Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Tea Party

Facing the Future As a Minority

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

This speech was delivered at the 2013 American Renaissance conference, which took place on April 5-7 near Nashville, Tennessee.  

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

For people like us—who are asylumed away to the margins—one could say that immigration is our connection to the outside world.  It makes us feel like we have a horse in the race—maybe even that, through our silent partners in the Beltway, we can affect national policy.  We even get captivated, we must admit, by the political theater of “immigration reform.” Ann Coulter’s speech at the last Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was catnip for racialists. Ann staked out the far rightward territory of respectability; and though she used the language of Republican electioneering, she seemed to be winking and nodding at us the entire time.

Whenever any issue or idea receives universal accord—when it becomes an assumption, when it’s taken for granted—it’s time to put it under serious scrutiny.  We should ask what an issue like immigration can tell us about ourselves—about what our goals are, and should be, and how we could best engage in political action. I hope we can do that today.

* * *

That we have failed to stem immigration in our 45-year struggle is obvious enough.  Some major amnesties have been halted due to energetic, grassroots activists, but mass-immigration proponents have walked away from these battles with confidence that they’ll get it done next year.

That we have continuously failed is not, in itself, an argument against continuing along this course.  Still, sometimes when we focus on various political skirmishes (like the current one over “amnesty”), we lose sight of the big picture—we lose sight of the fact that we have failed on a much deeper level than mere policy.

In the summer 2011, the Census Bureau reported that the majority of children born in the United States are non-White.  Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.  Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were miraculously halted tomorrow morning, our country’s demographic destiny would merely be delayed by a decade or two.  Put another way, we could win the immigration battle and nevertheless lose the country, and lose it completely.

And we shouldn’t focus too much on the “2050” date, when Whites will become a minority, as if once Whites drop to 49 percent, a bell will go after announcing the end of the American Dream. We are at a major crisis point now. And we are well past the point of no return with regards to “patriotic immigration reform.”

Furthermore, this insight into the irrelevance of immigration reform holds for the whole kit-and-caboodle of “conservative” causes. Should we, for instance, really be fighting for “limited government” or the Constitution, so that the Afro-Mestzizo-Carribean Melting Pot can enjoy the blessing of liberty and a sound currency? (To ask the question is to answer it.)

SYMBOLIC POLITICS

Beyond failure, there’s always been something . . . mendacious about immigration reform. Leftists (who sometimes understand us better than we understand ourselves) have always sensed this; they know that when we talk about immigration, we’re not really talking about immigration.

There are very good reasons, of course, for any nation to oppose lawless entry. And there are unalterable mathematical factors at play: all things being equal, more workers equals lowers wages. These are (and should) be the concerns of the “respectable” immigration-reform movement.

But these are not our concerns.

The issues the Beltway immigration reformers focus on are essentially quantitative in nature, as you can see by the names of their organizations: “numbers,” “carrying capacity,” etc.

Our concerns are qualitative. As they should be. For in war, art, and enterprise, great quality can predominate over mere “numbers.” Our race’s history is replete with examples of this: of continental or overseas empires—the globe itself—being administered by a central elite. More impressive still are the examples of one man with little money or support—whether it be Copernicus, Martin Luther, or Nietzsche—overturning whole schools of thought and institutions and society’s most basic assumptions.

Quality should have a practical effect on how we think about the immigration issue. What would we say and do, to take a hypothetical example, if a million Swiss or Russian “boat people” washed up on a seashore, due to some international catastrophe?  Would we oppose granting them citizenship, out of some devotion to legality and fairness? I wouldn’t.  I would become a bleeding-heart liberal and argue that these refugees would improve our economy and enrich our culture (as they likely would). And such an example might not remain hypothetical. In the foreseeable future, we may very well face this exact situation with the Boer people of South Africa.  We need to think now about how we will react and articulate our position.

For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism.  It all depends on the immigrants. And we should open our minds to the positive possibilities of mass immigration from the White world.

Taking a step back, it seems that for everyone immigration” is a proxy, a mask, a lie.  Perhaps all of political activism and wonkery are manifestation of deeper, largely unconscious desires for power. When we hear any professional “Latino” support this or that social program, we sense in our guts that her policy proscriptions are rationalizations for nationalism. She might say “more immigration is good”; she means “The Anglos are finished!”

In turn, we are right to view “conservative” activism—especially those hokey and embarrassing events like Glenn Beck rallies—as symbolic in-gatherings of America’s historic majority, as ways for Whites to feel a sense of belonging and identity in a world that is increasingly cold and hostile. Generic “conservatism”—despite itself—has become a kind of White identity politics.  And however flawed, all of its prominent ideological features resonate in the hearts of decent White people: self-reliance, freedom, uprightness etc.  And when White men talks about “restoring the Constitution”—or, more so, “Taking Our Country Back”— leftists and non-Whites are right to view this as threatening and racialist: it implies a return to origins and that the White man once owned America. However much we might critique these conservative ideas, we cannot deny this basic symbolism.  Indeed, it is due to this symbolism—and not policy—that conservative leaders like Glenn Beck have to envelope all-White events in “Martin Luther King” and the most useless political issues possible. They can’t let the natives get out of hand. . .

* * *

Now, if we accept that generic conservatism is symbolic, we should ask a higher-level question—Is this proxy actually good for our movement and, more important, for our race and civilization?

We were able to understand the futility of the immigration issue by asking not what would happen if the movement lost, but what would happen if it actually won.  In t
urn, we should ask an analogous question: what exactly would conservatism “restore” or “take back”?

We can look to history for answers.

In 1789, we had the Constitution. We had a government that was a mere flea in comparison to the elephant that rules us today. Confiscatory taxation was unheard of; the invasions of personal privacy we experience today wasn’t only rare but was, for the most part, infeasible.  We had a more republican, indeed, aristocratic, political system. We had bounteous natural resources and no threatening world power bordering our country.

Yet, within 75 years, we had inflicted upon ourselves a devastating Civil War—one that decimated the Founding stock of the country.  Within 125 to 150 years, our political system had become dominated by same kind of liberal egalitarianism it is today.

Why should we believe that, if we could “restore the Constitution,” the outcome would be any different? One should not rewind a movie, play it again, and then be surprised when it reaches the same unhappy ending.

Of course, history is not determined; it is not a film reel or script. But looking dispassionately at our current situation, we can only conclude that if we could hit a political “reset button,” this time around, the outcome would be far worse.

We are entering a world of resource scarcity (not abundance), and we are not dealing with Blacks that are socially and politically inferior, but some hundred million non-Whites who are empowered by our political system.

Thus, we don’t have to speculate about whether Rand Paul (and any other “right-wing” Republican) really wants to restore constitutional government or would actually be able to do so. This is all irrelevant.  The goals themselves are wrong and must be abandoned.

Supporting Paul, or whatever version of the Tea Party or Republican “immigration hawk” comes up next, is not “pragmatic”; it is, to the contrary, entirely impractical.  And it would be devastating for our movement politically: we would be spending our limited resources of time, energy, and money on politicians whose rosiest conceivable outcome would not change anything.  “Restoring the Constitution” and “patriotic immigration reform”  are just more in a series of safety valves and escape hatches preventing us from confronting the real issues facing our race.

