy, and all forms of privilege.

The Reform Act 1832 was put through with the support of public outcry, mass meetings of “political unions” and riots in some cities. This now enfranchised the middle classes, but failed to meet radical demands. Following the Reform Act the mainly aristocratic Whigs in the House of Commons were joined by a small number of parliamentary Radicals, as well as an increased number of middle class Whigs. By 1839 they were informally being called “the Liberal party.”

The Liberals produced one of the most influential British prime ministers, William Gladstone, who was also known as the Grand Old Man: the towering political figure of liberalism in the 19th century. Under Gladstone, the Liberals reformed education, disestablished the Church of Ireland, and introduced the secret ballot for local and parliamentary elections.

Quotable quote


Published in: on September 2, 2015 at 12:20 pm  Leave a Comment  

An overly traveled road to extinction

by Hajo Liaucius


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[1] 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 approached, the issue of what exactly American Occidental advocacy presently entails in terms of an ideological foundation is of paramount importance.

Currently paleoconservatism dominates what little racialist discourse occurs in the States. 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 paleoconservatism in terms addressing its ideological validity. Before considering the present-day applicability of the paleocon 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 paleoconservatism 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 of 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 paleoconservative 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 the 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 than one of several significant factions promoting progressive reforms and prohibition.

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 paleoconservatism. 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 paleoconservative 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 as to how pragmatically 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 foundations 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 1930s.

While the Second Klan Era paid homage to the Confederacy, any serious discussion about 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 than 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 foundations 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 maintained with current societal trends.

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 would have been concealed or repressed.

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 [2] and several other organizations as well.

American paleoconservatism

Given the failure of paleoconservatism to preserve Occidental interests in America within the nearly ideal historical context that presented itself in the Second Klan Era, honest men should question the suitability of the ideology within the current era even if most in the White Nationalist community refuse to do so, as has been the case for nearly ninety years.

obsolete constitution

As an adherent of the Revisionist Integralism/Organicism school, my critique of paleoconservatism is metapolitical in nature rather than drawn from a historicist perspective or bound by a narrowly conceived ideological preference.[3] As such, I would maintain that a foundational consideration of the paleoconservative disposition is needed.

Fundamentally, paleoconservatism 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 paleocons 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 paleocons speak of an American Order they incorrectly presume that a consistent legal and governing doctrine upon which public life is ordered has suffered degradations over time 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 paleocons 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 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.[4]

The paleoconservative notion of the American Order is premised upon an institutional and civic societal construct that hasn’t existed for several generations. Instead, it is 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, are 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 comes into being giving birth to a new ordinal era.[5]

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, 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 Chesterton’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 Chesterton’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 paleocon 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 their nation state.[6]

One endlessly hears commentary about the sacred glory of the constitution and debate among paleocons 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 a nation state. The constitution failed to prevent America from 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 paleocon movement is committed to racial egalitarianism and the notion that Occidental civilization can be perpetuated by races other than the one that created it. Mainstream paleocons 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 paleocons 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.[7]

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.


The Worship of Mammon by Evelyn De Morgan (1909)

A notion often promoted in mainstream paleocon and White Nationalist 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 a highly concentrated, corporate media creates a propasphere[8] that is far more capable of controlling dissent than any state could.

Paleocon 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 cannot 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 than to society at large. 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 paleocons 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 paleocons 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 Rhodesian and South African 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 paleocons 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 paleocons 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 paleocons 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 than 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. Promiscuity, homosexualism, substance abuse, familial disintegration and delinquency will follow.[9]

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 grandchildren (if that).

Surveying the decaying remnants of the Occidental world after more than two centuries of Liberalism in action has, 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, 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 paleocons 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 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 paleocon 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 paleocons 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 paleoconservatism is simply a sentimental attachment to the vestigial institutions of a largely mythical and deceased liberalism. Paleoconservatism is in practice nothing more than the collective delusion of viewing an apparition as a 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. Paleocons 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 paleocons 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. Paleoconservativism 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] The services provided by white nationalist groups in the U.S. seem 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.

[2] National Vanguard was founded by William Pierce but it degenerated after read Pierce’s death. (Note of the Ed.)

[3] Like its Iberian/French/Italian predecessors, the Revisionist Integralism/Organicism school is principally concerned with the goal of societal unity as a means for the preservation and expansion of the nation which is understood as a product of the confluence between a homogenous folk and the land it inhabits. History is principally the record of how the national organism comes to define itself it in experiential terms and produce a communal entity reflective of providential will.

Both schools see the innate value of the individual realized within the context of a communion with ancestors, decedents and the living in which transcendent responsibilities to the values of Permanence shape collective and individual identity.

