|
|
|
Driving the immigration wedge into the GOP Let’s look at this article by Thomas F. Schaller, particularly the first page. Before I get to the main point, two “diversions”, one lengthy and one brief. First, I’d like to address Mr. Rosenberg, of whom we read:
I’m not surprised that someone with the surname “Rosenberg” has an agenda to promote Hispanic interests in what used to be the United States of America, but his comments are absurd on their face. If the GOP cannot “win” without Hispanic voters, then they certainly cannot win without their base, which, by definition, constitutes the foundation of their electoral support. One supposes that Rosenberg assumes that the base should remain passive and allow itself to be taken for granted – “automatic” votes for the GOP because “they have nowhere else to go.” Thus, the base should support policies they loathe and believe are destructive, just so “their party” can “win.” Again, it is not surprising that a “Rosenberg” would like to promote to white gentiles a “football game, rah-rah” version of “politics”, where “winning elections” is an end to itself. However, to any triple-digit IQ individual, it is obvious that the ultimate purpose of “winning an election” is not as an end to itself, not as a way of saying “nyah, nyah…my boys won and your boys lost”, but instead as a tool to promote particular policies. What price “victory” if the cost of “winning” is to have “your party” adopt the very policies you oppose and which have traditionally characterized “the opposition?” In essence, Rosenberg and the GOP seem to want the Republican base to “reason “ as follows: “I support the GOP because that party promotes traditional American values, will preserve the traditional America, will oppose illegal immigration and cut down unassimilable legal immigration, and will oppose the pandering to minorities. It is therefore important that the GOP win elections. In order to win elections, the GOP needs more votes, and, hey, those Hispanics are good candidates! Therefore, in order to win, the GOP should support illegal immigrant amnesty, support flooding America with more Third Worlders, pander to all sorts of minorities, and tear down the traditional America! That’ll teach ‘dem Democrats a thing or two!” What stupidity. The problem is that this is exactly how the “base” has been “reasoning” for decades. In order to “defeat” the “Democrats”, the “base” has essentially allowed “their party” to become a carbon copy of the opposition. Is that “smart politics?” And comments about a “20th century vs. 21st century party” are particularly offensive to the GOP base. In other words, says Rosenberg, the GOP’s white base is “in the past” and “outdated” while all the growing and vibrant Hispanics are “the future” and representative of the “21st century.” Hmmm….I don’t know. Perhaps the base would not like to be contemptuously disregarded as “in the past” and, essentially, dead and buried? Perhaps the base, which are the voters who actually contribute the most to the GOP’s “victories”, do not want to be taken for granted, and then have their interests disregarded as soon as the Republican candidate is elected? Perhaps, just perhaps, the base has interests just as legitimate – or more so? – than all the hip and modernistic 21st century Hispanics? Maybe Mr. Rosenberg should give similar advice to Israel: the idea of a “Jewish state” is an outdated 2oth century idea, while those dynamic Palestinians and their high birth rate are the harbingers of Israel’s bright, 21st century Arabic future. How about that? And this quote from the article is particularly instructive:
Yes, you see Hispanics have “best interests” on which they should decide their votes. The GOP’s white base, however, should, of course, blindly go along with whatever brings “victory”, regardless of whether it is in their own interests or not. Thus: Rosenberg. Second, Reagan. The comparison between Bush and Reagan is completely irrelevant, and the “importance” of this “controversy” is merely more evidence of the incredible stupidity of the Republican base. Was Reagan god? A messiah? Is the new catchphrase WWRD? – “What Would Ronnie Do?” That Bush is not more liberal than Reagan does not mean Bush is a conservative, merely that Reagan was a liberal. The cult of personality of Ronnie Raygun needs to be put to rest, and the “base” needs to develop a more serious attitude toward real issues, not obsessions with politicians, personalities, and pundits. Now the major point. The article tells us:
Now, that is the point. This is THE wedge issue that can politically destroy the Republican Party in its present fraudulent, anti-white incarnation. And make no mistake: for pro-white American politics to live, the present Bush-McCain-Giuliani Republican Party must meet the same fate as the Whigs and other failed entities on the trash-heap of history. Now is the time to do it, and immigration is the issue which is the tool to accomplish this. If we fail now, the Wall Street-Hispanic GOP will be a millstone dragging down traditional American interests to oblivion, all in the Rosenbergian ideal of “winning the election.” JW Holliday Comments:2
Posted by jklfdaksjkls on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:32 | # The Republican Party cannot be taken from within because of its structure (i.e., all the principle positions are held by Rosenbergs and puppets). Fuggeddaboutit. Splinter off, perhaps, but stripped of assets. 3
Posted by JB on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:09 | # in this interview Chris Simcox talks about the Republican candidates who don’t want to protect the border : (CLICK HERE - DIRECT LINK TO MP3 FILE) 4
Posted by Retew on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:18 | # I don’t think Ross Perot was a nutcase Fred; he saw clearly that something had to be done about the country’s enormous debt (which I believe is now even bigger in real terms). The problem from his point of view was that he split the Republican vote and let in Bill Clinton (who, interestingly, Joe Sobran now says was a better President than Dubya, because he was more cautious). Any reform of American (and British) politics has to start in my view with a reform of campaign funding. At the moment he who pays the piper calls the tune. 5
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:36 | #
This should lift JW’s spirits: Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution. Independents are more likely to understand Salter’s concept of EGI:
6
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:48 | # We’re not going to win this war at the ballot box. The only way to do that is to instill a sufficient amount of fear in the ruling class. Instead of playing this ridiculous shell game every two years, we are going to have to start raising hell in the streets. A classic, old fashioned, pre-modern mob is what is needed. 7
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:58 | # From the article linked to by Scimitar: Now, there’s some prime fodder for “the movement.” Ignorance, illogic, a complete lack of sense and critical thinking: get those Amren comments threads a-cookin’! Get ready for some great “Stormfront” discussions ‘dere! Understand: according to the poll, 25% of Americans “believe” something which is completely illogical and completely internally inconsistent. And no doubt, these “people” are heavily represented in the GOP “base.” Which is why, of course, that the chances that the GOP can pull off “business as usual” is very high. After all, the current GOP front runner is Giuliani, a liberal Republican completely at odds with the beliefs of the base. But, hey, he is “electable” and can “beat Hillary”, and all that matters is that “our guys” beat “their guys.” That “our guys” and “their guys” are exactly the same except for “party affiliation” does not register in the “brains” of those who believe in the insanity quoted above. “We’re not going to win this war at the ballot box.” True. But that was not the meaning of the post. “The only way to do that is to instill a sufficient amount of fear in the ruling class.” The question is how? “Instead of playing this ridiculous shell game every two years, we are going to have to start raising hell in the streets. A classic, old fashioned, pre-modern mob is what is needed.” The problem here is that when the “leadership” gets together to plan these mob rallies (fat chance of fat whitey getting off their ass on their own), half of the “leaders” will be government informants, ready to set up the other half for indictment as “terrorists.” 8
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:48 | #
Point granted.
