I posted this as a reply to Alex's VNN article on Buchanan, but it never appeared, so I am posting it here.

I always love it when Alex writes an essay. I don’t have time to sift through the discussion forum looking for his little gems. That said, I strongly disagree with his attitude here.

Pat Buchanan will not save us. Nor will Ron Paul. Nor will any politician. Nor will we be saved by race realist policy wonkery. I see no salvation for our race short of creating a new political system, either by replacing the US system as a whole or by seceding from it.

But Buchanan the writer and commentator has his virtues and his uses.

1. Linder constructs his argument about strategy in terms of crafting a message that gets to dim ordinary people. I am not sure that is the right audience. Historically speaking, dim masses don’t count for much, because they are easily controlled by elites with access to political power and the power to shape attitudes through education, religion, and the press. How would Linder’s strategy change if white nationalists focused on changing white elite opinion?

2. The white elites in the US are not dim. If dim is the average, the elites are above dim. Some of them are fiendishly intelligent. The white elites in the US can, however, be characterized by high degrees of individualism, conformism (the two actually go hand in hand), materialism, and insecurity about their status. The richer they are, the more insecure they are, because the more they have to lose.

3. They can lose status, of course, because in the US, status depends more on achievement than birth. In more traditional societies, one has status through birth, whether one is a street sweeper or an aristocrat. Here, one’s status is “earned.”

4. Now, in both kinds of society, it is other people who “grant” one’s status. If nobody will treat an aristocrat like an aristocrat, then he has no status. But for whatever reason, in a country like England, an aristocrat like Sir Oswald Mosley might take very radical political positions, and even go to jail for them, but enough people still recognized him as an aristocrat that his social standing was never destroyed. In the US, we are much more individualistic. We grant or withhold status based on what each person does or says, not who his parents were.

5. At first glance, that seems like a great system. There are certainly fewer barriers to upward mobility. In the United States, money buys anything.

6. Unfortunately, money also guarantees nothing. Thus the people who fight hard for upward social mobility are also haunted by downward mobility. They know that the very individualism that allowed them to rise also allows them to fall back. For if their business partners, social contacts, and others turn their backs on them, they can easily be ruined, and whether this happens is merely a matter of individual choice, based upon nothing more stable than calculations of self-interest.

7. Tocqueville long ago observed that American individualism goes hand in hand with a high degree of social conformity. Why is this? Here is my theory: human beings are social animals, with a need for social approval and recognition. In individualist societies, however, the extension of social approval and recognition is highly conditional and constantly re-evaluated. Therefore, one has to be more attentive to gauging and conforming to public opinion in individualistic societies. Thus a high degree of individualism and social mobility promotes a high degree of social conformism, because people also value social approval and social stability. (The ambitious love upward mobility, but once they get theirs, they want to hold onto it.)

8. This is why social mobility in individualist societies is most available to people who combine intelligence and ambition with a shallow, extraverted, conformist personality type. Frat boys with MBAs.

9. Furthermore, the more ambitious one is, the more one needs social approval and recognition, because one needs to secure the cooperation of more people to do bigger things. Thus as one approaches the pinnacles of the white money and power elites, one finds individuals who have higher and higher levels of ambition, aggressiveness, narrow cunning intelligence, extroversion, social conformism, and a pathetic, childlike insecurity.

10. No sane society should be ruled by people like this. But we were far better off when we controlled our own “symbolic realm” — the realm of ideas, ideals, honors, and opinion that governs the granting and withholding of social status.

11. Unfortunately, that realm has now been captured by an alien, hostile elite, the Jews, who have rigged a new status system to reward whites who betray their own kind and promote and engage in race-destructive behavior. The segment of society most controlled by this hostile elite is the entertainment industry, which is thus on the cutting edge of race destructive white behavior. Whites in Hollywood attain status through anti-natalism, feminism, homosexuality, miscegenation, adopting non-white babies, and the like. Where Hollywood goes, there goes America, if the Jews who are scripting our dispossession and extinction have their way.

12. The strategic question of White Nationalism, therefore, is: How do White Nationalists change elite opinion when our plutocrats tend to be shallow, extroverted, and insecure about their status, which happens to be determined by our polar opposites, the Jews?

13. The problem is compounded when White Nationalists themselves aspire to attain or hold onto elite status. Aside from the personal benefits of such status to White Nationalists, such status is also beneficial to the movement, since elite members have greater access to the elite.

14. I believe that this is the context in which one has to understand the strategies of such people as Samuel Francis, Patrick Buchanan, and Jared Taylor. If I wanted to (a) promote white nationalism to status-conscious, insecure elites, and (b) maintain my own status and thus access to these elites, I would give a wide berth to the Jewish Question, since the Jews now control the status system in our society, and if they felt sufficiently threatened by people like Francis, Buchanan, et al., they would shut them down and destroy any access they might have to their preferred audience.

15. If I were Francis, Buchanan, etc., I imagine I would play the following dangerous game with the Jews. Because they would work to shut down and marginalize anyone who was openly impervious to the Jews, one would have to signal a certain porousness to them, specifically by cooperating with whatever marginal Jews will associate with White Nationalism, e.g., Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Marcus Epstein, Paul Gottfried, etc. These Jews obviously think they are getting something by cooperating with White Nationalists, if only the chance to spy on our gatherings.

16. But we have to give White Nationalists some credit too, for they might think they are using these Jews to advance White Nationalism. Maybe they are foolish or naive to think this, but that is probably what they think.

17. If Francis et al. were merely working as fronts for the Jews, in order to mislead and sabotage White Nationalism, then why would they have any public affiliation with Jews? Wouldn’t that blow their cover? Wouldn’t that make their task more difficult?

18. The mere fact that at people like Buchanan, Francis, and Taylor interact in a collegial fashion with certain marginal Jews does not constitute evidence that they are working for the Jews. It does not follow simply as a matter of logic. In fact, it would make more sense for them not to associate with Jews.

19. It is certainly reasonable and prudent to be suspicious of the judgment of White Nationalists who think they can manipulate Jewish opinion to advance our cause. It is certainly reasonable to be cautious in dealing with such people. But suspicion is not proof, and using such people cautiously does not mean that they cannot be used at all.

20. As an introvert, I have little patience for extroverts, and highly extroverted, status-insecure elite members like George W. Bush strike me as especially soulless and contemptible. Frankly, I wish we could save our race without dealing with such people. In my darker moods, I wonder if a race that allows itself to be led by people who put trivial issues of personal status ahead of collective survival can be saved, or even if it deserves to be saved. There is something disgusting about people who have all the money in the world and permit themselves less freedom to speak their minds than a truck driver or short order cook. As N. B. Forrest once asked on VNN about Mel Gibson: How much money does one need to give the Jews the finger? I wish I could shame these people, but I cannot, for their sense of shame is held captive by our enemies. Thus I have little patience for efforts to soft sell these people on their own race’s survival. What kind of people need to be soft-sold their own survival?

21. That said, Pat Buchanan has his uses. I recommend his books to skittish, insecure, status-conscious mainstream conservatives to nudge them in the right direction. If they like Buchanan and become comfortable advocating his take on the world, then perhaps they can be brought further still, by reading Sam Francis’ Essential Writings on Race, then American Renaissance, then maybe Kevin MacDonald.

22. Even if Alex’s worst suspicions about Buchanan are true, that would in no way lessen the value of his books. Even if the Jews are using him to mislead, we can still use him to wean people away from mainstream Republicanism in the direction of White Nationalism. To think that such attempts would be doomed to failure is to underestimate our own power and to ascribe to the Jews some sort of occult force of invincibility that they simply do not have. That is how losers think.

23. I do not think Pat Buchanan is our competitor. I do not think he is our enemy. And even if he were, we are strong and clever enough to use him for our own ends.

An afterthought: The depressing truth I am struggling to come to grips with is that our race must be saved IN SPITE OF ITSELF, and AGAINST ITS WILL. No healthy organism needs to be provided with a moral justification for its survival. But white people do. From a biological point of view, this is morbid and decadent. But since we are not in a position to simply remove this weakness, we have to deal with it. That is the most important strategic question.

Why would you attack this man? Support him.




MSNBC reacts after NJDC attack on Buchanan
By Eric Fingerhut · September 3, 2009
The National Jewish Democratic Council attacked MSNBC, the cable darling of the left -- and got results.

MSNBC.com has taken down a column by Pat Buchanan entitled "Did Hitler Want War?" from its Web site (here's the page with the column no longer posted) in which the MSNBC commentator argues that "Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps" and blames World War II on Poland and Great Britain.

"Buchanan has a long history of insensitivity when it comes to issues surrounding the Holocaust, and he has taken the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II as an opportunity to voice these opinions once again," said NJDC president David Harris before the column was taken down.

In a statement after MSNBC removed it, Harris noted, as he did in his first statement, that MSNBC should reconsider the platform it gives Buchanan on its network.

"MSNBC took the responsible action and removed Pat Buchanan's column defending Adolf Hitler from their website, but no worthy news organization should employ and promote a commentator who engages in such vile fiction," said Harris.

Aaron Keyak of NJDC has some background on Buchanan's long history here in the Huffington Post.

I posted this as a reply to Alex's VNN article on Buchanan, but it never appeared, so I am posting it here.

I always love it when Alex writes an essay. I don’t have time to sift through the discussion forum looking for his little gems. That said, I strongly disagree with his attitude here.

Pat Buchanan will not save us. Nor will Ron Paul. Nor will any politician. Nor will we be saved by race realist policy wonkery. I see no salvation for our race short of creating a new political system, either by replacing the US system as a whole or by seceding from it.

But Buchanan the writer and commentator has his virtues and his uses.

1. Linder constructs his argument about strategy in terms of crafting a message that gets to dim ordinary people. I am not sure that is the right audience. Historically speaking, dim masses don’t count for much, because they are easily controlled by elites with access to political power and the power to shape attitudes through education, religion, and the press. How would Linder’s strategy change if white nationalists focused on changing white elite opinion?