Like its predecessors, the school maintains that economic, political and spiritual matters can’t be seen as distinct from each other as the coherent expression of a nation is a prerequisite for survival in an anarchic world of rival nations and forces antithetical to all nations. Both perceive folkways as an expression of what is termed the associative/formative drive or verbunden Bildungstrieb of a nation and that state legitimacy is a product of how well it reflects and maintains a communion of ancestors, the living and descendants of a folk.

The Revisionist Integralism/Organicism differs from its predecessors in that it perceives human social existence primarily in terms of folk-specific conflicts between foundational elements that animate a society and how attempts to resolve such conflicts further national uniqueness and survivability. While historically Integralism often wasn’t explicitly concerned with the biologic foundation of national organicism, Revisionist Integralism/Organicism attributes the associative formative drive of a folk as well as the culture produced by it as unintelligible outside of a racial context.

Likewise, cultural and biologic decline is seen as inseparable tendencies although the mechanism that initiates the decline is seen as resulting from an interaction between the inherent contradictions with the application of folk’s verbunden Bildungstrieb and Mosca and Pareto’s understanding of elite degeneration. The practical resolution of the contradictions mentioned above usually involves blended elements of corporative, syndicalist, guildist and distributivist prescriptions within an explicit biologic and revolutionary conservative context broadly compatible with the formulations of the original Integralist movements.

[4] The concept of Dissipationism is an aspect of a broader metapolitical weltanschauung known as Integralism or Organicism and its successor movement, Revisionist Integralism/Organicism. Dissipationism is a force that is manifested as a range of social movements animated by a utilitarian reason that serves the ascendance of the Transience ideal. In practical terms Dissipationism is appositional to Burkian notions of prejudice, prudence and civilization as a consequence of biologic uniqueness formed by the confluence of genetics and geography which has historical progression and culture as it’s byproduct.

Examples of expressions of Dissipationism include feminism, globalism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, organized expressions of libertine lifestyles, liberalism and trans-humanism. Transience as an ideal is effected when social relations have wholly, or nearly so, dispensed with any sense of communion between the descendants and ancestors of the living in favor of social propositions that are not resultant from anything uniquely attributable to a genetically distinct folk.

[5] The concept of systemic contradictions within the Revisionist Integralist/Organic school posits that all political doctrines and the societal constructs that create them have inherent contradictions that are an expression of the folkish character that produced them. These contradictions consequently give rise to alienation within individuals, a class or society at large which lessens societal cohesion giving rise to Dissipative forces.

[6] The diametrical ideal to Transience is Permanence which when effected entails the ordering of social relations resulting from the confluence of genetics and geography which define history so as to provide a continuity of uniqueness and purpose to a genetically distinct folk expressed in terms of an organic state and society. Forces that are Generative are in effect when the ideal of Permanence is in ascendance or dominates social discourse. When the Transience ideal is in ascendance or dominates social discourse the oppositional forces are said to be Regenerative.

[7] Within the context of Revisionist Integralist/Organicist thought America’s radical liberalism of the Confederated and the First Republican orders owe their regenerative qualities only partly to the biologic qualities of the colonizers and the positive aspects of liberalism specific to a given era and place. The vitalism of the fist two republican eras is owed in equal measure to a combination of the Paleolithic condition of the American aboriginal folk dispossessed by Occidental colonizers, the geographic isolation and natural resources of the New World and the limited technological options then available to capital acting upon its naturally Dissipative tendencies.

[8] Propasphere: A sphere of propaganda. (Note of the Ed.)

[9] 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 current, past and coming generations 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.

Vanguardist retort

“I’m openly intolerant. If someone doesn’t follow my line, he’s the enemy. Not like it’s a hard standard to meet: openly White and openly anti-jew. That’s all. Within that framework, we can do business. Outside it, we’re enemies. Simple, clear, effective.” (Alex Linder’s dual litmus test)

The following is Linder’s deconstruction at VNN Forum of what Leon Haller said at Majority Rights. It exemplifies my view about why the mainstreamer side of white nationalism is deluded. No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences:

Leon Haller: The primary strategic question is always, therefore, who is your base?

Alex Linder: Wrong, quite wrong. First you must answer a pre-strategic question: who are “we”? Yeah. That basic. Once that is answered, and you know what you mean by “we” and “our” (the VNN answer is we are Whites, and jews are our enemy), then the strategic question becomes: how do we gain sovereignty from a System in which jews control the money, the mass media, and the military?

Haller: The base of any movement to save the white race—the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony—is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS [National Socialist] Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.

Linder: Wrong on two levels.