There is only one conceivable way to do so: mob action in the streets on an unprecedented scale. Even if we did band together and by some miracle secured pro-racialist legislative victories, you know as well as I do that they would either simply go unenforced or would be eviscerated by the courts. Also, the demographic clock is working against us. We don’t have the time to wage a forty year war to overhaul the judicial system like the anti-abortion conservatives. The only way we are ever going to win any concessions is by convincing the ruling class that we are no longer willing to play by their rules and that we pose an intolerable threat to their security.
Of course. I have written ad nauseum about the pernicious effects of individualism on this website. The “leadership” of the movement is also, well, shall we say not up to par. Still, the point stands: there is only one road out of this situation, and it is not through the ballot box. Good to see you back, JW. 9
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:59 | # One more thing. We’re not taking into account here that millions of conservatives are convinced the end of the world is imminent and that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes. Why should they be concerned about illegal immigration when the Antichrist is amongst us and the entire world will soon be consumed in flames? They are counting on being raptured up to Heaven where they can sit on clouds, sing hallelujahs, and poke fun at the rest of us miserable sinners as we burn in Hell. Poll: One in Four Says Jesus May Return in 2007
10
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:01 | # ^^ These people are the 28% to 30% of Americans who are still supporting George W. Bush. 11
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:20 | # I still propose the racial balkanization strategy, or what our good friend Godless Capitalist so eloquently described as “the politics of exclusion.” If “mob rallies in the street” can be an effective part of this, good luck to those who are interested in such activities; I have little confidence in them. The entire purpose of course for politically destroying the GOP is to remove its role as a “safety valve” for white discontent. It’s obvious that the “ballot box” method is no long-term strategy, as pointed out with respect to Griffin or Le Pen in Europe, even if they were to “win”, their policies would be obstructed and everything that they may have achieved would simply be reversed by the following administration. However, the overarching strategy needs to be balkanization. Whatever you may wish to say about “mob rallies” - positive or negative - that’s at the level of tactics. The long-term strategy is to wreck the multicultural consensus by stirring the majority out of their passivity and start making them engage in ethnic identity politics, which will, in turn infuriate the coloreds. One need only remember how certain “cognitive elitists” get infuriated at Taylor and other high-IQ whites for “excluding” them, and how this frustration ends up being counter-productive to their own interests in “inclusion.” Of course, blacks and Hispanics are far less intelligent and disciplined than Asiatics, and can be counted on to react “as expected” when whitey starts agitating for their own “best interests.” Colored anger and “acting out” towards whites openly defending their own interests will tip the balance in the direction of balkanization even more. The “trick” is to do this within the confines of what is allowed by the system. It is possible. Multiculturalism is predicated on majority passivity and minority mobilization. Majority mobilization, of various kinds, will wreck multiculturalism and make it ungovernable. That’s why, in the West, the continued de jure and de facto crackdowns on majority mobilization, and the eagerness of folks like Rubin (as described by MacDonald) to impose “social pricing” and “social costs” on pro-majority activism. Of course, one prerequisite of effective, long-term majority mobilization is the creation of some sort of infrastructure (social and economic) that can protect the interests of the leadership when attempts are made to impose “social pricing” on them. One real reason why so many current “leaders” end up being sub-par, to say the least, is that only marginal and defective types are willing to put up with the “social pricing” imposed on the system, etc. They have nothing to lose. Sheer altruism is not enough. Although I loathe the “economic man” mindset, certain tools of economics have relevancy here. If you want to attract higher quality people to positions of leadership in majoritarian activism - as opposed to the perverts, criminals, misfits, and informants that we currently are blessed with - steps must be taken to make such leadership positions, if not “attractive”, at least not very unattractive. I expect the following to be met with howls of derision from the “revolutionary”, “hardcore” set (the same ones who have done so well for decades), but I submit that unless a system can be set up in which a “leader” and family can exist at a reasonably middle class existence (not rich, not well off, but middle class), then do not expect to attract the best and brightest. Altruism goes only so far. We must be realistic. If we want leaders capable of engaging in “high politics” and solid strategy, then at least they need to be provided with some protection against Rubinian “social pricing.” That’s not exactly impossible either. Imagine if “movement” energies and monies had gone into the creation of said infrastructure over the decades, instead of funding the “lifestyles” of deviants and cranks. 12
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:23 | # The data of white American “religious right” stupidity cited by Scimitar are also relevant, by way of analogy, to “the movement.” It’s not that we expect everyone to have ‘scientific discernment’, etc. Merely, that we expect activists to not be insane, to have a reasonable grasp on reality, and to be willing to learn. We may laugh at the “religious right” and their beliefs, but what about “the movement” telling us for the last 40 years that “the revolution” is “likely” witin “the next few years?” No reason to be serious about organizing, when you expect a spontaneous race war to erupt any moment. 13
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:26 | #
This goes back to the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement during the mid-1960s. A fateful decision was made in the aftermath that has haunted American racialism ever since. Most of ex-segregationists, “smart” racialists, disgruntled middle and working class whites decided to “sneak up on the liberals” by joining forces with the Goldwater conservatives in the Republican Party; Goldwater had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian grounds. After fifty years of aracial conservative politics, Nixon’s “Silent Majority” has been almost completely de-racialized and “the left” is now in a stronger cultural position than ever before. Amazingly, we still have people around today advocating the paleoconization of racialism. The defection of so many talented whites to conservatism (the American term for “neoliberalism,” GW) left American racialists adrift and excluded from the mainstream. The void was soon filled by kooks like George Lincoln Rockwell who hitched racialism to the banner of Neo-Nazism. After Rockwell’s assassination, his followers like William Pierce carried on his legacy into the 70s and 80s. These people have dominated the American racialist scene ever since. During the late 1980s/early 1990s, what is known as “the movement” received a superficial makeover at the height of David Duke’s political career, and became “White Nationalism.” As America’s racial problems metastized during the 1990s, and the world wide web grew in popularity, “the movement” ballooned into what is today; an old guard of ex-Klan, ex-Neo-Nazis sitting on top of a web based network of increasingly younger whites alienated from the mainstream. From what I gather, the British scene was a lot like the American one until quite recently: lots of conspiracy theorists, unstable individuals, skinheads, Neo-Nazis and so forth loosely associated in what was referred to as “the movement.” Americans have yet to shake off the legacy of these “wilderness years” of racialism and organize themselves into a serious and cohesive political force for change. 14
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:37 | #
Obviously, I had in mind the outburst of Negro and antiwar agitation from 1956 to 1968. The political establishment was scared into creating the current racial preference system for blacks during this period. Can you expand upon what you mean by balkanization and mobolization? 15