False dichotomy. We can't reach the masses without controlling tv, so that is out of the question. We go after whoever we can get - elite or average or dummies. We put out the message in multiple forms, which VNN has always done. Most WN is, as Rockwell said, aimed exclusively at the upper middle class. There's a place for that, but in many ways those are the people who have the most to lose, even in a multicultural jew-owned system.


2. The white elites in the US are not dim. If dim is the average, the elites are above dim. Some of them are fiendishly intelligent. The white elites in the US can, however, be characterized by high degrees of individualism, conformism (the two actually go hand in hand), materialism, and insecurity about their status. The richer they are, the more insecure they are, because the more they have to lose.

3. They can lose status, of course, because in the US, status depends more on achievement than birth. In more traditional societies, one has status through birth, whether one is a street sweeper or an aristocrat. Here, one’s status is “earned.”

4. Now, in both kinds of society, it is other people who “grant” one’s status. If nobody will treat an aristocrat like an aristocrat, then he has no status. But for whatever reason, in a country like England, an aristocrat like Sir Oswald Mosley might take very radical political positions, and even go to jail for them, but enough people still recognized him as an aristocrat that his social standing was never destroyed. In the US, we are much more individualistic. We grant or withhold status based on what each person does or says, not who his parents were.

5. At first glance, that seems like a great system. There are certainly fewer barriers to upward mobility. In the United States, money buys anything.

6. Unfortunately, money also guarantees nothing. Thus the people who fight hard for upward social mobility are also haunted by downward mobility. They know that the very individualism that allowed them to rise also allows them to fall back. For if their business partners, social contacts, and others turn their backs on them, they can easily be ruined, and whether this happens is merely a matter of individual choice, based upon nothing more stable than calculations of self-interest.

7. Tocqueville long ago observed that American individualism goes hand in hand with a high degree of social conformity. Why is this? Here is my theory: human beings are social animals, with a need for social approval and recognition. In individualist societies, however, the extension of social approval and recognition is highly conditional and constantly re-evaluated. Therefore, one has to be more attentive to gauging and conforming to public opinion in individualistic societies. Thus a high degree of individualism and social mobility promotes a high degree of social conformism, because people also value social approval and social stability. (The ambitious love upward mobility, but once they get theirs, they want to hold onto it.)

8. This is why social mobility in individualist societies is most available to people who combine intelligence and ambition with a shallow, extraverted, conformist personality type. Frat boys with MBAs.

9. Furthermore, the more ambitious one is, the more one needs social approval and recognition, because one needs to secure the cooperation of more people to do bigger things. Thus as one approaches the pinnacles of the white money and power elites, one finds individuals who have higher and higher levels of ambition, aggressiveness, narrow cunning intelligence, extroversion, social conformism, and a pathetic, childlike insecurity.

Good analysis, these are indeed the ones who get ahead, as anyone who has worked in the corporate world can see. But I don't think you're drawing the right conclusions. If the elite in the Kwa today are conformists driven by money and status concerns, they won't join us until we've won or are on the verge of winning. Then they'll lie to themselves that they were winter patriots. And if the nazis start losing, they'll be the first to jump ship. Making a direct appeal to the upper middle class or even the rich is rather beside the point. The tiny minority who agrees with us or is principled will find us anyway. The rest will just scoff because they are philistine: all that matters i what kind of car we're driving, how much money we have in the bank, how many others genuflect before us. "If you were right, you'd be running things." The masses are women and animals in their fundamental attitude toward authority.


10. No sane society should be ruled by people like this. But we were far better off when we controlled our own “symbolic realm” — the realm of ideas, ideals, honors, and opinion that governs the granting and withholding of social status.

11. Unfortunately, that realm has now been captured by an alien, hostile elite, the Jews, who have rigged a new status system to reward whites who betray their own kind and promote and engage in race-destructive behavior. The segment of society most controlled by this hostile elite is the entertainment industry, which is thus on the cutting edge of race destructive white behavior. Whites in Hollywood attain status through anti-natalism, feminism, homosexuality, miscegenation, adopting non-white babies, and the like. Where Hollywood goes, there goes America, if the Jews who are scripting our dispossession and extinction have their way.

And they have been quite successful - the average person acts like a movie star. He never wants to criticize anybody or take a position on anything unless he's 100% confident everyone will agree. Until we control tv, this will be the default position of the average person, who watches 8 hours of tv a day.


12. The strategic question of White Nationalism, therefore, is: How do White Nationalists change elite opinion when our plutocrats tend to be shallow, extroverted, and insecure about their status, which happens to be determined by our polar opposites, the Jews?

You've answered your own question by your description of these elites. They'll join us AFTER we win. Hence, they are insignificant save as a subset of the main problem, the jews. We don't change the minds of the existing elite, we form a new elite. That's how the German-nationalist winners did it. Fundamental lesson: don't look to losers (conservative like Buchanan, Francis, Brimelow) for clues, look to winners - Nazis and jews.


13. The problem is compounded when White Nationalists themselves aspire to attain or hold onto elite status. Aside from the personal benefits of such status to White Nationalists, such status is also beneficial to the movement, since elite members have greater access to the elite.

I could cite dozens of examples that prove this isn't the case. Lindbergh would be the best. No one could have more public respect, fame or money, yet he got nowhere speaking against the jew. The challenge is not to join the existing elite but to form a new one. A new elite based on honor and blood, rather than status and money. That's how the Nazis did it. That's the true alternative to the System. NOT being a whore. What a kooky fresh idea. NOT selling out? Unthinkable - yet strangely attractive.

If we don't even respect our own, how are we ever going to change things? If you're trying to fit into an existing elite, you're going to have to adopt their ways and value. That will reflect in reaching out to respectable, responsible people, and tailoring your political critiques until you're salonfaehig. That's the very definition of selling out.


14. I believe that this is the context in which one has to understand the strategies of such people as Samuel Francis, Patrick Buchanan, and Jared Taylor. If I wanted to (a) promote white nationalism to status-conscious, insecure elites, and (b) maintain my own status and thus access to these elites, I would give a wide berth to the Jewish Question, since the Jews now control the status system in our society, and if they felt sufficiently threatened by people like Francis, Buchanan, et al., they would shut them down and destroy any access they might have to their preferred audience.

How has it worked?

It has failed.

My strategy could work. But it would threaten TOO's and Vdare's income, so you'll keep doing the same old thing: encouraging young rising WNs like James Edwards to take the 'jew' out of his post and replace it with 'liberal.' That's the wise move...if your consideration is your personal interests. Politically it's the wrong move.

As I say, ours is a quest, a cause, it is not a career. You should see that Sam Francis tried to have it both ways - that is exactly why I advocate forcing people like him to come down on one side or the other. Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan are and were career girls, and that's what they will always be. The type of change we seek does not come from career girls, it come from essentially religious crusaders.

As Eric Thomson says, "principles protect people." The principle that protects WN is excluding jews and publicly declaring ourselves pro-White. Not conservatives, and praising clowns like Gottfried and career-girl Catholics like Buchanan.


15. If I were Francis, Buchanan, etc., I imagine I would play the following dangerous game with the Jews. Because they would work to shut down and marginalize anyone who was openly impervious to the Jews, one would have to signal a certain porousness to them, specifically by cooperating with whatever marginal Jews will associate with White Nationalism, e.g., Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Marcus Epstein, Paul Gottfried, etc. These Jews obviously think they are getting something by cooperating with White Nationalists, if only the chance to spy on our gatherings.

Come on, Greg. Where has this cleverness ever gotten us? Where did it ever get fat boy? He got EXACTLY what he would have gotten if he had openly declared for White Nationalism. Except he sacrificed all manliness, pride and integrity by trying to play both sides down the middle. How can you give any respect to the sowy old queer when there were people like William Pierce in the world?

Where has Buchanan or Francis ever cited Pierce?

The real problem here is that too many of the high-end WN are WN only intellectually. In their soul, they are cringing, hat-doffing, money-and-property-respecting conservatives. They write good stuff, I enjoy reading it, it probably serves some purpose...but it cannot produce the change we need. I urge you to read the NS stuff. You can learn an awful lot reading about the NS movement and the decisions it made, the different paths it could have taken. Do you not think that Hitler couldn't have sold out and taken a leading position with an established party? Of course he could have. Why didn't he? Because he wasn't a career girl. He actually meant it. And meaning it meant devoting his life to replacing a system he knew was bent on Germany's downfall. One thing the Nazis said that really struck me, I think Goebbels said it, was that the masses may be stupid, but they are acute in perceiving whether someone really means it. I like to put it, they know when someone believes his own bullshit. And if the person does not, they won't follow him. They might listen and laugh, but they won't follow him. And that's where all the Canny cleverness you seem to be advising comes a-cropper. Sam didn't mean it. Nor do any of his copycats. He was willing to call himself a White in public. He always kept the cause at arm's length. We might damage his career if he were seen with us in public.

Sam didn't mean it. And that's why I say that no one who takes his failed tack will succeed. You can't sneak up on the jews. Attracting conformist, status-and-money-driven whites is a mug's game. They will come when we win, until then they have nothing to offer. We need religious crusaders. We need people with nothing to lose. We need people with actual ability.

The question you should ask yourself, Greg, is whether you want to encourage more people to be like Sam Francis or like William Pierce. All the pretty writing in the world won't change anything. You have to speak out in public under your real name, and more than that you have to believe, and have the audience believe that you believe, the vital change you say is needed.

Our thing is a cause and a quest - it is not a career. When you praise cowards like Buchanan, who removed Hadden's Holo-refutation from his site, you're subsidizing cowardice. You're going to get more punch pullers. More Edwards worrying first about the effects on his career of naming the jew, and less about the truth, and what his people need to hear. Isn't it self-evident that cowardice is a bad thing?


16. But we have to give White Nationalists some credit too, for they might think they are using these Jews to advance White Nationalism. Maybe they are foolish or naive to think this, but that is probably what they think.

Does Sam Francis seem clever enough to use jews? One laughs to type it. There's no way to beat jews except to stand up to them. Attack them. Laugh at them. Name them. Beat them down. Those are the proven ways to defeat them - not to act all cagey and sneaky and pretend you're outwitting them.