Before we can move forward, we must come to terms with some rather dismal truths. There are no policy proscriptions or politicians currently open to us that will fundamentally alter our destiny.  And, most likely, within our lifetimes, we will not see the kind rebirth of Occidental civilization that we in this room know is necessary.

What we can do now is begin to set a new and different course.  Our challenge is to reorient our people, spiritually as much as intellectually and politically, to a world that will be hostile towards them and towards a future beyond the United State of America.

MINORITY REPORT

I’m sure that when many heard the title of my talk, “Facing the Future as a Minority,” they cringed at the very notion.  It insults our pride and dignity to think that I might be suggesting we go out and find ourselves a White Al Sharpton, who could speak at demonstrations after various hate-crime hoaxes and badger politicians until Whites got a seat at the trough.  Perhaps I might start calling my “The Reverend” Richard Spencer and hold prayer vigils after some celebrity misused the word “cracker.”

Believe me, I find this just as offensive as you do.

The good news is that the “Al Sharpton” option will never be open to us.  Whites are and will always be the exception to multiculturalism; we will never be allowed to play the game.

We must also recognize that not only will we always be at odds with the multi-cult, but, at least at the beginning, we will be at odds with the people we seek to defend.  In White America’s unconscious, they are America.  And the process of letting that dream go will be painful.

Moreover, the era of mass immigration into Western countries coincided with stunning advances in consumer capitalism, technology, and access to higher eduction. In the public’s imagination, multiculturalism was linked (however irrationally) with increased living standards and general “progress.”  For some, a White society might seem to be a retreat, towards less prosperity and dynamism.

Suffice it to say, this will be a hard path.

One characteristic that we must adopt as White minority advocates is a new openness to alternative political forms, even things that have previously made us cringe. One of those was suggested by our friends outside protesting our gathering.  No, not “Bomb Dresden Again!” but “Go Back to Europe!”  Emigration with an E is, of course, not practical for all Whites in North America; and at the moment at least, it seems that Western Europe is dedicated to its destruction almost as much as America.   But we should be open to this option.

Back to Europe? Not a bad idea... Back to Europe? Not a bad idea…

I would also direct you to the work on racial separatism of two men: Michael Hart and Rabbi Mayer Schiller, both of whom have presented real plans for dividing up the existing United States, mostly on the basis of race and partly on ideology.  (Michael generously offers Liberals the chance to live in “Diversity” canton if they so desire. . .)

There is, I admit, a certain pie-in-the-sky quality to these proposals, as if a map-maker in his study could create new countries.  But we should remember that in the last century, racially defined nation-building was a major “progressive” cause. We now think that the so-called “liberal elites” have always been dedicated to multiculturalism and race-mixing.  This is not quite the case, as liberals have a history of adopting “national determination” and even “ethno-nationalism” as their causes.  In 1919, following the Great War, the world’s statesman met in Paris to (for lack of a better term) re-map the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires. New countries were invented (the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes), old ones were reborn (Poland), and ethnicities got their day in the Sun (Czechoslovakia).  Related to this process was the Balfour Declaration and British mandate for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.  Nationalists of many stripes captured the hearts and minds of political actors.

Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so).  But this need not be the case.  1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.

OUR CAUSE

Like the nationalists of a century ago, we need a cause—and one that’s different, greater, and more advanced than the conservative “hot button” issues that are fading into irrelevance.  We need to be more than mere “reactionaries,” who spasmodically ignite in the face of some new liberal innovation—all the while being gradually pushed in their enemies’ direction, towards accepting their enemies’ assumptions, towards defeat. We need a telos, an outcome or end goal—something that we are working towards, that channels our energies. We need an ideal. And ideals are greatest when they at first seem “impossible.”

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based on the Rights of Man and “democracy,” our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be a state for the 21 century—or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an Altneuland—an old, new country.

* * * 

I’m sure there’s no shortage of people, most likely even people in this room, who’d inform me that an Ethno-State would be beautiful but, alas, “infeasible.”  In the face of this, we need to remember something very important: the creation of a White Ethno-State on the American continent is perfectly feasible. Indeed, it is a modest project in comparison to brining democracy to the Middle East, narrowing the SAT score gap, or inspiring young women to become mathematicians, or countless other looney and infantile trillion-dollar initiative with which the American government is currently engaged.

We shouldn’t forget that before the current government dedicated its resources to equalizing mankind, it channelled billions—created industries, created whole cities—for the goal of space exploration. (It has since given up this project in favor of boosting the Muslim world’s self-esteem.)

When I travelled to my hometown recently, I noted that the wealthy Whites of Dallas, Texas, have dedicated their disposable income to a charity hospital skyscraper, built in the hopes of taking care of other peoples‘ children and other peoples‘ problems. (It’s hard to get them to give 100 bucks to AmRen or NPI.)

Action is, in a way, the easy part.

Channelling action, setting a goal, identifying a telos—saying yes and saying no—that is what is difficult.

In this way, our challenge is one of the spirit.

Our task is to capture the imaginations of our people (or the best of our people) and shock them out of their current assumption of what they think is possible.  The means of doing this is not to promise a 20-percent reductions in immigration or sales taxes—or the narrowing of the scope of government. To the contrary, we need to offer our people what Herzl called “the voluptuous idea.”

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars.  Before the onset of the “equality” sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic.  We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

In Altneuland, Herzl wrote, referring to his “utopian” plan for a Jewish state in Palestine: “If you wish it, it is no fairy tale. . . If you don’t wish it, it is a fairly tale and will remain one.”

Or, to quote another historical figure: “I have a dream.”

No Comments on Facing the Future As a Minority

STIHIE: The Republican Woman of the Future

Here’s a cheerful reminder that even young Republican women buy the new morality the system promotes.

Here’s a cheerful reminder that even young Republican women buy the new morality the system promotes–and have no problem calling it conservative feminism:

There’s a new woman in town. She’s not shy, she’s not timid, and she’s not afraid. She’s not naive, nor is she lost or floundering. She’s not meek. She’s not quiet. She’s not passive. She’s self-assured, self-aware, and, yes, maybe she’s even a little bit selfish. She is here, she is present, and she is not going anywhere…

Whereas her very aura once showed of a life of privilege and luxury, she now cannot be pegged. Her background, her history, her ancestors are, quite literally, now all over the map. Now, her skin color cannot be identified, cannot be categorized, cannot be placed. Her hair, it flows in all different textures and colors, in braids and scarves and beachy waves. She forgoes ash blonde for whatever God or Allah or Oprah gave her and traded in Talbot sweater sets for blue jeans. She got rid of her pantyhose completely. Her wardrobe is a strange combination of J.Crew, Target, and those adorable little boutiques that are sending her into the same very debt she watches Sean Hannity discuss every night on Fox News.

She grew up with the belief that she could be anything she wanted to be. She was the princess and the astronaut and the stay at home mom. Her father went to work in a tailored suit and her mother served dinner at 6:30pm every night on the dot. Her parents were happy. Maybe they still are. Still, she dreamed of a life where she didn’t have to choose, a life that allowed her to have it all. So, she set out to make it happen. She went to college and she worked hard and she played hard, too. She joined clubs and kissed boys danced on tables at frat parties. She skipped class and made bad choices and she really lived life. She didn’t sit on the sidelines. She didn’t watch from afar. She didn’t let it pass her by.