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:58 | # Balkanization is quite clear. Instead of a Sailerite view of everyone as “fellow Americans” we instead we need to promote in America deep schisms based on race. We would like the opposite of Sailer and promote an “America” of great racial hostility and mistrust, where racial groups - and this MUST include a significant fraction of whites - put racial group interests ahead of “the good of the country.” We want groups to accentuate and emphasize that which separates them, what makes them different and alien from each other. We certainly do NOT want non-whites to “assimilate.” When viewing an Asian “cognitive elitist”, we want whites to focus only on the Asian’s racial alieness and to reject and exclude the Asian, not wish for the “assimilation” of “our fellow citizen.” How can a multicultural regime survive when a good fraction of its majority group rejects “inclusion” and rejects the status quo, and starts agitating for group rights? Answer: it cannot. Such a regime can survive only of the majority, by default, accepts a passive role in which a defense of specific group interests is not possible. Once many whites stop saying “rally around the flag” and start saying “us, alone” then the regime is fractured beyond repair. Mobilization is, essentially, the activities of members of groups defending their group interests. For example, Blacks and Jews are heavily mobilized, with a myriad of ethnic/racial organizations, wielding power, and influencing society. Obviously, compared to this, gentile whites are not mobilized racially, and are atomized individualists or organized around some sort of aracial basis. The NAACP or the ADL are indications of significant group mobilization. Whites supporting the anti-white Bush is an indication of no mobilization. 16
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:22 | # Let us assume for a moment an unlikely outcome: the base develops some real intelligence and some real intestinal fortitude and FORCES the GOP to make the choice between the populist traditionalists and the Wall Street-Hispanifiers. An alternative must be established, if only to make threats of defection credible. So here goes: a statement of the principles of The American Party / The American Tradition Party / The Republican Tradition Party. This is the result of little more than an hour’s work this morning, so it is assuredly half-baked— First and foremost, we believe in freedom, and freedom means self-government. To the extent possible, each American should decide what is best for himself and his family, and each American should spend the money he has earned. Where it is not possible for each citizen to decide for himself, the elected officials making the decisions should be as close to the people as possible. That means local officials the average citizen might actually know personally – and officials who spend their time listening to constituents rather than Washington lobbyists. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton should not be telling South Carolinians how to live or spending Texans’ tax dollars. The Mexican government should not be dictating American policy. The United States should not be dissolved to create a North American union. We believe the American people are fundamentally good and capable. We believe the American people can be trusted to do what is right and take care of ourselves and one another. We do not need a “Big Brother” in Washington to watch over us. We can be trusted with the weapons necessary to defend ourselves against “Big Brother”, foreign invaders, and ordinary criminals. Americans are charitable. We do not need to be taxed for “welfare” programs. Instead, we are willing and able to identify and help those who are needy and deserving. We also believe that charity begins at home, and good parents to put their children’s interests ahead of their own. They are our future. We do not believe that traditional Americans should be second-class citizens in their own country. Therefore, we oppose affirmative action and all preferences for non-whites over whites, non-Christians over Christians, or immigrants over Americans. We oppose the use of government schools to make Americans feel guilty or to promote “lifestyles” opposed to traditional morality. We believe that this is a Christian nation, and an objecting minority has no right to silence public expressions of Christian belief. Similarly, immigrants have no right to demand that governments or private citizens use a language other than English. We believe in freedom of association. Americans may choose whom they socialize with and whom they do business with. Like-minded people may form their own religious and residential communities. Like the American people in general, members of this party are divided on the issue of pregnancy abortion. The right of Americans to form communities, combined with the right of self-government, means that American communities may prohibit or allow the abortion of pregnancies according to their consciences. It is wrong for nine judges in Washington – or anyone else in Washington – to force one particular choice on the American people. Finally, we believe the traditional American people – the people who built this country – are the rightful owners of this country. We have the right to decide who is invited to join us and who is not. Other nations, including Mexico, China, India, and Japan, have strict immigration policies that ensure that their countries are reserved for the traditional national population. We likewise have the right to keep this country for the benefit of ourselves and our descendants. In recent years, the traditional American people have been excluded from the political process. Those who have promised to represent our interests have not done so. Instead, we have been told that our interests are illegitimate. This is wrong. A fundamental principle of morality is reciprocity. Those whose interests conflict with ours have no qualms about using the political process to advance their agenda. It is legitimate for us to identify our interests and stand up for them in the same way. Turnabout is fair play. For decades, the core of the Republican Party has been the traditional American people. Yet the Republican Party has ignored our interests. It has betrayed us. It is time to move on. We have – and we ask you to join us. 17
Posted by Maguire on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:34 | # “The political establishment was scared into creating the current racial preference system for blacks during this period.” The Jews will try to replay this tactic of fomenting non-white racial violence once significant white blocs and embryonic white civil governments appear. This is a many millenia old tactic of theirs. It’s documented in the Old & New Testaments and much else that constitutes the Jews’ real internal history. This fact has to be faced ahead of time and a smarter response prepared than previously. Part of this involves the creation (note taking time again, Alex Linder) of a fully *independent* media capable of independently reporting the truth about real time events to whites. This calls for lots of spade work and years of sweat equity. There are no shortcuts available in p.r. stunts like “Knoxville”. Jew-owned and controlled networks and newspapers fail the independence test. Who can doubt for a second where the urban Jew owned Chicago Tribune will stand when this testing time comes again? In defending productive lands - true white lebensraum - from Jew led anti-white invasions aimed at racially cleansing us, we have to be prepared to use the utmost force and ruthlessness. At that same time I would combine this with a generous, broadminded and pacific diplomacy. From my own standpoint there is no price too high to pay non-white racial leaders for inter-racial community peace in the form of Jewish owned urban commercial and residential assets. 18
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:35 | # Ben, that is fine. An alternative party can hasten the demise of the GOP. But, one way or another: the GOP has to go!!! There has never been a better opportunity to rid ourselves of this opiate known as “conservative Republicanism” and free the “base” from their infantile dependency on “voting” to “win elections” - completely independent of issues and policies. 19
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53 | # Even if we did band together and by some miracle secured pro-racialist legislative victories, you know as well as I do that they would either simply go unenforced or would be eviscerated by the courts. This underscores the need for a legal advocacy and education organization. Such an organization would secure short-term benefits for individual whites and, one hopes, secure longer-term benefits by educating judges—most of whom are still our kinsmen—and other lawyers as to the legitimacy and urgency of our defense of our group interests. Remember, the truth is on our side. Moreover, the fact that our lawyers will always be smarter than our opponents’ will provide further reason for judges (in particular) to re-evaluate their prejudices regarding the status to be accorded those who defend the interests of their own people. I submit that unless a system can be set up in which a “leader” and family can exist at a reasonably middle class existence (not rich, not well off, but middle class), then do not expect to attract the best and brightest. Obviously. And this takes me back to the value of the legal advocacy organization. It has the potential to turn a profit. If we find the funds to allow just one exceptional lawyer to support himself and his family, that lawyer may be able to recover funds sufficient to expand the staff, the caseload, and thus the organization’s income in a virtuous cycle. It can become the engine of our movement. Can we make this happen, JW? 20