17. If Francis et al. were merely working as fronts for the Jews, in order to mislead and sabotage White Nationalism, then why would they have any public affiliation with Jews? Wouldn’t that blow their cover? Wouldn’t that make their task more difficult?

Hold on. I have never accused Francis of being a front for the jews. Francis was simply a coward - a career girl trying to have it both ways. Francis, I believe, truly was a WN, he was just too cowardly to write what he knew, felt and believed openly. He can be dismissed as as gutless whiner. He wouldn't stand up for WN cause publicly, but he lambasted WN for not defending him when he was fired by the neocon Washington Times. That shows you his character.


18. The mere fact that at people like Buchanan, Francis, and Taylor interact in a collegial fashion with certain marginal Jews does not constitute evidence that they are working for the Jews. It does not follow simply as a matter of logic. In fact, it would make more sense for them not to associate with Jews.


P.T. Taylor, yes. He is a front for the jews. He refused to take a PAID ad for The Line in the Sand. He takes the anti-White pro-jew position that jews can NEVER be mentioned as the cause of the laws he seeks changed - the laws ending free association and opening our borders. Jared Taylor's claimed position and his actual actions are irreconcilable and indefensible. He is not a WN, he is the jew's attempt to set up a storefront to attract whites disenchanted with Republicanism and drown them in the whirlpool of endless whining about nigger crime.

Buchanan is not a front for the jews, he is an anti-racist Catholic who believes white nationalism is immoral. He functions, with his knowledge, as a safety outlet for a corrupt and genocidal System. Buchanan justifies this because he holds to the fifties Catholic doctrine that a man's duty is to earn as much as he possibly can, and anything else is immoral. Even though Buchanan has no family and has millions in the bank. What Buchanan does, as a professional technique, is take the best arguments of the WN, geld them, and serve them to the masses, as a way to slay their hunger for real politics. But nothing ever comes from it. Praising him only means you'll get more people acting like him.


19. It is certainly reasonable and prudent to be suspicious of the judgment of White Nationalists who think they can manipulate Jewish opinion to advance our cause. It is certainly reasonable to be cautious in dealing with such people. But suspicion is not proof, and using such people cautiously does not mean that they cannot be used at all.

You're not using them, they're using you. The right policy is to attack clowns like Gottfried, not suck up to them.


20. As an introvert, I have little patience for extroverts, and highly extroverted, status-insecure elite members like George W. Bush strike me as especially soulless and contemptible. Frankly, I wish we could save our race without dealing with such people. In my darker moods, I wonder if a race that allows itself to be led by people who put trivial issues of personal status ahead of collective survival can be saved, or even if it deserves to be saved. There is something disgusting about people who have all the money in the world and permit themselves less freedom to speak their minds than a truck driver or short order cook. As N. B. Forrest once asked on VNN about Mel Gibson: How much money does one need to give the Jews the finger? I wish I could shame these people, but I cannot, for their sense of shame is held captive by our enemies. Thus I have little patience for efforts to soft sell these people on their own race’s survival. What kind of people need to be soft-sold their own survival?

The only one who could be shamed was Paul Craig Roberts. I cannot prove it, but I know that it was my shaming him for years that radicalized him. That's why I advocate the same treatment for the others. Even though it won't work in their cases, it will keep them and - more important - youngsters looking on in mind of the right politics and the right way to act. The fact is the urge to conform and obey authority is built in humans like dogs. Not much can be done about it. We simply have to form a new racial head, and attach it to the body of the people. But the body won't follow a head that doesn't believe it's own bullshit. The idea of Fat Sam slicking his way to success is about as plausible as him going down the chimney to deliver presents on Christmas eve.

If we want change, we have to get our hands wet.


21. That said, Pat Buchanan has his uses. I recommend his books to skittish, insecure, status-conscious mainstream conservatives to nudge them in the right direction. If they like Buchanan and become comfortable advocating his take on the world, then perhaps they can be brought further still, by reading Sam Francis’ Essential Writings on Race, then American Renaissance, then maybe Kevin MacDonald.

But you can get all that without praising and sucking up to Buchanan.

What do you think is likelier to radicalize Buchanan? Praising him or mocking him as a coward? The answer ought to be obvious. The bolder we are, the wimpier he appears. If we WN don't do the pushing, no one does. We should be shouting to the world that we are not those worthless pathetic gutless cringing remonstrating eternal-loser conservatives. Not praising them and recommending them.


22. Even if Alex’s worst suspicions about Buchanan are true

It's not a suspicion. I'm saying he's part of a System that is anti-White. I'm saying he is well aware of the fact that the System is anti-White. I'm saying he fully appreciates his own value to the anti-White system as a safety valve. I'm saying as a good little Catholic, he knows that the amount of money he can earn by filling his role in the anti-White media/political System outweighs all other considerations. Race is an abstraction - Pat Buchanan's, Peter Brimelow's bank account is a reality! $PLC - pathetic. How 'bout Vdonate? Peter Brimelow isn't concerned with saving the White race, he's concerned with ahering to ZOG's 501c guidelines.


, that would in no way lessen the value of his books. Even if the Jews are using him to mislead, we can still use him to wean people away from mainstream Republicanism in the direction of White Nationalism. To think that such attempts would be doomed to failure is to underestimate our own power and to ascribe to the Jews some sort of occult force of invincibility that they simply do not have. That is how losers think.

Yeah, but they don't lead people our way. Buchanan does the same thing conservatives always do. He starts with a seemingly radical proposition and then works his way back to the party line. Yawn.


23. I do not think Pat Buchanan is our competitor. I do not think he is our enemy. And even if he were, we are strong and clever enough to use him for our own ends.

If your idea of using him involves praising him then you don't get it. The minute you praise Pat Buchanan, who always pulls punches, you undermine our cause and shit on men who went the whole way in far more compelling prose than Patsy Decline ever put to paper. If you praise Pat Buchanan, he is using you.


An afterthought: The depressing truth I am struggling to come to grips with is that our race must be saved IN SPITE OF ITSELF, and AGAINST ITS WILL. No healthy organism needs to be provided with a moral justification for its survival. But white people do. From a biological point of view, this is morbid and decadent. But since we are not in a position to simply remove this weakness, we have to deal with it. That is the most important strategic question.

No, not against its will. The people show in many ways they believe what we do. But being conformist animals, as we all are to good degree, they will not follow those who will not lead. You're angry at people who won't follow when you won't lead. That's precisely the Sam Francis position. You expect the ditch diggers to be better men than you are. That's not how Hitler and Goebbels operated. That's not how the jews operate. They are winners. Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis are losers. Stop looking to losers for tips. Otherwise you're fundamentally the same as the money- and status-driven conformists you began by deriding, because those are the only advantages the Buchanans and Francises have over the Pierces and VNNers.

The fundamental question is whether we believe our own bullshit - and give proof of it by our actions. There's no getting around that question. The people we seek will never follow anyone who talks life-and-death but won't use his real name in public, won't defend our race in explict terms, won't name the jew our main enemy.

Excellent discussion! You all are getting to the heart of it. Skipping the distractions and going right to the point.
You're right on target about the professional types in this individualistic society. They go for whatever is popular, for the betterment of their careers. If burning niggers and kikes were the most popular opinion, they'd be all for it. I've seen it first hand with my brother. Now, he has never been a die-hard white nationalist like me, but he seemed to have some common sense in the matter. That is, when Bush was in office. Now that obama is there, Democrats and their ideology can do no wrong. He thinks it's wonderful to have mexcrements flooding our country, and niggers get all the affirmative action positions they can because they've only held positions of power since the 60's. :rolleyes: Total turnaround in a few shorts months. His career is being a financial consultant, so that explains it. He drives his BMW and has his granite countertops and the like installed in his house, while he and his bitch wife lament racists like me. It's really sad to watch it happen to a family member.
Anyway, keep up the good dialogue here. You're bringing up some really good points. Thanks!

An absolutely great discussion...maybe the best I've seen on any forum. I think Alex ought to lock it, and only allow himself and Greg Johnson in the thread.

I can't add anything, but I may be able to confirm a few points.

Among the upper middle class and those with pretensions to the upper middle class, there are only two spots along the political spectrum that are acceptable. You can define yourself as middle Democrat liberal or as middle Republican conservative. If you are one of these, you can move with freedom, even among those who take the other fake position. Anything else and you are dead meat.

A friend of mine from Paris made this distinction between Americans and French. It may explain why the French have had a revolution and the Americans have not. The supposed American revolution was just a dispute among bankers and rich land owners, fought by peasants. It was not a revolution.

The French have, according to my friend, three classes...Aristocrats, Petit Bourgeois, and Peasants. Americans do as well, we just don't admit it.

In France the Petit Bourgeois identify with, or at least pretend to identify with, the Peasants. In the United States the Petit Bourgeois identify with the Aristocrats.

This explains why in Paris, if workers kidnap their plant owners over some perceived outrage, a million Parisians will take to the streets in support of the workers. If plant workers in the United States picket a plant that has reneged on pensions, a million TV viewers will cheer the police who club the workers to the ground.

And my own observation...every American believes that someday he will win the lottery. It may not be the buy-a-ticket at the Quickie Mart lottery. It may be a scheme for riches on the web, or any other unrealistic thing, but he too will be rich. This is the worst trait of Americans. It takes their focus off themselves and their fellow peasants, which we truly are, and replaces the focus on the totally unrealistic thought that they should support the Aristocrats and shun the losers, the peasants.

You are not going to win the lottery. If you are poor or working class now, you will likely die poor or working class. I'm 64; I've lived on three continents, and traveled about. I'm very sociable and I have known a whole lot of people in a whole lot of places. I've known exactly four people who when I first knew them were of modest means, but later were rich. Each one of these inherited his new riches from rich families whose money had been made centuries before. They didn't win the lottery,they didn't build a great business or come up with a clever web scheme, and neither will you. They inherited their money from their rich families. If you don't have a rich family, you will almost certainly end up in the same class into which you were born.