Our cause isn’t truly a political position but a species-representation: We are a biological party, not a political party. White society by default, on a far deeper level than mere petty politics, is what white nationalism represents. We aren’t representing or appealing, we are the thing itself—the thing itself defending itself, in the biosphere. We don’t need to appeal to anybody, we not only represent them already, we are them. We’re just open about it. That is the only real difference between us and the vast majority of fellow whites: we are open about it.

The reason people don’t join their formal political behavior with their informal unspoken feelings and behavior is fear. The jews have divorced our external from our internal by means of fear. It is fear, above all else, that we must overcome, in ourselves and in our people, if we are to regain sovereignty.

Only bravery gets out fear. We don’t need to appeal to people, Leon. We need to lead them. Lead them means not making arguments that people already believe in but, at this point, not showing fear, and striking back at the enemy, verbally and, if we have the guts, like Breivik did, physically. [Chechar’s note: Cf. the recent entry Linder on Breivik]

People will only join us when they see 1) we are not afraid (like the cowardly conservatives and Republicans) and that 2) we strike real blows against the enemy. It starts verbally by using slurs. Truly, the continental verbal-political-strategic divide is the use of the term nigger. If you won’t use it under your real name, you are not involved in serious politics. You are merely a conservative. Either use “nigger” or be a niggler, to make a phrase of it.

We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, Haller, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal.

Haller: Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can’t believe matters would be much different in Canada or England—or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles—, it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I’m tempted to add, “duh”).

Linder: You are inside the box, Haller. You need to get out of the box.

We don’t need to appeal to voters, Leon, we need to attract White men. We don’t do that by our silly positions, we do it by what we are.

We only have one agenda item: whites living normally among whites in a white country under White control. If our cause isn’t negotiable, if it isn’t a matter of voting because it’s deeper than that (our existence is not up for debate) then talking about appeals and who and how we need to alter our position smorgasbord is actually obscene, if you think about it. It reduces our cause to cheap trifling. It makes petty what is profound. Don’t do that. Our cause is not conservative. Appealing to middle-class cowards never has and never will get racialism anywhere. Selfish, cowardly bourgeois won’t fight for anything but lower taxes. They’ll join us all right: when we’re on the verge of winning. So it was with Hitler, and his Germans were a hell of a lot more serious, intelligent and less sketchy than AmeriKwans in 2011.

Haller: My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet “unawakened”, conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives?

Linder: If you use the word appeal, you don’t get it. Your mindset is trapped in a petty political world that has nothing to do with deep, real politics—where nothing is off the table. I mean, that’s how we got here.

The jews don’t play fair. Our petty right-wing politics have faced the jews for a hundred years and the jews have won every single time. Maybe we should try something different. Of course we should. What is new and different is using slurs, following a principled, impersonal political line, and attacking everyone not meeting our litmus test as the enemy, with the end goal of destroying the petty right, the stupid, cowardly, lazy conservatives, en route to polarizing the public for the real and final battle between Whites and jews.

The conservative approach has been tried for decades. It has failed. Let’s try a different route.

Haller: As I have argued vociferously and ad nauseam, the answer to this question is “subtly” —not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content. In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the “mainstream” comprises a number of different “streams”, so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge.

Linder: Wholly wrong. Indeed, comically wrong. You just don’t get it, Haller: the enemy controls all the devices that determine what is normal and who has authority. That’s tv, mostly. But also public schools, preachers, the presidency. A subtle, moderate appeal to cowardly conservatives is going to create an invincible racial radicalism? You can’t be serious. Loud, gross, unsubtle, clear, simple, but above all strong… is what is called for. Strong is the only thing whites understand.

The masses are feminine, Leon. They respond to strength, like a woman. Not niggling weakness. They want to be bowled over, not reasoned with. If they’re scared of ZOG’s penalties for siding with the politics they really want, no rational argument will win them over—only showing there’s a new sheriff in town, and he might just be on the way to kicking ZOG’s ass. Elemental stuff. It always is. Who’s the big dog in the room? Hint: itz never a bunch of conservative faggots. Never. We’re not in an argument. We’re not in a debate. We’re not playing a game. We’re in a fight. And a fight with no rules. Humans are animals, and that is the bottom-line fact. Whites lost their countries through intimidation, and they will only get them back through bravery.

Haller: People like David Duke and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny “uniforms,” indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies, was simply less effective than appearing “clean-cut” and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible.

Linder: Yeah, and I’m an average white guy watching Polished Turd get abused off his own paid-for podium by a bunch of teenage pussies [see here]. Yeah, I’m signing up with kosher racialism real quick. Looks like fun. We whine and niggle (what Jerry calls gentlemanliness), and get our ass kicked.