She wants babies some day, but doesn’t want to have to give up her coveted job in the coveted city at the coveted startup — where she makes seventy-seven cents to every dollar her male counterparts make. Something, by the way, that she never believed was true until she started working and saw the men get raises and the women get sexually harassed. The gender discrimination and inequality and downright misogyny was shown to her on her very first day of work….

She enjoys a good cocktail every once in a while — or maybe every day – and she might even have an unprescribed bottle of Xanax in her medicine cabinet. She is, after all, in full support of the legalization of marijuana. Perhaps she has a bowl on her dresser. Maybe she just smokes cigarettes. Or maybe, just maybe, she thinks that what she does in her free time is none of your damn business. She likely supported Ron Paul at one point or another and thinks that so long as the Tea Party has a voice, the true Republican Party never will.

She’s had enough one night stands to know that’s not what she really wants out of life…but put enough tequila in her and she’ll reconsider. She carries condoms in her purse because she learned at a young age that you are your own responsibility. No one will save you. Besides, she doesn’t need a knight in shining armor; she can save herself. She’s been on the pill since she was sixteen, she also probably received the HPV vaccine — against her mother’s will, of course. She doesn’t expect the government to pay for her birth control. She does, however, expect that her job provide her with health insurance that does, or pay her enough to find an outside policy.

She’s not afraid to talk social issues. Find this new woman and you’ll learn that she has quite a few gay, lesbian, and/or transgender friends. Maybe she is one, herself. She supports gay marriage out of principle and also because she thinks everyone deserves to be happy. Separation of church and state, right? Then let’s freaking separate church and state. She wants God left out of government and government left out of God. She’d like for people to stop being shamed for their beliefs. She’d also like for women to stop being shamed for their bodies. Having the freedom to do what they’d like in regard to their own medical decisions would be nice, too. She knows that the “A” word makes people uncomfortable. She also knows people who have had one. Maybe she’s even had one, herself.

She wants a person in office who represents her, someone who understands that young women are watching, young women are listening, and young women are voting. This young woman, she wants, no, rather, she needs someone — a national figure — who understands that times, they are a-changing. Backwoods, backwards ideals don’t cut it with us. This woman is proactive, she’s progressive, and she’s sick of feeling forgotten.

If this is any indicator, it looks like Republican women are as insufferably leftist as the Jezebel crowd.

No Comments on STIHIE: The Republican Woman of the Future

America in 2034

One day, it is assumed, a tipping point will be reached: Decent folks will get fed up, and they will . . . they will . . . we’re never told exactly what they’ll do. Restore the Constitution? Kick the bums out? White Revolution?

Originally published at American Renaissance as a part of their “America in 2034” series.

The American Right seems to operate under a Howard Beale theory of history. The reference is to Network, the classic satire of mass media from 1976. In the film’s iconic scene, Beale, who had been a respectable news anchor, can no longer merely report on the outrages of daily life: the economic depression . . . the depravity and inhumanity . . . the corruption . . . the fear, numbness, and isolation of Americans who watch it unfold on their flickering screens. “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” says Beale, and he wants you to be mad, too. He exhorts viewers to get off the coach and scream out the window: “I’m a human being, God damn it!”

Network reflected a certain liberal disillusionment, but the character of Beale always struck me as a recurring avatar of right-wing reaction. He’s Nixon’s Silent Majority, who just wants the cops to crack down on hippies, hoodlums, and faggots . . . the Middle American who goes to Washington . . . the Tea Party patriot who’s ready to take his country back . . . . The most successful conservative personalities have been the most emotionally unhinged, that is, the ones who crafted their personae on Beale.

And conservatives of all varieties seem to think like Beale, too. According to their logic, as time goes on, things keep getting worse: taxes, gays, illegal immigrants, philandering politicians, race hustlers, und so weiter. . . . One day, it is assumed, a tipping point will be reached: Decent folks will get fed up, and they will . . . they will . . . we’re never told exactly what they’ll do. Restore the Constitution? Kick the bums out? White Revolution? Pastor David Manning predicts that at some point red-blooded, God-fearing white people will get so angry that they will riot. (The Pastor will join them.)

There is a kernel of truth to this view, as sometimes seemingly insignificant or passing slights or frustrations ignite historical struggles on the grandest scale: The French Revolution, for instance, was sparked by a bad grain harvest.

That said, “Bealeans” are blind to the way we can absorb and assimilate negativity, and thus maintain the hegemony of the status quo. This often takes the form of a recurring cycle:

  1. White America begins in a state of passivity and uneasy contentment. (In Beale’s words, “Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won’t say anything. Just leave me alone.”)
  2. At some point, a shock to the system occurs–something surprising, new, or exogenous: Wall Street Bailouts, Barack Obama, Benghazi, etc.
  3. White Americans are then presented formal ways of venting: voting for a political party, joining a mass protest movement like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, etc.
  4. The shock dissipates, and whites are frustrated by the failures of activism. They return to where they started: passivity and uneasy contentment.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. This circle is continuous, predictable, and, possibly, endless. In other words, we’re mad as hell and we are going to take this anymore!

In considering the future of race relations, I can envision a variety of macro-possibilities:

  1. A linear extension of what’s happening now: Life for Whites will get progressively more expensive, troublesome and unpleasant, but remain somehow bearable. The void of existence will be filled with techo-gadgets, make-work, and pornography. Dispossession will be a slow burn.
  2. Or there could be more interesting times ahead, as Gerald Celente and Piero San Giorgio have vividly described them: America’s elite loses control, loses it nerve, or goes too far: hyperinflation . . . political dissolution . . . war and civil unrest . . . in a word, collapse.
  3. Or perhaps the 20th century isn’t over. The revelations of Edward Snowden prophesy a new brand of totalitarianism in which all aspects of private life—even our thoughts—are monitored by a paranoid regime. The deconstruction of gender, race, and class (at the moment, an academic concern) will be enforced by the federal police. Perversity was once forbidden; it became a right; it will one day be compulsory.

Each one these scenarios follows logically from clear tendencies within our time. What’s critical is that in this spectrum, I can imagine most all white people just sitting back and taking it. (In Network, Howard Beale ultimately became a harmless parody, finally shot dead on camera after his ratings sagged.)

But I can also imagine, in any one of the above scenarios, white men rediscovering themselves and recapturing their world. And this need not happen when faced with annihilation or the jackboot. As Hamlet observed, the truly great man will “find quarrel in a straw / When honor’s at the stake.”

The past and future of race relations are truly the past and future of how Europeans understand themselves. Events, policies, demographics—these are of secondary importance in comparison to will. Man is a social animal, and he is also an interpreter: He is the one who (sometime desperately) makes sense of his being, his history, and his world–and in interpreting them, he changes them.

In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner posited the “frontier” as the landscape of the American psyche. For the past 50 years, this has transformed into its quainter cousin, “suburbia.” The modern American Dream hinges on the assumption that we can comfortably escape social problems–which have largely been matters of race–by moving to the new development a half hour outside the city. There, one can create–at tremendous unseen cost–a simulacrum of a 1950s small town, replete with all-white schools and a Gap.

Whatever one might think of suburbia as a way of life, its bubble has most definitely burst. Might the closing of this frontier be an opportunity for us to finally confront the consequences, not only of race, but of our own blindness, weakness, and wishful thinking? I hope so. For the goal is not just to get mad at the world, but to change it.