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:01 | # “Can we make this happen, JW?” It certainly _should_ happen. These are the sorts of things we need to be doing. The question: could we divert the resources that “activists” are now pouring into the pockets of deviants and cranks into such an organization? Certainly, I would support such an endeavor. How to get started? Do you attempt to do so “de novo” or attempt to collaborate with the saner and more professional areas of the “movement”: e.g., National Policy Institute and New Century Foundation, and leverage their already existing contacts and resources? I’m wondering if the NPI has been considering such a move. 21
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:13 | # I’ve been intending to contact the NPI, but I’m not sure whether just to give Louis Andrews a call or to submit a resume along with a discussion of our financial prospects and the many issues on which we have a chance to make an impact. 22
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:28 | #
Hundreds of interconnected blogs like this one would be a step in the right direction. They could be supplemented by forums, websites, and talk radio. The conservatives have accomplished this. I don’t see why we can’t. Blogs also support YouTube videos now. Anyone with a digital camera or camcorder can be a citizen journalist. This is about the closest thing we are going to get to an independent media, at least for now. Doing something larger would require a major change in spending habits amongst a considerable number of whites. 23
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:31 | #
I mentioned this in my exchange with Linder the other day: “Good to see you out and about, Alex. I hope the unfortunate incident in Knoxville doesn’t end up costing you too much money. It just goes to show how much work needs to be done getting people properly organized. Lessons can be drawn from the Civil Rights Movement here. Back in the 1960s, anti-racist activists on the ground in the Deep South were always able to rely upon air cover from the Jew lawyers who worked for the NAACP. Indeed, the activist wing of the Civil Rights Movement really only materialized after the fact; the NAACP had already won the war against segregation in the courts. The drama that went on after Brown was largely about local enforcement of federal court orders. At some point, we are going to have to start building our own institutions if we ever hope to dig ourselves out of this hole.” 24
Posted by Maguire on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:03 | # “Indeed, the activist wing of the Civil Rights Movement really only materialized after the fact; the NAACP had already won the war against segregation in the courts.” I’ve thought for years this might be the real reason why Jew Chertoff and his cabal of Jew lawyers struck so hard at Matt Hale. The specific case has been almost forgotten. A few years ago in federal district court a Creator won a ruling the World Church of the Creator met the legal tests for being a Constitutionally protected religion. And therefore the plaintiff Creator’s firing from private employment for being a Creator was illegal under federal employment law. The ramifications of this ruling would be wide ranging indeed. 25
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:12 | # Bailing out Linder is not what I had in mind. Linder is analytically adept, but where was the intellectual support for his rally? He told Negro columnist Leonard Pitts that he had a job because of his race, not his talent, and that a hundred of the writers at VNNForum could do a better job than Pitts. Where was there written work product? What did they do to anticipate the inevitable response: “That’s because the murders of Christian and Newsom didn’t fit the familiar contours of a traditional Old South attack, in which whites target blacks and reporters quickly assume the motivation must have been racial”? That’s from the Chicago Tribune article that is supposed to be the rally’s crowning achievement. Where was the anticipatory rejoinder? “From 1866 to 1965, ____ Americans were lynched. Of these, ____ were Negroes. Of those, ____ were in fact guilty of capital crimes. ___ of those were lynched by their fellow Negroes. ____ were guilty of lesser felonies and thus not innocent victims. Only 75 [or whatever] of lynched Negroes were guilty of minor offenses or nothing more than being a Negro in the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s less than one per year from the end of the “Civil War” to the end of the “Civil Rights” struggle. Since the end of the “Civil Rights” struggle in 1965, blacks have killed ____ whites—like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom—who are guilty of nothing more than being white in the wrong place at the wrong time. The yearly average exceeds the total for an entire century of supposed white oppression of blacks. Further analysis can be added: Moreover, the fact that the number of Negroes lynched exceeded the number of whites can be explained without reference to any racial discrimination. The states where lynching was most common—for Negroes and whites—were the Southern states, where most Negroes lived. Moreover, as is the case today, Negroes committed murders at a much higher rate than whites, and the crimes that were treated the worst were the crimes that crossed the boundaries of racial communities. As remains the case, the number of black-on-white rapes and murders are many, many times more common than the reverse. 26
Posted by GT on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:37 | # Jean Depression writes: “There has never been a better opportunity to rid ourselves of this opiate known as “conservative Republicanism” and free the “base” from their infantile dependency on “voting” to “win elections” - completely independent of issues and policies.” To recapture whatever base a national third party effort manages to split off, all the GOP needs do is temporarily realign themselves with aracialist “America First” principles. We must attack the GOP at local levels with Independent candidates presenting a viable program that the GOP can never support. Our program must appeal to both Independent voters and non-voters who have “given up on the System.” The goal of this political effort is not to “recapture” power, for we cannot change the economic, social and political landscape overnight. Furthermore, we shall soon be at the point where it will be demographically impossible to do so. Our immediate goal must be to balkanize the regime’s political and economic landscape, and create legitimate civic authorities for EuroAms at local, state and possibly regional levels. Our ultimate objective is independence; i.e., secession, a new nation. 27
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:00 | # GT, in a word: yes. More on Balkanization. The very act of Whites defending their interests will inflame the coloreds, who believe that Whites have no legitimate group interests and should not be allowed to mobilize. But, that’s only one part of the story. Any time there is hostility or potential hostility between Whites and non-Whites, White advocacy groups need to be there to – legally, peacefully, non-violently, and calmly – inflame the situation whenever and wherever possible. It doesn’t matter if the issue was brought up entirely by the non-Whites; for example, whining about discrimination or whatever. The point is, salt should be vigorously rubbed into the wounds, until those wounds flare up and become infected with bitter racial animus. What is the basic premise of guerrilla warfare? It is not to defeat the opposition in open battle; rather, it is to provoke the opposition to take counter-measures that alienate the population without actually significantly harming the guerillas. Likewise, a major aim must be to provoke coloreds into revealing the naked beast of racial self-interest and anti-White animus they harbor. That’s certainly not too difficult. Recently, the Knoxville protests and the immigration debate have shown how easy it is to provoke Blacks and Hispanics to reveal their true selves. Jews as well often become hysterical; Hart’s vulgar explosion at the last Amren conference is instructive, as was “White, Jewish, and Proud’s” anti-Nordic commentary at “The Inverted World”: “And I don’t give a rat’s ass who won the NFC East last year, much less who came down from the misty fjords of Norway wearing the smelly skins of animals a thousand years ago.” Then we have the Asians. It would seem that their bitter frustration at being excluded by high-IQ whites like Jared Taylor was one motivating force for the “cognitive elitists” to launch their attacks on WN several years ago, attacks which were, ultimately, counter-productive. It is certainly important to emphasize balkanization between Whites and Asians. Asian projects such as “Monolid” and “Bitter Asian Males” and “Sepia Mutiny” should be encouraged, and could serve as models in case we would like to produce our own anti-White propaganda, focused perhaps on raciosexual issues, aimed at young Asian-“Americans.” Divide, Inflame, Balkanize. Entropy is being used against our interests; it being easier to disrupt and destroy rather to maintain and create, the order of our previous racial/cultural homogeneity has been under attack. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Putnam has shown that diversity breeds distrust, a finding consistent with previous observations in the social sciences. Surely, it cannot be too difficult to leverage these natural centrifugal forces to break apart the multicultural consensus? The abnormal nature of multiculturalism requires more energy to maintain than to disrupt: increasing disorder (entropy) of the multicultural system is its default path; all it needs are a series of healthy pushes in that direction. Calmly and professionally and consistently pointing out conflicts of interests between Whites and non-Whites, deftly inflaming the heated dispositions of non-Whites during racial disagreements, and pursuing and course of an overt agenda of White mobilization will all contribute to this entropic path. All legal, all non-violent, all within the confines of White advocacy and meta-political activism. By the way, this points out why Sailer’s “citizenism” is so destructive, because that ideology is the exact opposite of what is being proposed here: Sailer wishes to create a trans-racial identity as “American citizens” to bring people together; we must, on the other hand, point out the emptiness of “Americaness” in today’s’ multicultural morass, and stress group identity and conflicts of interests as paramount. Divide, Divi 28