All this may seem somewhat off-topic, but I think it isn't. Above I'm only writing about white Americans. I don't give a fig about others. If white Americans can't even support their fellow middle class or working class whites, and if the upper middle class aspire to only support their material position and aspirations to even higher material position...then, what will it take for the middle class or working class to support something as far on the fringe and dangerous as WN?

I don't know. That's why I think Alex should only allow himself and GJ to participate in the thread. I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket.

Mike

Alex Linder said:

My strategy could work. But it would threaten TOO's and Vdare's income, so you'll keep doing the same old thing: encouraging young rising WNs like James Edwards to take the 'jew' out of his post and replace it with 'liberal.' That's the wise move...if your consideration is your personal interests. Politically it's the wrong move.

I subscribe to Edwards' emails, and I can assure you he has used that word, recently, in a harsh and negative way.

Alex Linder said:



I subscribe to Edwards' emails, and I can assure you he has used that word, recently, in a harsh and negative way.

Well, it's a difficult line the grinners and trimmers have to walk. If he leaves the word in, he gets shit from the Buchananite cowards. If he takes it out, he gets shit from WN. That's the fundamental problem with the type that tries to have it both ways. These mugwumps need to figure out whether they're fish or fowl.

People are not yet really comfortable with their darker emotions. There is rising anger, but it will be a while yet before people will tell themselves it's ok to hate and then act on that hatred.

Moving from conservative nationalism to revolutionary nationalism is a process. Starting off with Buchanan doesn't mean you have to end with him.

Alex,

1. I think that you are mistaking plausible stories for truths, e.g., that Jared Taylor runs a front operation, that Sam Francis was a secret WN but was just too much of a coward to go public, that Buchanan is merely in it for the system, money, etc., etc. But To say that your stories are plausible means simply that they conform to what is publicly observable.

2. What I have tried to offer is an alternative theory of why these people do what they do, a theory that is consistent with believing that these people might be sincere in their WN convictions (or near-WN convictions in the case of Buchanan), and chose their strategy based on their understanding of (1) the importance of elites in social change in general, and (2) their understanding of the particular character of American elites.

3. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I should state that my alternative account is just another likely story. I would bet money that my story is more likely than yours. But I am not claiming to have inside information on what these people are up to. I have never met Patrick Buchanan, much less talked with him at length. I have met Francis and Taylor, and I have both observed them and talked to them at length. I also have close friends who have been their friends and collaborators for decades.

But I do not pretend to know these men's souls. I am just offering an alternative theory that explains their actions without ascribing the base motives you do. This is not because I am too "nice" to ascribe base motives to people. I am pretty far from being nice and charitable. I am just concerned with accuracy. Not accuracy for its own sake, but accuracy for the purposes of thinking about strategies for saving our people.

4. I don't personally advocate or follow the strategy I was outlining in my post. Everyone in our cause needs to determine his own level of explicitness and involvement. So I understand why people might adopt such a strategy. But it is not mine.

These are some points where I am in agreement with you:

1. People who hesitate to take radical stands always calculate in terms of the "friends" and access the might lose, but they never wonder if they might gain better friends -- friends who admire them for their courage rather than condemn them for it.

2. You are right about sincerity: white people who can perceive nothing else can perceive sincerity. White people require it of their leaders and respect it even in their enemies.

3. At TOQ we name the Jew. We also declare ourselves explicitly pro-white. I never would have gotten involved with the journal in the first place if it did not do both things.

4. I agree that we need to build a counter-elite that aims at displacing our Jewish elite just as Jews displaced our WASP elite. The way to do that is to attract the best people possible from all levels of society. If we attract members of the current elite, only the most honest and courageous will come, and they will have to associate with us on our terms, rather than the reverse. If we try to associate with existing elites on their terms, then, yes, the only way to do that is through preaching half- and quarter-truths and sending mixed messages.

5. Conservatism is a losing strategy. Unfortunately, most WNs come out of conservatism, and even if they consciously reject it, their instincts and unconscious presuppositions are still overwhelmingly conservative. Even worse, American conservatism is just an old-fashioned form of liberalism.

There are bona fide WNs who actually think that we will beat our enemies with superior arguments. Arguments have their uses, but when it comes to Realpolitik, they are epiphenomena. I think TOQ's greatest value is as a tool of attracting highly intelligent white people into a social network. It is the social network, a concrete human community, that will actually change the world.

Greg is very much on target in his description of our extraverted, materialistic, status conscious elites. I also find his account of Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, and Jared Taylor to be the more plausible one. Personally, I don't think Amren is a Jewish front. It is more likely that Taylor is trying to tackle one taboo at a time. If he was a true anti-anti-Semite, he wouldn't hesitate to attack us like Lawrence Auster or Ian Jobling. It is telling that he hasn't done so.

Alex makes a great point when he says that the status conscious, upper middle class White professionals (the pathetic SWPL's) will only jump on our bandwagon when our victory appears inevitable or white racialism becomes fashionable. I agree with his argument that a vanguardist WN counter-elite (one driven by an almost religious conviction) must be created. Nothing will ever come of the HBD/RR policy wonks. We're also of the same mind with regards to 'conservatism'. There is a substantial amount of agreement here.

As for Buchanan, I don't like his cowardice either, but admittedly he has his uses. It was his book The Death of the West that indirectly led me to stumble upon White Nationalism in 2001. I've read most his columns and all of his books since that time. I learned a lot in the process; enough to clearly see beyond paleoconservatism. His most valuable contribution to date was his recent book on the Second World War.

As in Germany, the American working class and lower middle class has the most potential for mass political mobilization. White Nationalism doesn't seem to have any problem attracting highly educated introverts either. It is a matter of combining the two.

I don't see this so much in terms of "truth", it's more like a clash of religions or mindsets. white racism happens to be the most demonized religion right now.

I know you all don't like to see it as a religion, but truly it is when it reaches the level of the people on this forum who place the white race above all else. (I am excluding myself here, sorry guys. my loyalties to loved ones - some of whom are non-white - will always take precedence to my loyalties to the white race. however, the mere fact that I even care at all about whites is amazing to me, as I never even gave it much thought before a couple years ago.)

if a white man would honestly prefer to live in a world where (outside of perhaps israel) the forces of globalization have created a monolithic race of muds who live in paleolithic conditions, he is quite sensible to support the status quo.

his opposition to us is not based on any falsehoods or on him being stupid or imperceptive, but simply based on the fact that he fundamentally believes living like a mud caveman is "right" (that is his religion, in a sense). we would have to convince him that living like a mud caveman is "wrong" (that is our religion).

how to do this is a good question, but certainly calling him (intellectually) stupid or trying to logically prove to him he is wrong with your brilliant, airtight arguments is the wrong way to go about it.

probably the only way to sway him in your direction is to earn his respect or love, and then make your views known to him. if you think about it, this is ultimately how every one of us became racist.

"My strategy could work. But it would threaten TOO's and Vdare's income"

What is TOO?

Alex,

1. I think that you are mistaking plausible stories for truths, e.g., that Jared Taylor runs a front operation, that Sam Francis was a secret WN but was just too much of a coward to go public, that Buchanan is merely in it for the system, money, etc., etc. But To say that your stories are plausible means simply that they conform to what is publicly observable.

Use history. Look at the John Birch Society. RP Oliver learned it was a false front. Rockwell, Pierce and Oliver were all kicked out when they started asking questions about the jewish basis of communism. Oliver researched the matter and discovered that Robert Welch was paid by jews to run the JBS as a false front to drain off anti-communist sentiment. The feds and jews also set up William F. Buckley's magazine, gave him every award (and his son says he was even on his deathbed concerned about awards) and promotion in exchange for his ridding conservatism of anti-semites and racists, making it safe for jews, coopting the American right. Now consider these:

FACT: Jared Taylor has stated he wants to be the William F. Buckley of racialism.

FACT: Jared Taylor comes from exactly the same class of WASP traitors that gave us the Abolitionist and the Christian missionary. In fact his parents were missionaries. They spent their lives trying to infect Japan with Christianity.

FACT: Jared Taylor refuses paid ads for products criticizing jews.

FACT: Jared Taylor accepts money from jewish backers, and forbids commenters from discussing jewish motives in creating the types of problems the site is ostensibly devoted to alleviating.

FACT: Jared Taylor tells whites to blame their own ancestors, even though 99.9% of these had no power and didn't want the changes the jews forced through, and demonstrated that fact in every opinion poll ever taken.

Logic, anyone? It amazes me that you and Prozium swallow Taylor's intellectual fraudulence without a blink. I don't have canceled checks to Taylor from the ADL, but Occam's razor - all logic and history - show you that Taylor and Amren exist and have as their intended function the protection of jews from blame for America's racial problems, and the safety-valving of Whites grown increasingly disgusted with what our country has become.

Jared Taylor is precisely what I say: a polished turd. Just like William F. Buckley. He is not what he appears to be. You are allowing the fact that you and Macdonald like him personally, Greg, to blind you to his function. This is a very serious problem among the White right - and in Anglo culture in general - the inability to separate politics from personality. Jared Taylor is our enemy.

And in general, you could have saved time in your response simply by saying you take everything Buchanan/Francis/Taylor says at face value. Like they, you insist they're all working some strategy. Funny this strategy has never been written out. Things are generally not written out because they can't survive the light of day, or the making-light of laughter. That is why I revamped this forum and added subforums specifically dealing with these issues: strategy, verbal war, violence. I have laid out the right strategy to follow. You insist that P.T. and Canny and Mrs Decline have a strategy, well, lay it out. What is this clever strategy?

I'll tell you what it is - all these strategies are personal, not political. They are aimed to ensure that what is best for Francis, Buchanan and Taylor is what happens. But prove me wrong. Give me just a soupcon of the strategy that any of these have so I can compare it with the one I advise. I don't think you can do this because there is no strategy. The cover stories you so willingly accept from Francis and the rest are personal strategies, they have nothing to do with what's best for the race. That's my main contention here - none of these people are taking any thought whatsoever for what is best for the White race and how to bring it about.