No Comments on America in 2034

UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections in their country – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

There’s anarchy in the UK and you can’t blame street-class punks for the ruckus. Instead, it’s a bunch of older guys decked out in the unintimidating colors of purple and yellow wrecking havoc in Great Britain.

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

But what about this party is attracting so many disaffected voters and angering so many of their political colleagues? The answer is that they are for restricting immigration – which is an item much desired by the British people but is repulsive to British elites.

This phenomenon is not limited to the UK as right-wing parties all over Europe have made significant strides in recent years and are set to make even larger gains in the upcoming EU elections. But UKIP being situated in our paternal land of the British Isles is a case that calls for further analysis and a comparison with the political climate in America. In particular, what does UKIP have to say about the much vaunted Sailer Strategy and is their operation an item for us to emulate?

UKIP was created in the early 90s as a single-issue organization dedicated to opposing the EU. Unlike the British National Party, they weren’t ethno-nationalists cleaning up their image to appeal to voters—they were solely concerned with the apparent threat of European integration for libertarian reasons.

They’ve remained a marginal party for the majority of their twenty years of existence, until the recent collapse of the BNP and the emergence of Nigel Farage as the face of UKIP in recent years.

Farage, as a documentary produced by the BBC reveals, is UKIP in human form. Hailing from a middle-class background and with work experience in the London financial trade market, Farage does not cut the figure of the average nationalist politician. And he isn’t. He’s a libertarian who’s political philosophy was formed by John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and is mainly concerned with restoring the UK to the status it enjoyed under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

If you watch this documentary, you would take Farage to be the British version of Rand Paul, add in more charisma and a perennial pint in his hand. He never talks about the declining culture in Europe or how it its native people are threatened by modernism and rapidly shifting demographics. The documentary primarily covers him discussing the “tyrannical” regulations and bureaucracy that has been created by the EU and how it hurts entrepreneurship and the free exchange of goods.

All of these items are the same topics that are continually rattled on by the Republican Party in the United States to the avoidance of issues that actually matter for the long-term survival of the White race. The difference between Farage and the average GOP politician is that he is strongly in favor of restricting immigration and understands that it has had an enormously negative effect on his native land.

This is where the BBC documentary veers from its cheery coverage of Farage and takes a derisive tone towards this particular stance. Every journalist that was previously singing the praises of Farage denounce his stance on immigration and claim it makes no sense if you believe in libertarian principles such as the free exchange of goods. While the documentary depicts this as an unavoidable blemish on UKIP’s platform, it is actually one of the primary causes for their success and why the party has managed to steal blue collar votes away from the Labour Party.

The commentators interviewed for the documentary and the producers behind it have no problem giving preferential treatment to Farage’s libertarian side, but they have zero tolerance for any attitudes that might be critical of the United Kingdom becoming an island of forced multiculturalism. That’s because libertarianism is not a threat to the System, while playing with White interest politics is.

It is clear that UKIP is in no way run or even composed of serious ethno-nationalists and this documentary concedes that.
Rather, the system is concerned that too much of UKIP’s success is derived from the same troth that every party of the right (whether center-right or far-right) has to appeal to in order to do well in elections. That is white angst, and the concern is that UKIP might actually try to implement the demands of this frustration rather than misdirect it towards ends that matter little to the actual interests of White people.

White angst is the dirty secret to conservative politics in the Anglosphere. Politicians and strategists understand that Whites are feeling the crunch of rapidly changing demographics and diminishing economic prospects and exploit it as much as possible for political gain. The Republican Party certainly exploits it, and so do the Tories. The problem is that they don’t actually try to solve the problems that are causing White angst. They just target it at frivolous issues like the capital gains tax and the all-encompassing power of teachers’ unions.

Which makes UKIP somewhat of an insurrection against the political establishment and has drawn comparisons between it and America’s Tea Party phenomenon. Both groups share several similarities and appeal to similar demographics. They’re both dependent on older, middle-class voters who are worried by mass immigration and feel that they have lost their respective countries. They spout off about the political status quo and continually use language that renders the impression that both movements want to take back their countries from powers that have wrestled control away from the proverbial people. For UKIP, that power is the EU. For the Tea Party, it’s the democratically-elected Obama administration (which will be out of office in two years, but don’t get hung up on facts like that).

UKIP also shares the unfortunate tendency to respond to accusations of racism by digging up every non-White supporter they have and giving them a press conference. This tactic, like in the States, doesn’t work in the British Isles.

But there is one substantial difference that makes the two groups different beasts—UKIP actually wants to resolve some of the causes of White angst. The Tea Party, as Richard Spencer has noted and like the party it has become linked to, turns white angst into fights about defunding Obamacare and eliminating Common Core standards in education. Immigration is a secondary issue and when it comes to debating the topic, the only opposition tolerated is towards illegal immigration–not immigration in general.

UKIP on the other hand has made anti-immigration a primary part of their political platform and seems intent on implementing some impediments to the flow of mass migration. The Tea Party seems content to remain a massive scam operation that sucks money out of retired citizens who think their donations go towards winning back America.

This is why UKIP has become the darling in the eyes of many who dream that one day the GOP will wake up and actually begin to fight for White interests. VDARE and others see the success of UKIP and Front National and say “This is what we need to do in America.” They see their gains as the Sailer Strategy in motion and double down on their belief that this is all that takes for America to become a White country again.

But this is a hopeful delusion as UKIP is not a phenomenon that we can emulate in America, nor does their platform fully restore Whites to their rightful place as the masters of their own destiny.

For those who don’t know what the Sailer Strategy is, here’s an outline of the idea that is promoted by Steve Sailer and others on the paleo-right. Essentially, it argues for the GOP to solely pander to Whites and correlates with his ideology of “citizenism.” Citizenism is a not explicitly racial political alignment that merely calls for the GOP to focus on the interests of the citizens who already live here rather than those outside of the country. Sailer engaged in a debate with Jared Taylor on the topic of his ideology versus White Nationalism and it forms the bedrock for the form of American nationalism preached by Peter Brimelow and VDARE.

While it is notable that UKIP is actually keen on implementing policies that would temporarily halt the flow of non-Whites to their country (and this is a good thing), it is not enough to reverse the tide of degeneration that’s sweeping through Europe. Besides, their political focus is not of an ethno-nationalist bent and they would be content if the UK simply returned to the Thatcher-era. All they want is an efficient economy where they can attain more comfort and live their lives without so many immigrants.

Even if they eliminated immigration entirely, the UK would still retain the same values that ruined it in the first place and the cult of profit would not be diminished in the slightest. Thus, the UK would very likely end up in the same predicament that it is in now.

That’s not to say their efforts to reduce immigration aren’t beneficial and if you are a British citizen, you shouldn’t withhold your vote from the party because they aren’t doing enough metapolitical activity. But we should be realistic about what a UKIP victory would accomplish and not pedestal their organization as the one we should all replicate.