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:03 | # “I’ve been intending to contact the NPI, but I’m not sure whether just to give Louis Andrews a call or to submit a resume along with a discussion of our financial prospects and the many issues on which we have a chance to make an impact” Maybe the thing to do is to contact Mr. Andrews first via phone, to establish personal contact and then follow that up later with whatever more formal materials you would like to send. Of course, during the call, you would tell him to expect those other materials in the near future. That way, he’ll know upon receipt of the materials what it is about and that it’s serious. 29
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:23 | # Moreover, the fact that our lawyers will always be smarter than our opponents’ will provide further reason for judges (in particular) to re-evaluate their prejudices regarding the status to be accorded those who defend the interests of their own people. When you have judges like Sandra Day O’Conner sitting on the US Supreme Court writing opinions for the majority consisting of little more legal substance than the blitherings of a pubescent girl’s civics class term paper, it seems a different tactic needs to be employed to expose the virulent stupidity gripping the minds of the Courts. 30
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:50 | #
We have Ronald Reagan to thank for Sandra Day O’Connor. He was “opposed” to affirmative action, but was determined to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. Here he is signing the IRCA amnesty into law:
32
Posted by GT on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:20 | # Jean Depression writes: “Recently, the Knoxville protests and the immigration debate have shown how easy it is to provoke Blacks and Hispanics to reveal their true selves.” Yes, it is easy to rile the non-Whites. Our problem is sustainability. We spend limited funds flying into an area to “agitate” and consider Alex Linder’s pic in the Chicago Tribune “a great Victory,” but matters soon return to normal following our departure. Why is that? Forget the jews and media for a moment, the answer is fundamentally economic and social: No sane, working- or low middle-class EuroAm employed by Chief Sterling P. Owen’s third cousin will jeopardize his job, marriage, or children’s welfare agitating against the interests of the Knoxville elite. To counteract this we must develop economic, social, and political alternatives, and the local groups capable of implementing these. 33
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:26 | # The future of the GOP: GT, again, I agree. First though, we need to start with the leadership. We need to protect leaders from Rubinesque ‘social pricing’ to the extent possible. Then these leaders, if they really are leaders, can emphasize socioeconomic infrastructure building, to allow lower level activists to escape social pricing to the extent possible. When an individual suffers from social pricing, such as that Regan fellow at the last Amren conference, that has a ripple effect, discouraging many people, justifiably, from getting involved. Developing increasing immunity to social pricing has to be a priority, not “preparing” for a non-existent “race war” or “revolution.” 34
Posted by Jean Depression on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:28 | # KMacD on social pricing here: By the way, Salter also wrote a devastating (and longer) critique of Rubin’s “work” in a previous edition of “Population and Environment.” 35
Posted by Voice on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:37 | # Jean Depression, Excellent tactics. I would also add that every big hitter(those who have ability to write press releases etc) form their own non profit pro-white pressure group. Electronic communication makes them virual organizations anyway if they need support from their peers. So instead of having 20 talented guys sitting around in NPI, have them hammering press releases under 20 different white interest groups. The left was great at doing exactly this over the last 40 years. This will support white political parties by giving them intellectual cover to help combat non-white groups. Financially, it could help if we ever, dreaming in the future, can get on the corporate donation gravy train. 36
Posted by GT on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:27 | # Welcome aboard, Jean Depression! (And here I’ve labored 4 years under the mistaken impression that Maguire and I were alone) 37
Posted by Nick Kasoff on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:01 | # > In order to “defeat” the “Democrats”, the “base” has Sort of. You see, the Democrats go for Hispanic votes because they are concerned for their welfare. The Republicans do it because they are cynical bigots. Right? Nick Kasoff 38
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:14 | # Welcome aboard, Jean Depression! (And here I’ve labored 4 years under the mistaken impression that Maguire and I were alone) What makes you think Jean Depression shouldn’t be welcoming you and Maguire aboard? 39
Posted by Count Sudoku on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:40 | # I like this guy’s take on the future of the Republican Party. http://westernsurvival.blogspot.com/2007/02/future-republican-party-will-not-be-our.html The Future Republican Party Will Not Be Our Friend, but Let’s Not Lose Sleep Over it You may have read pundit Dick Morris’ prediction for the next few elections: “Hillary will be the next president, and she’ll be the worst president we’ve ever seen.” No matter what happens, the situation in Iraq will “assure that the GOP gets massacred in 2008 congressional elections.” In 2010, the Republicans will take back the Congress — “Hillary will give Republicans the same gift she gave them in 1994” — and they’ll win the presidency in 2012, but thanks to demographic shifts favoring Democrats (namely the rising Hispanic and African-American populations), “that will be the last Republican president we’ll ever see.” He’s wrong in that there will certainly be Republicans elected President well into the future. He’s right in that they will not be Republicans in any form that we would recognize or that would be acceptable to us. Because we have a winner-take-all political system, power concentrates in two competing parties that continually evolve in order to respond to changes in the electorate. What will happen is that as non-whites grow in numbers, the Republican Party will have to accommodate them in order to get enough of their votes to survive. Republicans will make a point of selecting non-whites for the most visible power positions, and will gradually soften and transform their traditional Republican positions to please the non-whites. Anti-white quotas, open borders, and welfare will be the order of the day. - snip - 40
Posted by Maguire on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:11 | # “First though, we need to start with the leadership.” Absolutely. “We need to protect leaders from Rubinesque ‘social pricing’ to the extent possible. Then these leaders, if they really are leaders, can emphasize socioeconomic infrastructure building, to allow lower level activists to escape social pricing to the extent possible.” The historical pattern in the non-Movement has been to immunize a very few dedicated social leaders from social pricing by means of donations from lower level supporters. William Pierce and a short list of others come to mind. There are several problems with this immunization model. The first is the number of booster shots constantly needed. The second is the extreme difficulty of imposing group discipline on a leader who starts running off the rails. We have to go further than merely shielding people from ‘social pricing’ exercised by the enemy. We have to make social pricing work for us as a deterrent against defectors and traitors. The place where ‘social pricing’ hits home is in the home. This is where wifey exercises a veto on hubby, precisely because she fears economic and social sanctions against herself and the little’uns. This is a key factor in the pathology of how the non-Movement has devolved into the social cesspool that it is. Stable family men are screened out this way. And it’s a factor the dysfunctional alcoholics like Frazier Glen Miller and Terrible Tommy Metzger actively like and encourage. Once Wifey fears economic sanctions *because* Hubby deviated from OUR norms, we’ll be far down the road to Victory. This is when Shunning becomes a powerful tool for intra-group discipline. Believe me, once we can sanction miscreants this way our groups will suddenly display incredible new found cohesion and resistance to what are really minor pin-pricks. Our Local Groups have to bond economically as well as intellectually and emotionally. Maguire 41