But I'm willing to listen. Give me CCC, LOSer, MARshmallow, Amrent - give me any overt declaration of strategy for making things better for our race. How do they propose to do that? I have never seen word one of any kind of strategy.


2. What I have tried to offer is an alternative theory of why these people do what they do, a theory that is consistent with believing that these people might be sincere in their WN convictions (or near-WN convictions in the case of Buchanan), and chose their strategy based on their understanding of (1) the importance of elites in social change in general, and (2) their understanding of the particular character of American elites.

What you're saying is you've bought Canny's Burnham bullshit. I will politely refrain from laughing at someone who conjures "Middle American Revolutionaries" as a solution to our problem. My only question is, was he grazing a bag of marshmallows when it occurred to him?

Why would you look to a loser like Francis anyway if you were trying to effect a revolution? Do revolutions come out of tepid folk who throw away their most powerful weapon, race, to grab the marshmallow bag of geography as the basis for the change they seek? Why can't you see the self-interested cowardice of Canny Sammy for what it is? You're looking in the wrong area: read the old NS stuff. Men bent on serious political change look nothing like Taylor, Francis or Buchanan. Not a single person on this site believes any of those men would risk a pinky in defense of the white race. Men who won't even defend their cause publicly and verbally are hardly going to do it physically.

Face the facts, Greg. Canny had no strategy other than self-preservation, and he sucked at that too. Jared Taylor is in this to protect the jews. Pat Buchanan is a good writer, a good speaker, but for the change we need, he's a dog whose entire history shows he will run back whimpering to ZOG every time the question of loyalty is raised. Patrick Buchanan is loyal to the Catholic church, to the commentariat, and to ZOG's emoluments, not to the white race.


3. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I should state that my alternative account is just another likely story. I would bet money that my story is more likely than yours.

It's not a question of more likely. You're simply repeating the line put out by the late Francis. You're simply taking their words and intentions at face value. I'm saying you're wrong to do that. They have no strategy, and you cannot name it. Their strategic concerns were for their own personal advancement, their careers.


But I am not claiming to have inside information on what these people are up to. I have never met Patrick Buchanan, much less talked with him at length. I have met Francis and Taylor, and I have both observed them and talked to them at length. I also have close friends who have been their friends and collaborators for decades.

I know the personal connections. What you can't see is that the fact that you and Macdonald personally like Jared Taylor is blinding you to the blindingly obvious facts of his function.


But I do not pretend to know these men's souls. I am just offering an alternative theory that explains their actions without ascribing the base motives you do.

You gauge their souls by their actions. I correctly summed Sam Francis' character in 'Canny Sammy,' and every single person, you included, knows exactly what I mean. He was a career girl. Career girls have to do what's best for their careers. Yeah, they always have some explanation, some cover story for why they "can't" do this or that. And, being highly intelligent folks, they can make a persuasive case. When you throw in their social inferiors' desires to mix and mingle with the powerful, why, it can even become a compelling and accepted case. (I recall reading once that the average homosexual's life dream was to host dinner parties, salons, for the rich, educated and tasteful.) Don't let the personal trump the objective politics, Greg. And keep in mind, I am judging Canny and Pat and The Turd by a standard I can meet myself. I'm not asking these slicksters to do anything I have not done. That is how winners like Hitler and Goebbels and the jews do it. The losers, like Pat and Sam and The Turd, always have a reason they "can't" do the objectively necessary thing.


This is not because I am too "nice" to ascribe base motives to people. I am pretty far from being nice and charitable. I am just concerned with accuracy. Not accuracy for its own sake, but accuracy for the purposes of thinking about strategies for saving our people.

So lay it out then. Lay out Francis', Buchanan's or The Turd's strategy. I say there is none. I say none of you have seriously thought about it for ten seconds. My strategy is the only one that has been made public and so it stands until someone refutes it. My strategy is based not on copycatting generations of conservatives losers, shills, fronts and idiots, but on a realistic reading of jews and how they act, they being the real power in this society, and what it takes to defeat them, based on knowledge of their history in Germany in the 20th century and their history in Europe vs the Catholic church for 2,000 years.


4. I don't personally advocate or follow the strategy I was outlining in my post. Everyone in our cause needs to determine his own level of explicitness and involvement. So I understand why people might adopt such a strategy. But it is not mine.

Nah, you're describing menu-liberalism. That will never defeat the jews. We have to comply with reality. Reality is that we will get smeared, tortured and killed if we stand up to the jews. You and the boys can pretend otherwise, but that just makes you conservatives, which is another word for excuse-makers.


These are some points where I am in agreement with you:

1. People who hesitate to take radical stands always calculate in terms of the "friends" and access the might lose, but they never wonder if they might gain better friends -- friends who admire them for their courage rather than condemn them for it.

Adopting our cause makes for mental health because we no longer follow the path of the cult in denying gigantic subsets of reality.


2. You are right about sincerity: white people who can perceive nothing else can perceive sincerity. White people require it of their leaders and respect it even in their enemies.


3. At TOQ we name the Jew. We also declare ourselves explicitly pro-white. I never would have gotten involved with the journal in the first place if it did not do both things.

Good. You guys are putting out a lot of solid material, no doubt about it, and great credit to you for running the show. You are a great writer and a great editor too.


4. I agree that we need to build a counter-elite that aims at displacing our Jewish elite just as Jews displaced our WASP elite. The way to do that is to attract the best people possible from all levels of society. If we attract members of the current elite, only the most honest and courageous will come, and they will have to associate with us on our terms, rather than the reverse. If we try to associate with existing elites on their terms, then, yes, the only way to do that is through preaching half- and quarter-truths and sending mixed messages.

My point above is that these insinuation strategies pursued by Francis et al, which in my view are merely cover stories for personal-interests advancement, have never worked and never will work. Beat the jews by being stronger and better in every way than they are. That is a tall order. But that's the point - there is no easy way. And that's the subtext of the Francis approach's claims - that there is an easy way out. All we have to do is talk in codes, wink at the right people. All you have to do is study the nationalists in Germany to see what actually works compared to the claims of managerial bullshitters. You beat jews and quash their revolutions by beating them in the head with gun stocks and throwing them in canals. You beat them by speaking their name and pointing out their doings. You do not beat them by intrigue, that is their specialty. Tactical intrigues, of course, all parties need them. But strategic intrigue - no. You do not beat the jew that way. You beat the jew by political art showing him being mucked out of society on the end of a pitchfork.


5. Conservatism is a losing strategy. Unfortunately, most WNs come out of conservatism, and even if they consciously reject it, their instincts and unconscious presuppositions are still overwhelmingly conservative. Even worse, American conservatism is just an old-fashioned form of liberalism.

True. But we in America at least can't help that we don't have an aristocracy. We will have to create one. I don't think we need a monarch, and I think liberal economics works just fine provided it is restrained in a racial state.

My entire point to you, and to Macdonald, is that I see you genuflecting before status and money, and that is the real conservative instinct that must be uprooted. The urge to grovel before your money-masters. Your respect is due to real WN, not to half-assed conservative clowns, career girls and ZOG curs like Buchanan. "The fool you flatter is the fool you become." Macdonald needs to keep that mind next time it occurs to him to fawn on Buchanan. And you, Greg, should not allow your writers to plagiarize me while fawning over some weakling like Francis.

As you know from your essay contest, we need myths and inspiration. I think just as the moment makes the man, the moment makes the myth. That's what the German nationalists found, I believe history shows. So I wouldn't get too exorcised over it. But, in my own unhumble way, this is what I have tried to do lo these past ten years - create, through mocking and neologisms a different mental environment, in which a new elite can recognize itself, and build itself up into a force. Now, I only have certain skills and getting along with others is not high among them. Those of you better suited to that task must make sure you do not relapse into conservatism.

Americans respect money. If you have money in America, you are respectable. What that leave to us is the creation of a new conception in which honor, duty, nobility and aesthetics take higher rank. This new conception can never take hold if our leaders are perpetually CONFUSING people by referring to the same old conservative-liberal-ZOGians as though they are part of us or in some way admirable and exemplary.

All that leads to is the though of poor young Jimmy Edwards sitting there, rereading his post bashing jews for jewing the whites out of NCAA football coaching, and pondering whether he should, as the LOSers, Council of Cohen Cocksuckers, and MARshmallows have advised, delete the jews and replace them with safe-'n'-profitable liberals.

Your every action, Greg, as mine, should be pushing the Young Jimmys in the right direction. That direction is strength. Strength, not weakness. Courage not cowardice. Bravery not calculation. Refuse to pretend that the conservatism of cowards like Buchanan has anything whatsoever to do with our cause, creating a new White nation.


There are bona fide WNs who actually think that we will beat our enemies with superior arguments.

We already have. Turns out being right has nothing to do with winning.


Arguments have their uses, but when it comes to Realpolitik, they are epiphenomena. I think TOQ's greatest value is as a tool of attracting highly intelligent white people into a social network. It is the social network, a concrete human community, that will actually change the world.

I agree.

But I also keep in mind Metzger's gibe about eat, meet and retreat.

The cutting edge of the White revolution is no longer writing. I think it was the cutting edge ten years ago because that was when the Internet became mass available, and people finally had a way to get through the jewish screens to confront our ideas directly.

Now, without for a minute cutting back on the great and thought-filled articles we get from TOQ and Prozium and other fine sites and writers, indeed expanding our editorial output as hugely as possible, we need to bust out again, and pioneer with

- White HS curriculum

We need to focus, like the German nationalists, on the young. We need to chase the cortex of the young, not the checkbooks of the old. Or at least both. HS is exploding. If there is one cause I will put VNN fully behind, it is developing such a curriculum. It is 100x more important than writing another book.

- White public advocacy.

Now is the time for a group. An advocacy group that can routinize the White case before the mass audience. It wouldn't take even six months to get our people on tv regularly. This would also be a front end to mass financial support. I mean this case in deliberate opposition to the Vdares (and the path I FEAR TOO is or will travel) which is taking donations and doing nothing but producing unilevel editorial. Our cause is past that. The oil is hot, time to throw in the meat. We have all thru our writing these last ten years laid the base, it's time to get going.