Their method of using the political process to further their goals can also not be replicated in the US for the time being. VDARE seems eager for America to have its own USIP and how this third party or outside pressure group on the GOP would finally restore the historic American nation.
The only way you can believe this is if you have a naive view of the American political process. There are some major differences between America’s electoral process and Britain’s. For one, Britain restricts the amount of fundraising a party can amass and publicly funds opposition parties like UKIP to pay off their administrative costs. Meanwhile, America allows for unlimited campaign fundraising and any limits to campaign financing keep getting knocked down by the Supreme Court. This has led to the Republican Party (and the Democractic Party as well) to become a handmaiden of a small donor class that dominates its policy decisions and controls the party’s structures.

Some point to the Tea Party’s development as a sign that the power of this donor class is not as all powerful as it has been portrayed, but those same people overlook the fact that the Tea Party is largely an “Astroturf” movement and is never directed against issues relating to long-term White interests. Furthermore, the donor class that supports the Tea Party and “insurgent” conservative politics are only marginally different from the establishment GOP and the majority of them support open borders and recoil from the thought that America should be kept White.

These donors have immense power since money drives the political process in the United States. To run a competitive Congressional race, a candidate would have to amass at least a million dollars, if not more, to have a chance of winning. Our movement unfortunately does not have the money to spend on a campaign like that and we cannot afford to waste our precious time, resources, and the few people willing to involve themselves in our cause in efforts such as campaign politics.

Even the watered-down rhetoric we would employ in a “citizenist” campaign is not tolerable to the Republican Party and the figures that VDARE has latched onto as potential saviors of the republic (such as Jeff Sessions) argue against immigration for exclusively economic reasons—not because it threatens the so-called historic American nation. Even if you ran a campaign that only used code words such as the historic American nation, “Treason Lobby,” and “minority-occupation government” (MOG) the GOP’s donors would hurriedly rush to whatever district you were running in, pour millions of dollars to defeat your campaign, and pressure every single figure in the party to denounce you.

It is also disingenuous to lie to ourselves into believing that we can take America back. No, we can’t take America back nor should we attempt it. America is dying and trends such as rampant illegal immigration further balkanize Americans along racial lines (which is a good thing). In a citizenist campaign, we would be forced to denounce any type of racialized thinking and give lip service to Christian fundamentalism if we would have any hope of fending off the attacks of the donor class and attracting the base. Those are items that are a bridge too far for us and it would only alienate a significant portion of the people who are interested in our cause for the right reasons.

The formula for UKIP’s success is they actually believe the bullshit they preach about wanting a normal liberal democracy with less immigrants living off welfare. That is not what we want and is incredibly foolish to demand that Identitarians stop promoting our own ideology and instead, advocate a non-racial political agenda that none of us actually believe in. It is one thing for the Freedom Party in Austria and Front National to moderate their nationalism, actually attain power, and see results of their dediabolization, which also doesn’t call for them to act like idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. It is quite another for us to do the same, achieve little success, and end up acting like and being labeled idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. I’d rather be smeared as a Neo-Nazi.

The success of UKIP and other right-wing populist parties in Western Europe is a positive sign for our people and the policies they want to implement would alleviate the non-White swamping of our ancestral lands. But if we want to preserve White identity, we have to do more than win elections—we have to offer a metapolitical view of the world that counteracts the liberal mindset that dominates our people and guides our philosophy once we grasp power.

And in America, it is pointless for us to see their success and try to emulate their tactics over here. America is a different place with a completely different set of circumstances. We should not waste our money and resources on fruitless electoral politics. We should focus our energies on developing ideas, culture, and groups that present an alternative view of the world and create a sense of community for those who share our beliefs. With that strategy, we can create the root for our renewal and develop the resources and manpower to take on larger projects, such as electoral politics, when the time is right.

Until that time, we can only cheer on the developments in Europe and carry on with our metapolitical endeavors.

No Comments on UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

The Negro and The Instagram

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly white men to make racial comments about blacks.

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly White men to make racial comments about Blacks.

We first had Cliven Bundy discuss the problems of the Negro. The media unsurprisingly convulsed in anger in response. It wasn’t anything you wouldn’t have heard on an average day on Fox or Rush Limbaugh – it was just expressed in a way that made it easier fodder for The Daily Show to mock and made it harder for the conservative media to stand by him.

Then we had the leaked tape of the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers disparaging his girlfriend for associating with blacks (even though she is a mulatto herself). That led to many calling for Sterling to lose his ownership and prompted sponsors to flee from his team.

Both the controversy surrounding Cliven Bundy and that of Donald Sterling present an interesting study of prevalent attitudes towards race by different elements of American society. I would like to call these two views: “the colorblind negro” and “the high-status instagram.”

Bundy represents red state America—the tea party demographic to be more precise. As a cattle rancher living out in rural Nevada, he’s a natural voter for the Republican Party and makes the stereotypical consumer of conservative talking points. He became a cause célèbre of the Right because he withstood the federal government’s entrenchment on his private property and transformed it into the excesses of big government versus the constitutional rights of citizens.

It was somewhat of a farce to begin with and seemed like a situation that could’ve only been dreamed up by Rand Paul’s campaign staff—if it hadn’t actually happened. A rancher symbolizing the entirety of Middle America took on the government to protect the (technically illegal) grazing area of his cows and spit on the regulations aimed to protect an endangered turtle. While an inspiring act to stand up to the guns of the Bureau of Land Management, it’s ultimately an act over cows—nothing more.

But since it had nothing to do with race and was largely an economic issue, the right turned Bundy into a folk hero and made his fight righteous in the eyes of the GOP’s demographic.

Then he used the word “Negro” and compared welfare to slavery. That went over the conservative movement’s red line on acceptable race-baiting and they quickly moved to denounce him. What he said wasn’t even racist and if put in a different context, as Peter Brimelow has pointed out, would’ve been the basis of a Paul Ryan speech on inner city outreach:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Gregory Hood has correctly pointed out that this is just the all-too familiar conservative line about the dreaded “liberal plantation,” meaning the welfare state that keeps blacks enslaved to dependency.

But we all know that blacks choose to be on welfare because it is better than working at dead-end jobs and blacks instinctively know that as a group, they will never succeed or move up in America’s economy.

Government subsidies sound a whole lot more enticing than a shitty job as a janitor. Speaking of janitors… Bundy kinda likes these Hispanics who are replacing blacks at the low-skilled jobs they used to hold:

“Now let me talk about the Spanish people. Now I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here, and they’re people. And I’ve worked beside a lot of them. Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together. And I’ll tell you, in my way of thinking, they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people going to be with us – not not coming to our party.”

Once again, Cliven Bundy sounds more like Paul Ryan than Jared Taylor.

And his vision is the same: a colorblind America where every person who works hard, respects the Constitution and goes to a megachurch on Sunday is welcome here.

That vision is a fantasy that is unfortunately shared by far too many whites in this country, but believed by hardly any non-whites. As our country continues to balkanize along racial lines, many conservative whites will keep dreaming that one day non-whites will accept their colorblind vision and finally assimilate into the America of their youth.

That won’t happen – but the idea continues to lie at the heart of the conservative multiracialism that Bundy embraces.

That won’t save him though, and no matter how much he says that Martin Luther King would be on his side or how many irrelevant black conservatives they find to defend him, Bundy is a lost cause.

Even though he could stand up to the assault rifles of federal agents, he couldn’t stand up to the charges of racism.

The case of Donald Sterling, on the other hand, presents a more interesting and less covered view of race.