No strength? No power. Where’s the strength in conservatism? Just some arguments. Arguments without heroes to champion them do nothing. As Hitler said—and he was a winner, unlike conservatives— “it is not enough that you believe: you must fight.” Truth shall not prevail without a sword at her side.

Why did people follow Hitler, Haller? Was it his arguments? Or was it that they knew he meant what he said and would back it with his life? You can’t even find among your cowardly conservatives a leader with the guts to use “nigger” in public. And you’re going fuck The People with that dick?

Haller: This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP [White preservationist] concerns from conservatives…

Linder: Real men lead. They don’t “appeal” or “try to get a hearing.” Passive, passive, passive, wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, loser, loser, loser.

I hate to use a niggerism, but either go big or don’t go at all. This wimpy democratic-electoral appeal to lazy, cowardly, selfish middle-class khaki wearers is ridiculous. You can’t take crap like that and escher it into revolutionary warriors. That ought to be obvious. What we need to do is be the Conans, and by our sheer powerful awesomeness attract the barbarians. Then the lamenting women—an apter description of conservatives could hardly be devised—will follow us. “Appealing” to the conformist middle-classes is the political equivalent of putting women on a pedestal. It doesn’t work except to produce misery. Only ideological racial fanatics can do that. Accept it. Help generate those fanatics.

Haller: …our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP—and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness—is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is).

Linder: Race is the basis of what you’re going to preserve, since culture springs from it. The culture comes from the race. Not the other way around.

To ordinary people, conservatism is whatever comes out of Bill O’Reilly’s mouth, or Rush Limbaughs’. And that’s liberalism on the most basic thing—race. People don’t think, they parrot. You don’t persuade them, you become the authority. To people, who are almost all women, authority is the argument.

Haller: This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity—the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian “Right”—and policies of white preservation.

Linder: Try this instead: “Niggers are flash mobbing our neighborhoods? Let’s go flash mob some niggers.”

Yeah. That crude. Necessarily. People are not intellectuals. People do not think. We don’t need to argue, we need to bulk up. Verbally and physically—simultaneously.

How did Whites act when they were free and sovereign? They used racial epithets and lynched troublemakers—jew, mud and white. By degree jews stole to power, and made those healthy actions “hate” crimes and enforced taboos against even noticing racial differences, let alone acting on them. We don’t get back to where we were by playing along with the rules of the New Racial Order.

Haller: In much larger part, it means jettisoning, or at the very least muting, those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema.

Linder: So crazy it beggars belief. We are to suck up to weaklings to gain political power. How is that possibly a winning strategy? The jews didn’t get power by appealing to people but by kicking their ass, in every possible way. We will only get that power back by kicking their kikey ass. Appealing to mouthbreathing Foxtards as a strategy is, again, so far past ridiculous it makes one question your motives in suggesting it.

Haller: Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.

Linder: Planted axiom: that it matters what christians or conservatives think. It does not. They’re stupid, scared dogs, and will support who they’re told to by their bought bosses, as all evidence shows. They are irrelevant to the struggle between Whites and jews until the Fox-faux-right, the controlled opposition, is destroyed and the real parties doing battle are seen by everybody, from the 10-watts to the 100-watts, to be WHITES and JEWS. And then the christian-conservative cuntlings will side with the white side because as bad as evil-nazis might be, jew commies are worse. Until that point, what the christ cultists think is irrelevant. They’re just dumb tools and safely ignorable.

Haller: But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I’ve stated previously, gradual radicalization, the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse.

Linder: “Gradual radicalization”… Haller, it just doesn’t work like this.

Imagine any successful revolutionary saying the stuff you’re saying. Imagine Hitler talking about subtly influencing people, gradually radicalizing them. Either you’re leading and loud and laughing, or you’re limping, lingering and lamenting. Nothing sneaky or superficial, shallow, subtle can work. It must be plain and strong.

Again, this is so obvious it is hard to believe you actually believe what you’re typing. You’re going insinuate and gradually radicalize conservatives? Really? Maybe if you controlled Fox News. Otherwise, no. And even if you did control Fox, why would you go by degree? You’d just flip policy overnight, and your audience would follow cluelessly.

There’s not one hundredth of Fox viewers who can define conservatism in a way Burke would recognize. They’re intellectual niggers. Conservatism is simply whatever a publicly labeled conservative just said, even if he said the opposite yesterday. And since you don’t have any major media outlets, and every official vector is controlled by the enemy, a policy of insinuation is utterly impossible.

Haller: We must be as moderate as possible.

Linder: And with that, you’re taking over my job. Good friggin’ grief.