Hey, Herr Johnson:

"How you gonna keep on the Francis Fat Farm after they read Goebbels?"

Honest to god. Read the calvin.edu archive, as I'm sure you have. I don't know how anyone could ever take a Francis or a Buchanan seriously after reading German nationalists. Their writings and speeches show the distance between a man and a conservative.

- White HS curriculum

We need to focus, like the German nationalists, on the young. We need to chase the cortex of the young, not the checkbooks of the aged. Or at least both. HS is exploding. If there is one cause I will put VNN fully behind, it is developing such a curriculum. It is 100x more important than writing another book.

A couple o' things:

1. Hitler outlawed homeschooling. To my knowledge, the only western industrial country that bans homeschooling today is, yes, Germany. Homeschoolers are persecuted & prosecuted mercilessly, with children being seized, parents dragged into court, etc.


2. From cluborlov: "But in the summer of 1992 President Yeltsin issued a historic decree which announced that henceforth any child (independent of medical condition) has the right to study at home! Furthermore, the local schools must pay to the parents of such children, because they are spending the government’s education funds not on teachers and not on school buildings, but independently and at home!" That's the same Boris Yeltsin some WNs hate so much. I don't know what his motivations were, but I'm glad he did it.

3. Anti-homeschooling propaganda is on the rise in North America. For one interesting example, last year homeschoolers were on the Dr. Phil Show. I know of someone who was in the audience as part of a homeschooling group. She says that what we saw on the screen at home didn't remotely resemble what happened there, with all the preshow manipulation and reconfiguration of the audience members. I know that talk shows are always shrewdly controlled and tampered with, but this was something to behold, according to my informant. The homeschoolers representatives were made to look like fools etc. The California teachers assn. tore a strip off h/s as you can imagine.

A couple o' things:

1. Hitler outlawed homeschooling. To my knowledge, the only western industrial country that bans homeschooling today is, yes, Germany. Homeschoolers are persecuted & prosecuted mercilessly, with children being seized, parents dragged into court, etc.

True, but irrelevant. I'm not a nazi, remember. A dictatorial state is a nasty necessity until the jewspill in aisle 1-30 is cleaned up. After that, in America, we will devolve into microstates. The losers can have their 50% taxes and cradle-to-grave socialism. I opt to live free. I don't want or need a white boss man any more than I need a jew.


3. Anti-homeschooling propaganda is on the rise in North America. For one interesting example, last year homeschoolers were on the Dr. Phil Show. I know of someone who was in the audience as part of a homeschooling group. She says that what we saw on the screen at home didn't remotely resemble what happened there, with all the preshow manipulation and reconfiguration of the audience members. I know that talk shows are always shrewdly controlled and tampered with, but this was something to behold, according to my informant. The homeschoolers representatives were made to look like fools etc. The California teachers assn. tore a strip off h/s as you can imagine.

Of course it is. It's a very direct threat to the NEA, one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, and a big indirect threat to ZOG itself.

A dictatorial state is a nasty necessity until the jewspill in aisle 1-30 is cleaned up. After that, in America, we will devolve into microstates.

How does one go from dictatorship to no gov't at all? It sounds too much like the Marxist fantasy of "after the dictatorship of the proletariat the old system will just fade away to be replaced with anarcho-syndicalism." Big bad rulers like power a bit too much for that, eh?

The losers can have their 50% taxes and cradle-to-grave socialism. I opt to live free. I don't want or need a white boss man any more than I need a jew.

In a NS state taxes would be different anyhow - i.e. replace taxes on economic activity with taxes on the syndicates which control the major sectors of the economy. Plus in an NS system, those who don't work and have no good reason for not working are dealt with in a variety of ways. And some safety net is necessary unless you want loads of, for instance, industrial workers (who we'll need a lot of) peeved at you.

The capitalist system itself is not, I believe, one to keep around in light of superior options. Fascism allows all decent citizens a decent standard of living as long as they are willing to work for it. Capitalism makes no such guarantee and is always subject to the caprice of the jerks who run it. Really, I don't want to be ruled by short-sighted money-grubbing peasants (as in parliamentarian capitalism) whether they're Jewish or not.

... Fascism allows all decent citizens a decent standard of living as long as they are willing to work for it...

Gulp. This sounds like the Soviet Union, where it was illegal "to live without visible means of support". :eek:

Alex, I agree with you and your arguments. When I first became a WN, I liked Pat and also the CCC, but it's like Strom wrote some years ago when he
joined the Birchers...they just kept going in circles, always yabbering ' restore the Constitution...' and that's a blind alley.

I went to a CCC meeting to meet Sam Francis. I was struck by the CCC as being a lot of guys in suits who barely said hello to me. Francis had a good
speech, but when I asked him about Pierce, he said he'd never heard of him and quickly excused himself.

However, I was impressed with the ordinary people at the meeting.

At least the National Alliance, once you crack their caution, were friendly and open. But you are right: we have to organize. The problem with approaching kids is they are underage, and the law could be set on you.

There are too many false fronts and blind alleys. I listened to Savage, and he had a funny free-form essay on Obama and the left, but, as always, it fell back on Hitler, the Nazis, 'blonde little German children in meadows...'
with Jews, it's always back to Hitler. Like Macdonald said, Nazism was an example of a racially exclusive movement fighting the Jews with their own
medicine.

What's happening now, and it is good for us, is that the Jews are dropping their mask. They're really coming out and saying whitey has to go. They robbed Wall Street, and there was no cover-up.

Re homeschooling, I think the following would get more attention being posted here instead of in the proper Homeschooling section. Hope you don't mind, seeing as Alex L. mentioned the NEA etc.

John Dewey and the NEA

John Dewey, considered the father of modern education, was a fan of the early Soviet Union’s eduactional system. In a December 5, 1928 issue of the New Republic, Dewey wrote of “the marvelous development of progressive educational ideas and practices under the fostering care of the Bolshevist government.”

Dewey is also quoted as saying, “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

In 1932, Dewey wrote “Individualism Old and New”, where he stated, “We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please, and no matter what it will be called when it is realized.” According to Wikipedia, Dewey opined:

…that fixing the problem with culture is one in the same with that of liberating the individual; by abolishing culture driven by private pecuniary gain and reaffirming the importance of community and industrial cooperative control, Dewey argues that the individual will be harmonized with his communities and liberated to achieve true progress.

FACT: Jared Taylor has stated he wants to be the William F. Buckley of racialism.

FACT: Jared Taylor comes from exactly the same class of WASP traitors that gave us the Abolitionist and the Christian missionary. In fact his parents were missionaries. They spent their lives trying to infect Japan with Christianity.

FACT: Jared Taylor refuses paid ads for products criticizing jews.

FACT: Jared Taylor accepts money from jewish backers, and forbids commenters from discussing jewish motives in creating the types of problems the site is ostensibly devoted to alleviating.

FACT: Jared Taylor tells whites to blame their own ancestors, even though 99.9% of these had no power and didn't want the changes the jews forced through, and demonstrated that fact in every opinion poll ever taken.

The first two facts that you cite prove nothing.

(1) Buckley was a sell-out, but that does not mean that everyone who aspires to be somehow like Buckley aspires to be a sell-out too. I do not know the source, so I do not know the context. Yes, Buckley was a shallow, traitorous, repulsive windbag. But he edited a magazine. He had a TV show. He had access to the monied and intellectual elites. It would be nice to have those things to push race realism. Surely Jared Taylor would do a better job than Buckley did promoting conservatism. ANYBODY could have done a better job than Buckley.

(2) I will pass over the fact that Taylor is a Southerner, with at least one distinguished Confederate in the family tree, because Taylor's ancestry, aside from the fact that it is entirely white, should not matter here one bit. I suspect that one does not need to go too far back in any of our family trees to find Christians and liberal fools. If that disqualifies him, then it disqualifies all of us.

The other three facts follow if Taylor decided, on the principle of one heresy at a time, to focus solely on race and not touch the Jewish question. You might think that is a foolish strategy given how closely the two issues are connected, since as soon as one is asked about the connection between the two one is forced into an unseemly silence, and if one says anything, one has to lie, i.e., not tell the WHOLE truth. Again, I do not claim to KNOW that this is what Jared Taylor is doing. I have been TOLD that. But the people who told me could have been deceived or deceivers. But it is consistent with the facts that you cite.

You challenge me to lay out the strategy I think people like Francis, Taylor, and Buchanan may be following. I think I already have.

17. If Francis et al. were merely working as fronts for the Jews, in order to mislead and sabotage White Nationalism, then why would they have any public affiliation with Jews? Wouldn’t that blow their cover? Wouldn’t that make their task more difficult?

No that’s exactly the misleading they do. Recall according to MacDonald, how we got in this mess was having loose group boundaries and treating people as individuals even when they regard themselves as groups. Including any Jews as whites or making common cause with them over purported ideological similarities just reinforces that problem. Just as the Jews try to reduce the “saliency” of the Jew-gentile distinction, our progress will consist in amplifying that distinction. There was a reason for the yellow badge all those years.

But suspicion is not proof, and using such people cautiously does not mean that they cannot be used at all.

I’m not sure what type of proof you’re looking for. I think the recognition of historical patterns is proof in this context. The Jews are certainly history-minded. They recognize their mistake in pre-NS Germany was to be too identified with the left. Their preferred strategy is to control the government of the day and to control all avenues of opposition. Taylor and Buchanan as successors to JBS are part of that strategy.

I do not think Pat Buchanan is our competitor.

I think in concluding that you’re focusing on some of Buchanan’s writings at the expense of others. My examples would be his endorsement of Bush (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00006/) in 2004 and his shilling for Palin this time around. My conclusion is that he’s there to channel people frustrated with patently failed neocon policies back to voting for the neocon GOP, and away from any real opposition, especially WN.