Sterling is a multi-millionaire who lives in Los Angeles and owns a professional basketball team in arguably America’s most multicultural city. He also happens to be Jewish (he was born Donald Tokowitz), has a mulatto girlfriend, earned a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for the millions of dollars he’s given them, and the only political candidates he has donated to have been Democrats.

Did I also mention that his sport of choice is the blackest sport, both culturally and proportionally, in America? Even President Obama admitted the fact when he ritually condemned Sterling for his racist comments

In the end, Sterling doesn’t cut the model for who the media would normally deem a bigot – but that doesn’t mean they haven’t noticed his racial views in the past.

Sterling made his millions as a real-estate mogul in Los Angeles. He owes a significant amount of his success to discriminatory practices that barred blacks and Hispanics from renting apartments from his business. He preferred Koreans and whites who he felt were better tenants. His opinions on blacks is that they “smell and attract vermin” and that Hispanics “smoke, drink and just hang around the building.”

He ran his business with common sense racial views that blacks and Hispanics would drive away potential renters and lower the value of the properties he was leasing.

Even how he runs his basketball team reflects that he has a certain understanding of racial differences. In a lawsuit filed by a former player, it was alleged that Sterling wanted a team stocked full of poor blacks from the South with a stern, white head coach managing them. You could say it was like a plantation system, and the left has even appropriated the conservative movement’s terminology to attack Sterling’s management style.

What ultimately did him in was his criticism of his mulatto girlfriend for associating with blacks. It focused solely on how it looks low-class and trashy – he doesn’t mind his paramour fucking them of course, he just doesn’t want pictures of her with them on “the instagram.” The idea is that attractive females (in his opinion, she’s not attractive at all in mine) shouldn’t be seen with black men, no matter how successful they are, because it lowers their status.

Sterling’s take on race is further outside of what mainstream society would tolerate than Bundy’s. As a more cynical and crass version of John Derbyshire’s “The Talk,” Sterling has admitted that blacks generate poor living environments, require the leadership of whites to do anything and should not be associated with publicly if you desire respectability. While Derbyshire’s talk was centered on protecting yourself and your kin from potential threats, Sterling’s views are solely about accumulating wealth and status.

In other words, he’s still a vile human being. Not because he’s an alleged racist, but because he cynically utilizes these views to eke out a luxurious existence and entertain himself through the blackest sport in America. He cares nothing about improving society or living by higher ideals, he only cares about himself.

While his views on race are far more realistic than Bundy’s naiveté, Bundy is the far more respectable character when compared with the odious personality of Sterling.

But both of their views on race are completely wrong. Bundy thinks that if we just stop seeing race and judge people on their “content of their character,” that “the negro” will finally assimilate into American society. Sterling, on the other hand, knows that this is a false notion and non-whites will never assimilate to the status of whites, Jews and Asians – and that’s why he doesn’t want pictures with them on “the instagram.”

Bundy represents an antiquated notion of America that no longer exists (and that’s proven by his ignorance at knowing the term Negro is now considered offensive), while Sterling represents a view that is becoming more prevalent as the upper class attempts to safely navigate a multiracial America and still preserve established notions of prestige (and that’s why he cares so much about his mistress preserving a high-status instagram).

Identitarians should reject both notions. Neither will preserve white identity and both are mental aberrations. Blacks will never embrace the delusion of economic freedom and treating blacks like plantation chattel is utterly vile. The view of Bundy will die soon, but it is possible that the views of Sterling will become more prevalent as more of the meritocracy drop their racial illusions to ensure their own personal security.

But it won’t save them when the non-white hordes they’ve manipulated for years decide to whip out the machetes.

Both views are a result of America’s twilight and reflect the decline in our society. We have to embrace racial views that always place our people’s interest first and never seeks to make our existence as atomized individuals the priority. We have to view ourselves as a collective and attempting to just make our individual lives more comfortable will no longer work. That is the Donald Sterling view of race.

Ethnocentrism is what we should strive for and is an viewpoint that will ensure our people’s survival – not the “colorblind negro” or the “high-status instagram.”

No Comments on The Negro and The Instagram

The Old-Time Religion

Maybe that darkness will be lifted when Whites finally extricate themselves from decades of witless but safe obsessions like cheerleading for obscene wars, dancing to the demands of civil rights hustlers, acting as self-appointed watch-keepers over who is deemed a true “patriot,” presuming to be able to read the mind and intentions of God, and intruding into the birthing predilections of strangers

 

Elizabeth Wright (1937–2011) lived a life of self-imposed isolation and obscurity. For those who appreciate her writings, however, she is fondly remembered as one of the most remarkable conservative commentators of her generation. An African-American, and a libertarian and individualist, she nevertheless had a deep understanding of—and “tough love” for—Founding-stock Anglo-Americans. Her greatest insights were, indeed, those of an outsider—one who was out-of-step with the prevailing Zeitgeist and could thus view the White race (as well as her own) with critical objectivity.

For more than two decades, Elizabeth was Editor of Issues and Views, both in its newsletter and online manifestations. This article was originally published in September 2010 at Alternative Right, in response to Glenn Beck’s “Restore Honor” rally that had just been held on the Washington, DC, Mall. The piece is a critique of “Tea Party conservatism,” which was reaching its culmination at the time (and has since faded). But the essay bursts through this context by virtue of Elizabeth’s devastating insights into the psychology of White Americans. The “Tea Party” phenomenon, in her reading, was not simply a reaction to the 2008 stock-market crash or the election of Barack Obama; it was yet one more episode in an ongoing process, in which Europeans gleefully dispossess themselves through their participation in the reigning civic religion.

~Richard B. Spencer


Now that the dust has settled on that overhyped, fevered Glenn Beck rally, what have we learned? Is it clearer than ever that no sober knight will come riding in to bring the enlightenment that some of us thought the Tea Partiers might have offered? It appears that the expectations surrounding those initial enigmatic stirrings, which made one almost believe that the furor was about more than just anger over political issues, have been extinguished. Was it all just a momentary aberration?

As it turns out, White conservatives don’t want to take the lead in preserving what remains of this country’s now tenuous White, Anglo-Euro culture. To take on such a responsibility would make them even more vulnerable to the racial bullets and daggers they have been ducking for years.

If Beck’s rally taught us anything, it’s that nothing has changed in the White middle-class mindset and that fear of the “racist” label continues to rule as strongly as ever. We’ve now learned for certain that such Whites are determined never to put the name to their fear and anxiety. If anything, they are fighting all the harder to bury even deeper the visceral knowledge of what is going on in this country and the inevitable future that is on its way. Christopher Hitchens’s assessment of the August 28 mass meeting is correct, when he claims that Beck’s tepid event was “a call to sink to the knees rather than rise from them.”[1] (If Hitchens, of all people, gets it, who could miss it?)

Even as other groups gradually dispossess them in the country whose political system was constructed by their forebears, conservative Whites persist in their obstinate assertion that their apparent discontent is “not about race.” What hogwash. Of course it’s about race and culture. Why shouldn’t it be? No matter how assiduously they deny it, resentment is growing over the ever-looming fact that this country, due to swiftly altering demographics, will no longer be the product of those Founders. And reality informs us that the ruling law, that is, the Constitution (or what’s left of it), soon will be openly renounced by competing populations that never have had even the remotest historical connection to the notions set forth by those Englishmen.