Posted by Count Sudoku on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:24 | # I will print the whole article as it is not super long and I think offers some hope for the future. You may have read pundit Dick Morris’ prediction for the next few elections: “Hillary will be the next president, and she’ll be the worst president we’ve ever seen.” No matter what happens, the situation in Iraq will “assure that the GOP gets massacred in 2008 congressional elections.” In 2010, the Republicans will take back the Congress — “Hillary will give Republicans the same gift she gave them in 1994” — and they’ll win the presidency in 2012, but thanks to demographic shifts favoring Democrats (namely the rising Hispanic and African-American populations), “that will be the last Republican president we’ll ever see.” He’s wrong in that there will certainly be Republicans elected President well into the future. He’s right in that they will not be Republicans in any form that we would recognize or that would be acceptable to us. Because we have a winner-take-all political system, power concentrates in two competing parties that continually evolve in order to respond to changes in the electorate. What will happen is that as non-whites grow in numbers, the Republican Party will have to accommodate them in order to get enough of their votes to survive. Republicans will make a point of selecting non-whites for the most visible power positions, and will gradually soften and transform their traditional Republican positions to please the non-whites. Anti-white quotas, open borders, and welfare will be the order of the day. We’ve already been seeing it happen for some time now. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas - all non-whites with politics acceptable to whites. That was the first phase: get some non-white faces out there representing the party. The next phase is to bring in non-white leadership with an increasingly non-white agenda. A prime example: the election of Mel Martinez to the chair of the Republican National Committee. Martinez “wants Congress to pass an immigration bill this year that will include a guest-worker program with “earned citizenship” requirements for illegal aliens,” according to a recent news story. It seems to me that as the demographic changes that are already in the pipeline manifest themselves in the voting booth, we whites who see ourselves as a people will essentially find ourselves without a political party that represents our interests in any serious form. (Of course, we haven’t really had one for fifty years.) That means we will have to work for our interests outside the political system. Unlike blacks who, while relatively politically powerless, have had white liberals to look out for them, whites will have no one to look out for our interests when the political parties offer us no home. There is no sense of fairness among the great majority of non-whites. They want revenge and government benefits at whites’ expense. There will be no pro-white affirmative action programs. I don’t mention this in order to sound a defeatist note. Quite the contrary. The surest way to discourage ourselves is to base our hopes on a something that, by its nature, can’t help us. Given that whites are now only a shrinking 68% of the U.S. population, and given that probably half of whites are completely brainwashed liberals who will not change their views on race until they have been personally, repeatedly victimized by the non-white political structure they are bringing into reality, there is no serious prospect that we white, traditionalist conservatives are going to gain the political power in time to change the laws of this country and protect ourselves and our civilization through the existing government. We would need to pass laws that would deprive millions of non-whites of citizenship or the vote, and would protect us from non-white groups with higher birthrates than ours. These kinds of changes, done within our existing legal system, would require constitutional amendments. But the constitutional amendment bar is set too high for us to gain converts and political consensus in time to pursue that. Thus it appears to me that we are not going to be able to protect ourselves as a people under the existing system of government in the U.S. I hope I am wrong. I hope that some kind of massive change of outlook occurs among the remaining 68% of the population that is white, and that through clever political maneuvering we are able to reconquer our nation and make it safe for our descendents. But I’m not banking on it. With that in mind, it makes no sense to feel angry or discouraged because the Republican Party is increasingly betraying our interests. It’s the predictable consequence of having put ourselves on the path to being outnumbered in the nation we created. We can stop investing our emotional energy in trying to will the Republicans into being something they cannot and survive as a party. We can focus instead on acquiring the resources, knowledge, leadership, and plans we will need when the existing political structure collapses, as it does in every nation riven by ethnic strife. There are good reasons for optimism, though. For one thing, non-white races simply do not get along. The rioting in Los Angeles between blacks and latinos is evidence of that. And an American government that is ruled by a plurality of non-white political constituencies is going to be corrupt, ineffective, and brittle. It will take that kind of corruption and social decay for the great mass of whites to wake up to the problem we face. At that point our numbers will swell formidably and we will be positioned to take whatever action is necessary to win a nation for ourselves. So, friends, if the Republicans help pass an amnesty bill, so be it. Let the Republican leadership ignore white concerns in order to appeal to non-whites. It is an unavoidable consequence of the changing demographics of the country. But let’s use every one of these betrayals as a “teachable moment” for our white friends and family. Let’s not waste emotional energy being angry about something we can’t change, but let’s be sure to point out every perfidy committed by the politicians who no longer represent our interests and thus build unity of purpose among our people. 42
Posted by Maguire on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:34 | # Jean, “By the way, this points out why Sailer’s “citizenism” is so destructive, because that ideology is the exact opposite of what is being proposed here: Sailer wishes to create a trans-racial identity as “American citizens” to bring people together;” Steve Sailer is what he is. He knows himself well in saying he’s a natural staff man, and he is. He’s also an unreconstructed Reaganite. The entire vDare site constantly exudes a 1985ish “Back To the Future” aroma. VDare and its Buchananites highlight one trap. This is allowing any participation by professional journalists who are financially dependent on Jewish dominated media. All such persons come equipped with remote control ‘Social Pricing’ destruct features. Maguire 43
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:26 | # When an individual suffers from social pricing, such as that Regan fellow at the last Amren conference, that has a ripple effect, discouraging many people, justifiably, from getting involved. Of course, Regan had a slam-dunk lawsuit. But as far as I know, he—a lwayer—couldn’t figure that out. 44
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:09 | # So, friends, if the Republicans help pass an amnesty bill, so be it. Let the Republican leadership ignore white concerns in order to appeal to non-whites. It is an unavoidable consequence of the changing demographics of the country. It is not a consequence; it is the cause. 45
Posted by Count Sudoku on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:44 | # One of the ways to fight social pricing is to move in proximity to each other to form our own communities (hopefully with the intent of separating or taking over a country). I know the Feds might respond by dumping 10 000 Somalis into our area, but has this actually been tried anywhere and what was the response? Here’s an idea I’ll throw out there…why doesn’t someone(s) sue the government for committing genocide against whites (using the UN definition). Sure it won’t succeed, but it might be a good way of generating publicity and awareness. 46
Posted by Count Sudoku on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:46 | # Furthermore, why not work with the Vermont separatists on the condition that after separation we get our own area out of Vermont? 47