Let’s go back a bit further, to 1968. Why did Buchanan support Nixon while Dr. Pierce supported Wallace? I think Buchanan had more reason to know how this would all turn out than Pierce did. As a lower-brow Buckley, Buchanan’s purpose was to deliver working class and upwardly mobile Catholics to the GOP, which GOP would promptly destroy the working class and do nothing good for the Catholic church either. More of the same under Reagan. Now if Buchanan’s political counsel has consistently not been in the group interests of the people he’s counseled, what group has he benefited? I consider that damning proof of everything Alex says and more.

Buchanan doesn't need to know what the jews are using him for, he only needs to follow their guidelines. Those guidelines are laid down by his jew handlers in the kosher conservative movement, which is not to be confused with the neoconservative movement. Kosher conservatism is any conservative movement that's been neutered by jews. Paleos, libertarians, Catholic traditionalists and the religious right are all jew-safe, castrated conservatisms.

The jew handlers relationships with their pet career girls are much like a the relationship between a pimp and his stable of whores. The jew flatters and bribes the silly girls until they've lost their souls.

Neoconservatism is the next step for the conservative eunuch once it has resigned itself to total impotence. That's where, having had its balls removed, the eunuch agrees to be lobotomized, becoming a wooden headed jew puppet who uses the word conservative to describe its multiculturalist, globalist, zionist-socialist automatic reflexes.

The first two facts that you cite prove nothing.

(1) Buckley was a sell-out, but that does not mean that everyone who aspires to be somehow like Buckley aspires to be a sell-out too. I do not know the source, so I do not know the context. Yes, Buckley was a shallow, traitorous, repulsive windbag. But he edited a magazine. He had a TV show. He had access to the monied and intellectual elites. It would be nice to have those things to push race realism. Surely Jared Taylor would do a better job than Buckley did promoting conservatism. ANYBODY could have done a better job than Buckley.

You don't get it. Americans already are race realists - if you look at their behavior rather than their words. They already know that blacks and mexes are stupid and violent and not to be lived around. Where education is needed is on the jews who made the laws that forced these animals into our community with the intention of destroying them. THAT of course is the one thing they will never get from Polished Turd Taylor. What Americans need beyond jew-education is leadership to advocate and defend, with word and boot, their real and deepest preferences. Right now no one offers that leadership. No one wants the responsibility.


(2) I will pass over the fact that Taylor is a Southerner, with at least one distinguished Confederate in the family tree, because Taylor's ancestry, aside from the fact that it is entirely white, should not matter here one bit. I suspect that one does not need to go too far back in any of our family trees to find Christians and liberal fools. If that disqualifies him, then it disqualifies all of us.

It, alone, wasn't meant to disqualify him but to show the tenor of his type.


The other three facts follow if Taylor decided, on the principle of one heresy at a time, to focus solely on race and not touch the Jewish question. You might think that is a foolish strategy given how closely the two issues are connected, since as soon as one is asked about the connection between the two one is forced into an unseemly silence, and if one says anything, one has to lie, i.e., not tell the WHOLE truth. Again, I do not claim to KNOW that this is what Jared Taylor is doing. I have been TOLD that. But the people who told me could have been deceived or deceivers. But it is consistent with the facts that you cite.

Why do I get the feeling you are deliberately trying to misunderstand. I'm not disputing that Taylor claims he is simply choosing not to deal with the jewish question. I'm showing there is every reason to believe he is lying. I'm saying his position is intellectually untenable, and politically inexplicable save his real motive be not what he claims but to save the jews. I have demonstrated his behavior fits an established pattern, and also that he himself has been stupid enough to state that he desires to emulate one of the chief subverters of the right.


You challenge me to lay out the strategy I think people like Francis, Taylor, and Buchanan may be following. I think I already have.

No, you haven't. And you can't because you know it won't play with Whites at VNN when you try to excuse treating jews (Gottfried) and anti-White philosemites (Taylor) more respectfully than real White nationalists. Plagiarize Linder, but fawn over Gottfried and Buchanan.

Your actions show your character, Greg.

A basic question is are these neocon fellow travelers really sell outs or just stupid?
I remember Buchanan telling his usual right -on conservative line, then mentioned blacks in Washington...'when I grew up, the blacks were actually cleaner and better dressed than whites.'

I wonder if he was full of b.s., or just trying to get them on his side, like his choosing that VP candidate when he ran. Surely, he knows it's a waste of time to kiss up to them. I think Taylor is well-read, but he seems to refuse to cross a line. Fear or stupidity?

Much like Laura Ingrahm, a talk show conservative I listen, and a fiery one. She really gets ANGRY...but again, it's support the war, Israel, and the GOOD blacks. Now is she stupid or just talks the talk so she stays on the air?

Same with Savage. Again, he had another rant on the 'red-diaper-doper babies', and he knows they're Jews. 90 percent of his attacks are on Jews, but he won't say the J word.

At times I fantasize...and to any feds listening in, this is ONLY a fantasy...that we take people like Ingrahm or Savage or taylor to a nice place in the country, set them down for a long weekend and talk, dialogue,
and ask them to cut the crap and say who's side they are on.

I fear the answer may be like in the movie THEY LIVE where the collaborator with the aliens admits he knows what they are, but he makes a lot of money supporting them...'and they're going to win, anyway.'

A basic question is are these neocon fellow travelers really sell outs or just stupid?
I remember Buchanan telling his usual right -on conservative line, then mentioned blacks in Washington...'when I grew up, the blacks were actually cleaner and better dressed than whites.'

I wonder if he was full of b.s., or just trying to get them on his side, like his choosing that VP candidate when he ran. Surely, he knows it's a waste of time to kiss up to them. I think Taylor is well-read, but he seems to refuse to cross a line. Fear or stupidity?

Much like Laura Ingrahm, a talk show conservative I listen, and a fiery one. She really gets ANGRY...but again, it's support the war, Israel, and the GOOD blacks. Now is she stupid or just talks the talk so she stays on the air?

Same with Savage. Again, he had another rant on the 'red-diaper-doper babies', and he knows they're Jews. 90 percent of his attacks are on Jews, but he won't say the J word.

At times I fantasize...and to any feds listening in, this is ONLY a fantasy...that we take people like Ingrahm or Savage or taylor to a nice place in the country, set them down for a long weekend and talk, dialogue,
and ask them to cut the crap and say who's side they are on.

I fear the answer may be like in the movie THEY LIVE where the collaborator with the aliens admits he knows what they are, but he makes a lot of money supporting them...'and they're going to win, anyway.'

Congratulations on nearly getting the formatting correct, I know that's not easy for you, for some reason.

The mentality behind your post... It never ceases to amuse me that your type thinks it is looking down on the Buchanans and Ingrahams. Let me ease your mind: Buchanan and Ingraham have far higher IQs than you do, and a multiple of seven figures more than you do in the bank. They're fully aware that you go against the jews on race or Israel and you run a real risk of being thrown off and under the gravy train.

I don't want anyone to miss the larger point of this thread:

- the utter inability of WN to maintain a consistent political line.

Personal considerations always trump necessary politics. WN who are temperamentally conservative would rather be nice than fight. They will reap the same result conservatives always reap, no matter how much they wink and backslap each other and tell themselves they're being smooth and cagy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ronald Reagan 1964 Un-Scripted words, and he said everything but jooo.


He was called a Nut. Public Housing ?

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speech - 1964 Republican National Convention

Article "Jews and American Renaissance" from May 2006. With all 329 comments.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060424104701/www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/jews_and_americ.php

a'. . .To put it more accurately, AR has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences. It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts. There has always been a minority in the AR constituency that has criticized me and AR for welcoming Jews, and there has been another minority that has criticized me and AR for not denouncing the first minority. These groups have generally treated each other with polite reserve, and expressed their bitterness only among themselves or to me—as was proper. . ."

What about the jews, Jared?

"They look white to me!"

Ah...so we can criticize them like other whites?

"No. They're whites, but they're a special category, above criticism. If you try to blame them for the policies they caused, my editors will ban you."

Thanks for clearing that up, Jerry.

FACT: Jared Taylor has stated he wants to be the William F. Buckley of racialism.

FACT: Jared Taylor comes from exactly the same class of WASP traitors that gave us the Abolitionist and the Christian missionary. In fact his parents were missionaries. They spent their lives trying to infect Japan with Christianity.

FACT: Jared Taylor refuses paid ads for products criticizing jews.

FACT: Jared Taylor accepts money from jewish backers, and forbids commenters from discussing jewish motives in creating the types of problems the site is ostensibly devoted to alleviating.

FACT: Jared Taylor tells whites to blame their own ancestors, even though 99.9% of these had no power and didn't want the changes the jews forced through, and demonstrated that fact in every opinion poll ever taken.

Logic, anyone? It amazes me that you and Prozium swallow Taylor's intellectual fraudulence without a blink. I don't have canceled checks to Taylor from the ADL, but Occam's razor - all logic and history - show you that Taylor and Amren exist and have as their intended function the protection of jews from blame for America's racial problems, and the safety-valving of Whites grown increasingly disgusted with what our country has become.

Jared Taylor is precisely what I say: a polished turd. Just like William F. Buckley. He is not what he appears to be. You are allowing the fact that you and Macdonald like him personally, Greg, to blind you to his function. This is a very serious problem among the White right - and in Anglo culture in general - the inability to separate politics from personality. Jared Taylor is our enemy.

I don't pay much attention to Jared Taylor but I did see him on the Donahue show about 7 years ago and I thought he came across as insincere.

I don't mean that he was insincere about the cause that he was trying to promote; I mean that he was insincere in the way he argued for it, pretending to revere certain sacred cows that in his heart he probably does not.

Donahue has some sick values but he can reason, and he can detect the vulnerabilities in a position. He really made Taylor dance around and look like a shyster, in my opinion. He could not have done that to William Pierce.

I saw the same kind of embarrassment when Pat Buchanan had first taken the position that the US should not have gotten involved in World War II. Since Buchanan wasn't willing to take one of these radical positions, that either (a) there was no Holocaust, or (b) the Jews deserved what they allegedly got, he left unchallenged the proposition that some great good had resulted from intervention. The omission made his overall position seem pusillanimous.