No one has to look far abroad to see what is on the horizon. In their guts these conservatives know what’s coming, as their unnamed enemies pick up the pace in the drive to usurp political power. What were mere hints just two decades ago have grown into loud trumpet blasts. And along comes Glenn Beck who offers these perceptive, yet reluctant conservatives a way to feel better about things. According to his prescription, all they have to do is Believe and Pray.

After watching that half-baked celebration of Martin Luther King Jr., and the determined laundering of his well-documented leftist convictions, how could one not conclude, like Ross Douthat, that “Beck’s “Restoring Honor” was like an Obama rally through the looking glass,” that these conservatives wished to be “cosmopolitan and young-at-heart, multicultural and hip”?[2] Nobody wants to be known as “square,” whatever squareness entails at any given time. Remember how conservatives used to laugh at and rail at political correctness? Now, they’re the ones who don’t want to be depicted as “incorrect.”

My observations of these Whites lead me to agree with Paul Gottfried, who astutely argues, “Whites would desert the GOP in droves unless their party continues to make an effort to be PC.” And further, he claims, many Republicans would not vote for a party that was “not marching in lockstep with the media in expressing horror over America’s evil racist, sexist, and homophobic past.”[3]

Whites of all political stripes, no matter which political label they give themselves, have been sold on the unique wickedness of America’s past racism that surely had to be the most grievous sin ever committed by mankind. Hence, the Glenn Beck carnival of repentance.

Beck picked up on this peculiar self-flagellation, and his soap opera rally was customized to meet the needs of this constituency. It seems that the unconstitutional Brown v. Board of Education court decision, the deceptive Civil Rights Act, forced busing (which tore apart whole school districts around the country), a national holiday for a Black preacher, and endless, ever-evolving new perks and goodies to benefit Black elites, have not quite made the grade of cleansing those past sins.

And so, to prove that they possess no resentment over the decades of social strife that has plagued our society, in August, the good conservatives took to D.C., where they engaged in a ceremony to worship a 19th-century President, who could come up with no better solution to his nation’s problems than a war that brought about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen, and a Black man who specialized in emotional oratory.

One has to wonder who these people are who will march on Washington to “restore” the country’s “honor,” as the rally’s theme boasted, yet are in the forefront of supporting some of the most dishonorable acts engaged in by their country’s interchangeable governments. Just what is special about the moral convictions of these advocates, who fervently sermonize on such issues as patriotism, war, family life, religion, the nature of government ad nauseam?

On the subject of race, as we’ve seen, conservatives are savvy on this score and have learned that one way to deflect the scurrilous charge of racism is to celebrate the icons and infinite memorabilia of the civil rights movement, while keeping a contingent of Black people on hand to be prominently displayed at public events. Who said these savvy Whites couldn’t be condescending?

On the other hand, Whites are given little choice in this matter since, at the mere hint of the formation of any kind of all-White entity, Black and liberal elites will come charging in. Even if such an organization is inadvertently all-White, it must first be accused of loathsome, racist motives, so that it can be monitored. No matter how benign the group’s objectives, if White men are its creators, then it must be put under surveillance and ultimately neutralized.

When the new group’s leaders relent, we find a quid pro quo in place—the intruding Blacks get the benefits of prominent positions and other perks, while the Whites now have cover from any other such intrusions and accusations. We saw this game successfully played against the Promise Keepers[4] and, now again, very blatantly applied to the Tea Parties.

The Whites who resent the blackmail flee, while the rest remain comfortably ensconced, adapting to the politically correct reality of the times. Whites, it would seem, must not be left to their own devices. Before taking back the country, is it possible that they will first take back the right to organize among themselves?

But don’t feel too sorry, too soon for these conservatives, who greatly influence the country’s political direction through the national leaders and ethos they inflict on our society.

Take a look at how they feel about big government that they rail against so vehemently. It’s fine as long as it’s out there doing what government should be doing—that means making war. War making, you see, in the mind of the conservative patriot, shows how tough we are. And although we’re not supposed to care what the rest of the world thinks of us, it’s imperative to earn the world’s fearful regard when it comes to our toughness. It matters not who rules in DC, or how many of our young soldiers needlessly die in worthless battles, as long as the message is sent abroad that we’re the biggest, baddest country on earth. We’re the USA! USA! USA!

Conservatives are dedicated to one of their favorite little war slogans, which is designed to justify why our troops are “over there.” When Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul comes along and reverses this little ditty, explaining that the terrorists are “over here” only because we’re “over there,” he gets drummed out of the corps, for “pacifism.” Woe to even the most faithful conservative, if he appears to diss the USA’s abominable wars of choice.
When Iran’s President Ahmadinejad is quoted making negative remarks about the leadership of the United States, primarily due to this country’s toadying relationship with Israel, that’s reason enough to urge the U.S. military to bomb and kill millions of innocent Iranians. Don’t say nasty things about the USA or its Middle East client state, OR WE’LL KILL YOU!

Is this the mentality that worried Founder John Jay, who did not see leaders as being trustworthy initiators of war? In The Federalist Papers, he claimed that some leaders will make war even “when their nations are to get nothing by it,” and spoke of leaders harboring motives such as “personal ambition, thirst for military glory and revenge for personal affronts.” Jay warned about a nation putting itself in situations that “invite hostility or insult,” that could lead to “pretended” causes of war. And he was not impressed by the superiority of so-called republics as opposed to monarchies, believing that republics were just as “addicted” to war as monarchies. “Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter?” he asked.

But what did he know? Obviously, not as much as our sanctimonious conservatives, who cheer as 19-year-olds are sent off to prove their mettle, while offering opportunities for these stay-at-home warriors to engage in “support the troops” grandstanding. For all their noisemaking about restoring the Constitution, it is easy to suspect that these impostors look upon the Founders and their document as quaint and outdated as do most liberals.

And who isn’t impressed with how well these conservatives have taught us about family and commitment? What outstanding models they have given us. At the moment they are apoplectic over maintaining marriage for opposite sexes only, yet these are the people whose foremost political philosopher, Newt Gingrich, just married his fourth wife, making a mockery of that institution. (Will the fifth be the charm?) By the way, this mountebank of “family values” was the fourth husband of his previous wife No. 3. (How many broken vows does that make?) Could homosexuals, who claim to be “married,” dilute the significance of marriage any more than this?

Chosen as Leader of the conservative camp by acclamation, this Talking Hero is looked upon as the fount of wisdom to those who seek to teach the rest of us how to think and behave.

These deluded crusaders, in striving to exonerate their other leader by acclamation, Sarah Palin, from the charge of irresponsible parenting, could only shrug and come up with a pithy, new catchphrase: “Life happens.” As if we didn’t know that. With the advent of Palin, American youth are once again blessed with yet another fine conservative role model.

And what about immigration? Can we really expect to see these conservatives carry through on their stances against illegal immigration? Don’t count on it. Is there any chance that today’s conservative reformers will take the next step in calling for a moratorium on all immigration, the “legal” kind as well? Is there among some of them, at least, a sense of urgency to stem the tide of endless, unchecked floods from abroad? But then again, is it likely that people who worship at the pedestal of Martin Luther King would understand the meaning of such terms as “cultural suicide” or “death of the West,” or care about the transformation that is taking place around them?