Posted by Top on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:22 | # “(in the future Republicans) will gradually soften and transform their traditional Republican positions to please the non-whites” That has already happened. There is nothing that Republicans do for whites except a very basic form of government. The whole system is corrupt in a way where white politicians think it’s hip to screw the white ‘base’. During every election many white nationalists debate whether they should vote for the lesser of evils (republicans as opposed to democrats) or go independant. This site has had many such discussions. That type of discussion makes me laugh. If WNs cannot give up on the republican party then why do we expect the average football-watching Joe to? I believe the whole process has to go through a more intense abstract/intellectual phase before going into more visceral arenas such as elections. If enough whites can become racially ‘charged’ then the political parties will sort themselves out. The problem is that there isn’t enough pro-white energy to take us anywhere. 3% of Jews produce more directed energy than 66% of Whites in the USA. WNs should be asking themselves why that is. And when I say it has to go through more of a abstract/intellectual phase I mean we need to resolve some fundemental questions, example: As of right now pro-white views are getting destroyed in most intellectual debates. There is a whole system in place that tries to make sure of it. The key is to convert as many of the smart faction as possible. The momemtum will then take care of the rest. Real leaders and real elections are still some time off. 48
Posted by Return to the land on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:12 | # Has anyone thought of a “back to the land” type of movement for White Europeans? It seems that in the South, Midwest, and North-Central U.S. most of the land is still owned by Whites but is sparsely settled…so why not begin settling that land with small and thriving townships (hundreds if not thousands of them; once they reach a certain size more could be started) populated by Whites so that they can control their own destiny? These towns should/could be totally self-sufficient and would not allow Jewish retail and industrial outfits to come in and wreck the local economies. Much land is already being lost by Hispanics who now fill most of the agricultural jobs in America. The decline of White European hegemony in America can be traced to their exodus from the land and into crowded and polluted cities and suburbs where their destiny is controlled by Jewish business interests. Children in these villages could be vigorously educated, but also taught the value of connection to the land and hard-work, something which is clearly lacking in the soulless ‘burbs and Jew-infested cities. White European children need to be taught intellectual skills, but also the technical skills needed to survive LOCALLY. 49
Posted by Maguire on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:47 | # “Has anyone thought of a “back to the land” type of movement for White Europeans?” Yes. GT & I have been developing specifics of this for four years. “It seems that in the South, Midwest, and North-Central U.S. most of the land is still owned by Whites but is sparsely settled…” “White European children need to be taught intellectual skills, but also the technical skills needed to survive LOCALLY.” This must be the first focus. And also young and middle age adults. And older adults. Technical pedagogy is one void WNs should move decisively to fill. NOW. Some weeks ago the Sarasota Herald-Tribune (a Jew York Times Company property) ran a revealing article on labor shortages in local SW Florida skilled construction trades. These persist despite the large decline in new construction - and also after many years of a construction bull market. The shortages are in skilled trades such as electricians, HVAC technicians and plumbers. These skilled trades pay very well. One sub-contractor interviewed was very specific in blaming the high school guidance counselors for this situation. The Judeo-Marxist Edjewkashunal Complex actively discourages students from entering skilled trades apprenticeships. The default preference of guidance counselors is to steer one and all towards the Marxist diploma mills instead of vo-tech programs. They do this even though all of them are well aware of ‘college graduates’ thronging the workforces of the local Wal-Marts and Home Depots. The reason these evil doers persist in ruining many young white people’s lives is very simple; student loans are an important component of the cash flow paying worthless and often non-white Marxist professors their high salaries. And more than a few of these high shcool child molestors moonlight for outside advisory services themselves. These services specialize in selling high school students’ parents usury interest loans and ‘advice’ on how to obtain scholarships, grants and loans. Others basically work as commission saleswymyn for private colleges steering young marks for a percentage. 50
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:51 | # These towns should/could be totally self-sufficient and would not allow Jewish retail and industrial outfits to come in and wreck the local economies. “Return to the land”, you need to get rid of the US government first. See <a >The Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity</a> website. Indeed, it is my opinion that centralized government will inevitably attempt to violate freedom of association for the simple reason that central power attracts the rapist mentality to contend for its levers of control more than other mentalities. That’s why “The Prisoner Rape Elimination Act” resulted in a “research report” that defined prisoner rape out of existence—it being “viewed as” the “sexual awakening” of the heterosexual white males raped by black and hispanic gangs. Yes, those are the words used by the government. 51
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:56 | # The GOP has never in its entire history been a friend to white EGI. White Southerners knew that for over a hundred years. It was the GOP that emancipated the slaves, gave blacks U.S. citizenship, and forced integration on the South during Reconstruction. The GOP was also the first major political party to embrace federal civil rights reform under Wilkie in 1940. 52
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:02 | # Hopefully, if Bush gets his 2007 amnesty for illegal aliens, we will see a repeat of what happened after LBJ got the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 53
Posted by Maguire on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:17 | # James, “Return to the land”, you need to get rid of the US government first.” How does one “get rid of the US Government”? Are there any incremental daily steps that can be taken that are within the grasp of mortal white men and women? Or does this task require a feat like bounding to the top of Mount Everest in one leap ala Superman? Maguire 54
Posted by Jean Depression on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:17 | # Let’s not get distracted from the primary focus intended by the post: the political destruction of the GOP. This is necessary to allow other projects to flourish, and the two party fraud and the safety valve of the GOP are too important for the establishment for them to let the GOP fade away to oblivion on its own. Now, _hard work_ must be done in order to destroy the GOP. Of course, the chances of that are close to nil. By the way, Pierce’s pitiful mountaintop trailer park is not exactly what I had in mind when considering immunization from social pricing - particularly when one considers the likely source of the money used to purchase that land (see Griffin’s book, for example of the “speculation”, which is the almost certain answer). 55
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:44 | # I would go further than that. It’s not just the GOP that must be destroyed. Conservatism has to go as well. We have been playing this shell game of aracial politics for fifty years now. 56
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:51 | # Furthermore, why not work with the Vermont separatists on the condition that after separation we get our own area out of Vermont? Because they hate us. 58
Posted by Jean Depression on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:02 | # Camp of the Saints text: Please see especially chapters 11 and 12, with respect to asian balkanization. In 11, the talk of “stink of the east” vs. “stink of the west”; in 12, the correct designation of the Hindu horde as a “mob of Martians.” The strategy must be balkanization. Easy enough perhaps with the Blacks and Hispanics. But it is all _meaningless_ if Asians are not stressed in this regard. Divide, Divide, Divide! When confronted with a South Asian “cognitive elitist” (and, no, it matters not “where they were born”), the _correct_ attitude is to consider them akin to a Martian, not as a “fellow citizen” or potential “fellow citizen.” Reading Raspail’s book will help to cultivate the correct attitude in this regard, I think. 59
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:41 | # The way to kill the GOP is not to “kill Conservatism” but to discover what genuine Conservatism is. Then, don’t try to market it to the voter. Market it to disillusioned intellectuals and significant GOP supporters, politicians and bag-carriers. In this respect, the stone-dead paleoconservative revolution provides a lesson. No American really knows what the genuine animal looks like. It doesn’t look like the Latin-snob Thomas Fleming - whom I respect well enough. The problem is that Conservatism was in bud for a very long period, and did not finally flower politically until 1783, which is a date pregnant with meaning for the westward transmission of British political thinking. The flowering is what’s missing from American understanding of this strangely uncomplicated and socially undemanding treatment of power. The following is a passage from Martin’s Great Conservatives, and concludes the lengthy chapter on Pitt the Younger.