Libya’s late leader Muammar Gaddafi used to laugh at the foolish Europeans, who have encouraged the immigration of millions of Third World aliens, and offers Europe’s leaders a financial deal to keep more of the mob out of that continent, are American conservatives taking notes?

As literally tens of thousands of African refugees in boats try to reach Italy, the Libyan navy has been instrumental in keeping them out, thanks to an agreement with the Italian government. “We don’t know,” the bemused Gaddafi is quoted as saying, “if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.” And then he comes right out and says it: your continent is turning into Africa.

Why should Europe turn into Africa? Why should Europeans want to live in a negrified Europe? Or an Arabized Europe? Why?

The good White conservatives in the U.S., although possessing an instinctive understanding of such questions, would be terrified to entertain such thoughts publicly, or even privately. Better to take one’s lead from the huckster Glenn Beck and play it safe, than to express the anxiety to which they dare not put words.

As one Dutchman observes, “This isn’t Holland anymore,” nor is it France or England or Germany. And soon it won’t be America anymore. In one country after another, clueless Europeans have already begun the process of dispossessing themselves via politics, as immigrants eagerly run for political office, thereby amassing power and influence over the native residents.

Is there something in Europe’s water that compels the Whites to submit to this updated form of conquest? Who are voting Black immigrants into political office in Sweden? The native Whites. Who just voted an African into office in Russia? The native Whites. At what point do Whites take responsibility for their ongoing demise or, as Paul Gottfried puts it, for going “soft in the head?”

It is true that, in order to achieve the quasi-religious goals at the heart of the multiculturalists’ vision for America, heavy doses of brainwashing have been perpetrated on the public via school systems and throughout the media. The major targets have been youth and, most especially, White youth, as they have had their opinions and beliefs pummeled in “multicultural workshops,” and “sensitivity training” sessions. No one can deny that this 30- to 40-year campaign of re- education has been successful.

A recent caller to a New York overnight radio show is almost a stereotype of the proud, de-racinated White man. The de-racinated Zero. He described growing up in Missouri, in the midst of what sounded like a predominantly Anglo population. Years later, when he visited New York City, he claims that this was his first encounter with assertively ethnic people. There he discovered Greek sections of town, Italian sections, Chinese, etc.
It seems that this did not rest well with him, since he was used to calling himself simply “American,” and could not comprehend any reason to expand his ethnic identification with a hyphen. The Zero Man always resents the use of hyphens. Not for him that Greek-American, Italian-American, Polish-American stuff. He’s just a plain, old “American,” disaffiliated from any specific cultural lineage and expecting everyone else to disaffiliate themselves as well.

This caller sounded as if he would be uncomfortable if described as an “Anglo-American” or “British-American.” Mr. Zero probably would be uncomfortable, but why should a Chinese-American attempt to erase his Chinese ancestry to accommodate the deracinated notion of what constitutes an “American?”

The Founders did not seem to think of themselves as Zeros, yet misleading hype continues the fiction that this country was formed in a vacuum by people who shared no heritage. If this were so, why did John Jay thank Providence for giving this country to “one united people,” who were “descended from the same ancestors?” Who establishes anything, that is expected to take root, with someone else’s progeny in mind?

Western countries are now being inundated with populations of foreigners who actively discourse on who they are, and they’re not going to let you forget it. As masses of Muslims bring their distinctive customs, laws and disciplines to Christian countries, and push the envelope to acquire even more privileges, Westerners are waking up to the folly of having thrown open their borders to an alien civilization. At one time, Europeans understood from past experience what was at stake, as they protected themselves, for centuries, from further encroachment by Muslims, and their American cousins instinctively understood that there were limits to “assimilation.”

But that was yesterday. Today, Muslims learned that, this time around, there was no need to attempt a siege of Paris with guns or swords. Instead, they are able to hold hostage entire streets in that city, while they perform their Friday prayers in public. It’s a sort of in-your-face dare to the foolish Frenchman. The authorities must defer to this illegal activity, or risk the kind of chaos for which Muslims in France are already well known. Not only will there be no banning of the burka, there will be no imposition of unwanted rules, as Muslims let the French government know just who’s boss.

“We have been in darkness for a long time,” intoned Glenn Beck the night before his big rally. “We have been standing in spiritual darkness for decades.” Yes, one could say that, but not for the reasons you cite, Mr. Beck.

Maybe that darkness will be lifted when Whites finally extricate themselves from decades of witless but safe obsessions like cheerleading for obscene wars, dancing to the demands of civil rights hustlers, acting as self-appointed watch-keepers over who is deemed a true “patriot,” presuming to be able to read the mind and intentions of God, and intruding into the birthing predilections of strangers.

At some point these misguided conservatives must turn their attention away from delusions and focus on the explicit needs of their own race, instead of fearing to deal with the unspeakable—that is, diminishing as a group into minority numbers—60 percent, 40 percent, 20 percent. It will certainly mean stepping into a more dangerous zone (and Whites do like to play it safe), but there’s not much time left to muster the courage, if they truly want to preserve (or, more accurately, rescue) the core of that which the Founders set out to establish.

If these Whites ever get their priorities straight, who knows what they might accomplish? Perhaps they might begin by ceasing to expend so much energy on admonishing others for opting not to have children and, instead, begin a crusade among their own people to raise the birth rates of Whites. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if there were a reversal of what now appears to be the inevitable?

Such an appeal to procreation could not be based on those ugly harangues about “sin” and “murder,” in which conservatives love to indulge, but on a sense of pride and a concern for the future custodianship of this country. Of course, White reproductive rates might never be able to outstrip those of the Muslims and other Third Worlders, but a sound, restrictive immigration policy would go a long way towards evening up the demographics. If they fail to turn their focus to such realities, just who do these conservatives think are most likely to work at preserving the foundational institutions of the country they supposedly yearn to “take back?”

At his rally, Beck told over a quarter of a million hopeful Whites that the emergence of the Tea Parties and similar entities of discontented citizens is evidence of “the beginning of the Great Awakening in America.” Would that were so.


  1. Christopher Hitchens, “White Fright: Glenn Beck’s rally was large, vague, moist, and undirected—the Waterworld of white self-pity.” Slate, 30 August, 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/08/white_fright.html (accessed May 1, 2012).  ↩
  2. Ross Douthat, “Mr. Beck Goes to Washington,” New York Times, 29 August 2010; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/opinion/30douthat. html?_r=1 (accessed May 1, 2012).  ↩
  3. Paul Gottfried, “Outreach to Nowhere,” AlternativeRight.com, 28 August, 2010; http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of- corruption/the-outreach-to-nowhere/ (accessed May 1, 2012).  ↩
  4. The Promise Keepers, a not-for-profit charity, was founded in 1990 by a former Head Football Coach of the University of Colorado, Bill McCartney. His goal was to host mass, all-male religious revivals in football stadiums across America. Much like the Tea Party movement, the Promise Keepers were criticized by feminists as an organization of (overwhelmingly) White men meeting as men. Much like the Tea Party, the Promise Keepers had a vague agenda and fell over themselves denouncing racism and pursuing, in McCartney’s words, “racial reconciliation.”  ↩
No Comments on The Old-Time Religion

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search