The meanings here are easy to transpose to modern times. It’s all there ... the restoration of principle, the creation of a new political and social dispensation, the exclusivity of political benefaction, the economic and constitutional focus, the punishment of subversion. And all in an age scarcely less tumultuous and hazardous than our own. We have emerged from chaos before. It isn’t a new process to us. 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:46 | # I will add something for the benefit of those who refuse to consider Conservatism of any form as too contemptuous to taken seriously as a revolutionary zeitgeist ... You will not do this mighty thing that you wish to do without changing the political culture. You will not do this through pure racial activism, with or without the attendant judeophobia. You will not do this just by waiting for the dissatisfaction to reach boiling point. The battle is philosophical before it is anything else. There are only two basic models of change in the direction we desire. It’s a choice between a more or less fascistic, authoritarian model or a more or less Conservative model. My settled view is that the former can only come into being in conditions of absolute extremis, probably well past the tipping point. There is no way that it can be sold to the people now. Later perhaps, if and when the worst and most Leviathan nightmare comes true, a fascistic model will be the only available recourse. But it’s not the automatic choice today. In fact, today’s self-indulgent racial nationalists don’t much comprehend that they need over-arching ideas at all. It’s very frustrating, but they don’t seem to notice that they are getting nowhere without them. My belief is that for the next couple of decades a genuine Conservatism is absolutely capable of providing a serviceable vehicle for a survivalist ethos, informed by European sociobiological needs and leavened by a light touch in the areas of personal and economic freedom. Of course, I’m used to being the only two-legged being on the surface of the planet who thinks this. But it would be kind of nice to be attacked rather than ignored. 61
Posted by Jean Depression on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:45 | # “But it would be kind of nice to be attacked rather than ignored.” No attack, but I am curious how the GW approach would actually differ - apart from labels - from the ideas of others here. What is the actual difference in content? Do we agree on first principles that, for example, in GW’s England, the only people living there should be ethnic English, it should be self-governing (as should be Scotland and Wales) and that the predominant aim of government should be ethnic interest? What differs? Form of government? Economic models? And I say this all as a “fascist.” 62
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:22 | #
GW, We have been over this several times before. For future reference, when I refer to “conservatism” I am using the word in the American sense; a synonym of neo-liberalism which, presumably, you also deplore. 63
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:31 | #
What you call “conservatism” is almost identical in substance to what I call “communitarianism.” We also both agree that the challenge before us is ultimately a philosophical one, and that the ideological enemy is liberalism. Sometimes this gets lost in translation, but we are on the same page for the most part. 64
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:35 | # In other news, The Realist has responded to my rebuttal of him, The Judaization of the Professionals, and I have posted a counter-response, in addition to debunking the arguments of two of his followers. 65
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:37 | #
Very true. Mobs of angry whites in the streets will still be impossible to ignore, though. 66
Posted by Count Sudoku on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:39 | # “Furthermore, why not work with the Vermont separatists on the condition that after separation we get our own area out of Vermont?” “Because they hate us.” I hate them right back but I’m pragmatic enough to work towards a common goal if it benefits me. 67
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:43 | # Re: Conservatism/Neoliberalism, in the United States, we face a problem in that disaffected Republican voters are angry that they have been “betrayed” and that W. really was a “liberal” all along. It is essential that these people understand that conservatism/neoliberalism was a fraud all along, and supporting an aracial political ideology was always contrary to their genetic interests. Otherwise, these people will simply continue to hold out hope that a “true conservative” will eventually represent them in the GOP (i.e., Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, etc.), or that a “true conservative” third party represents a viable solution. See the Constitution Party. 68
Posted by Maguire on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:54 | # GW, “My belief is that for the next couple of decades a genuine Conservatism is absolutely capable of providing a serviceable vehicle….” Can you provide a serviceable definition of this at this point in history? I’ll describe a young couple below to keep in mind. Here’s a practical point for the next couple of decades in the United States. Bill Buckley and the Jews he bequeathed control of National Review to have got ‘Conservatism’ branded as Free Trade; unconditional and unlimited support for the Zionist entity, eternal war in Iraq, effectively unlimited non-white immigration and complete acceptance of all the anti-white social measures inaugurated in the 1960s.” “Of course, I’m used to being the only two-legged being on the surface of the planet who thinks this. But it would be kind of nice to be attacked rather than ignored.” My God, good man! Forgive me for ignoring you. Here, I’ll attack! Let me describe parents of a playmate of our elementary age boy. Definitely white working class. They recently had a baby girl to go with their boy. They were previously living with parents/in laws close to us so they could get their boy into a decent elementary school, defined as one not overrun with negroes and mestizos. And they had their house 20 miles away for sale. Well, the house never sold so they finally moved back there, and now drive 20 miles each way to bring their boy to school. The father was self-employed as a semi-trucker until last year. Income went down and down until he was making sub-minimum wage after paying for fuel, tires, usury interest on the semi tractor, taxes, etc. Now’s he’s working the register at a convenience store (I know the store owner, a true ‘white man’) and probably quadrupled his net income by changing jobs there. The last time she was here the mother mentioned she’d be willing to emigrate to another country if they could find one to go to. They’d head to the heartland if they could sell their house. “My belief is that for the next couple of decades a genuine Conservatism is absolutely capable of providing a serviceable vehicle for a survivalist ethos” I’m listening with rapt attention for the specifics of this ‘Conservatism’ and how it can be differentiated from what’s now branded as ‘Conservatism’ in the USA. And also how it can be presented to such young white familes in a form that will be of real service and utility to them and their children. Conservatism for them is of course joined at the hip with elephants and people like Katherine Harris, Vern Buchanan and his wife and other Sarasota/Longboat key consumers of high price plastic surgery. Personally I think selling residential real estate on the Love Canal or condos at the Trinity Test Site would be easier, but I’m willing to give it a hearing. Maguire 69
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:59 | # I caught that last night, Fred. Frum has an article up about it at the AEI. Charles Krauthammer also recently switched sides on the immigration debate. Post a comment:
Next entry: FOXY News Concubine Parody
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:56 | #
It goes without saying it would be great if this could be pulled off. Peter Brimelow has speculated more than once about the possible emergence of a new political party devoted to finally addressing immigration (killing off the GOP in the process) the way the Republican Party emerged in the late 1850s, devoted to finally addressing slavery (killing off the Whigs in the process). That it’s doable was proven by the Ross Perot phenomenon of the 1990s: if Perot hadn’t been a nutcase there’s little question but that he could have won the presidency and in the process established a whole new political party, killing off the GOP. Of course, aside from being a nutjob, Perot wasn’t at all racially aware, so he’d have been the wrong man for our side. But the right man may yet be out there ...