I don't see any point in attacking somebody like Jared Taylor, or Pat Buchanan, unless they are attacking us, which doesn't seem to be a significant tendency with them. (Even then it would be a bad idea.) I think we are in a position to be more interesting and more compelling than they, and we can attract some of their supporters, many of whom assume that Buchanan and Taylor are hinting at what we actually say.

I think you complicate a dynamic that works in our favor if you throw rocks at Buchanan and Taylor, because then the people who have faith in them will wonder what your motives are.

Don't throw rocks at these guys. Just point out where they pull their punches, and the more radical-minded of their supporters will notice that what you say is a better representation of reality, and much more interesting as well.

You don't get it. Americans already are race realists - if you look at their behavior rather than their words. They already know that blacks and mexes are stupid and violent and not to be lived around. Where education is needed is on the jews who made the laws that forced these animals into our community with the intention of destroying them. THAT of course is the one thing they will never get from Polished Turd Taylor. What Americans need beyond jew-education is leadership to advocate and defend, with word and boot, their real and deepest preferences. Right now no one offers that leadership. No one wants the responsibility.

Are you seriously denying the necessity of educating people about racial differences? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

Why do I get the feeling you are deliberately trying to misunderstand.

Alex, you get a lot of feelings about people's intentions, motives, etc. that strike me as equally arbitrary and bogus, yet you grow testy when challenged. I think you have become intellectually lazy in this echo-chamber of yours.

I'm not disputing that Taylor claims he is simply choosing not to deal with the jewish question.

Sorry, but I did not even think this was in evidence, much less undisputed.

I'm showing there is every reason to believe he is lying. I'm saying his position is intellectually untenable, and politically inexplicable save his real motive be not what he claims but to save the jews. I have demonstrated his behavior fits an established pattern, and also that he himself has been stupid enough to state that he desires to emulate one of the chief subverters of the right.

Every reason? Better than the reasons you laid out already? Let's hear them. Because so far, you have given us nothing more than suspicions and likely stories presented as knowledge.

No, you haven't. And you can't because you know it won't play with Whites at VNN when you try to excuse treating jews (Gottfried) and anti-White philosemites (Taylor) more respectfully than real White nationalists. Plagiarize Linder, but fawn over Gottfried and Buchanan.

Your actions show your character, Greg.

Fawning? Plagiarizing?

There he goes again.

I guess this whole discussion boils down to your ability to divine people's character and motives based on online interactions. Your record speaks for itself.

Is this about respect? I got into this discussion because I respect your intellect and talent as a writer.

But in terms of your outlook on people, you are a stopped clock, your finger always pointing to cowardice and treachery. I am sure you are right sometimes, but only by accident, not because of good judgment.

True, but irrelevant. I'm not a nazi, remember. A dictatorial state is a nasty necessity until the jewspill in aisle 1-30 is cleaned up. After that, in America, we will devolve into microstates. The losers can have their 50% taxes and cradle-to-grave socialism. I opt to live free. I don't want or need a white boss man any more than I need a jew.

So, you want to go back to liberalism after we recover from this disaster. What is supposed to stop history from repeating itself?

So, you want to go back to liberalism after we recover from this disaster. What is supposed to stop history from repeating itself?

Market economics is not liberalism. I say, altho it is ignored, a market economics constrained in a racial over-state. Yes, I understand that there is no inherent limit to a market. If you allow people, they will trade in snuff films, use mud labor, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that market economics is the best way to produce/distribute goods WITHIN a racial state. At least 50% of the people on here envision a WN state not a whit different from what Obama and his commies want - except they imagine themselves on the dishing-out end, rather than on the get-up-at-4am-to-build-the-Great-Aryan-Transpolar-Highway end.

My read on what's possible, and of course I could be wrong, is that white is non-negotiable. It's worth killing over, and our main goal, is an all-white nation. NO JEWS in it. NO MUDS in it. It is worth any amount of fighting, any tactic it takes, to achieve that.

Once that is achieved...I have laid out the kind of society I personally want to live in. Understanding that not all white men think alike, I have supported what I think could be a suitable arrangement: small states, microstates, city states, underneath a defensive umbrella. But I repeat, the market and small-stuff I'm talking about is AFTER all the JEWS and MUDS have been dispensed with, and I'm no flusher liberal like Hitler, I believe in extermination for the jews. For the muds, probably other arrangements could be worked out for the unguilty ones.

Are you seriously denying the necessity of educating people about racial differences?

I'm restoring it to its proper proportions, which is next to negligible. Men have written books for 150 years pointing out racial differences. If you can't see and smell the differences, you sure can't learn them from a book. All evidence shows whites get the difference - 85% of them move to a whiter area when they relocate, and well over 90% marry within their race - with every possible media/govt inducement to mix. So I'm not sure who you're trying to teach other than the tiny but powerful sicko cultists called WASP liberals, and they aint listening.

No, Greg, what is needed is not teaching, that's the 1%. The 99% is leadership. NO ONE is supplying any leadership. Leadership is not writing books and websites. It is not dinner parties with octogenarians and conservative queers. Leadership is what Rounder did before The Order blew him up.

Alex, you get a lot of feelings about people's intentions, motives, etc. that strike me as equally arbitrary and bogus, yet you grow testy when challenged. I think you have become intellectually lazy in this echo-chamber of yours.

Then kindly instruct your writers not to plagiarize me on the need for loxism, etc etc. Steal the concept and then pretend they never read my words and my explanation of the need for a verbal mirror to racism. Greg, I don't have much energy these days, but the mill does grind, and in time I will dig up what I have written multiple times over the years. I don't know who Edmund Connelly is, but he has swiped from me more than once. Why do I object? Because it isn't noble. I don't like to see VNN people acting ignobly. That's not the Aryan way.

And yes, I always have and will question motives. That is the way of the winner. Accepting motives at face value is the way of the loser.


Sorry, but I did not even think this was in evidence, much less undisputed.


? There's a whole thread on this. PT laid it out after shitty little jew Hart went off on Duke in a most ungentlemanly but uber-jewy explosion at an AmRen conference. After which Jerry made it clear that Duke was the offending party, and never again would any jew being made uncomfortable be tolerated anywhere in any environs he controlled. And yes, he has said this amount to NOT taking a position on the jews. If I claim I'm pro-A and B is A's main enemy and I say no one is allowed to criticize B, I am very definitely taking a position.

Every reason? Better than the reasons you laid out already? Let's hear them. Because so far, you have given us nothing more than suspicions and likely stories presented as knowledge.

No, I gave you evidence. I know first-hand from the filmmaker that Jared's catamite refused to accept an ad for Line in the Sand because I was in it and because I and Kevin Macdonald (at much greater length) pointed out that jews alone intended and succeeded in destroying America by changing our immigration policy.

That's evidence, Greg, whether you accept it or not.

Jerry also employs jewish freelance writers such as Nicholas Stix. So, instead of paying white men, he pays jews.

That's evidence, Greg, whether you deny it or not.

Jerry also has jews speak at his conference, before and after the race-mixers.

Is Jerry playing a big joke on the rest of us? I'm starting to think he is.

And then of course, we have the nearly perfect historical parallel to the John Birch Society, a proven front for Big Jew.

We could add The Turd on Phil Donahue, asked about jews, saying, "They look white to me!"

Well, if they're white, then they can be critized at AmRen, right? Doesn't Jerry tell his freepers to blame white people for what jews did? Doesn't he make it clear that critism of jews is streng verboten? Doesn't he ignore that the same jews that can't be criticized are more deeply entrenched in immigration and civil rights bureacracies than they were when they first got the laws Jerry wants changed passed.

Just how much evidence do you need before you admit you are willfully refusing to see the truth?

Jared "The Polished Turd" Taylor is anti-White. His efforts are aimed to provide a safety valve for jews in case the WN cause ever, as the niggers say, "blows up."

Fawning?

What I'm saying to you, Greg, is that you and TOQ are going down the wrong road in dunking our cause in the failure fondue of conservatism.


Plagiarizing?


Do you not know what the word means?

Your Edmund Connelly plagiarized my idea that we need a mirror to 'racism.'


I guess this whole discussion boils down to your ability to divine people's character and motives based on online interactions.

Based on cited evidence, all known to me first hand, or publicly known.


But in terms of your outlook on people, you are a stopped clock, your finger always pointing to cowardice and treachery. I am sure you are right sometimes, but only by accident, not because of good judgment.

Greg, you have a lot to learn about human nature. Loyalty is far rarer than high IQ. A bunch of networking career girls is not the same thing as a movement. You remember that when it hits you like an epiphany a few years from now.

The bottom line here, for those looking on, is the blank unwillingness of so-called WN to stick to a line.

Always the conservative has some excuse for the white-blaming jew-excuser, even when he knows better. That's because he likes the guy or because he thinks the guy can do him some personal good.

I don't like to see VNN people acting ignobly. That's not the Aryan way.

And referring to one woman's terminal condition as "ass cancer" is?

And referring to one woman's terminal condition as "ass cancer" is?

Ass cancer is a neutral term, as I see it.

By the way, Greg, and I mean this seriously...

You are a homosexual, correct?

So why do you care about the white race?

By the way, Greg, and I mean this seriously...

You are a homosexual, correct?

So why do you care about the white race?

brother greg! you homosexual? we family bro.

alex, like we homosexuals shouldn't care about out nieces' and nephews' and godchilluns' future? (assuming we don't have any biological, or adopted kids of our own - I don't).

if your kid(s) were to die tomorrow and you found you couldn't have any more, would you say - to hell with the white race? or would you continue to press forward, to preserve the race for all the good people out there..

greg, I don't mean to answer for you, these were just some thoughts I had and I'm not even all that hardcore a racist. please forgive my intrusion and answer in your infinitely more eloquent way.

I believe it is also important to blame the Jew for the two biggest scams of this calendar year. And they need to be summarized in the simplest of terms:
the media-hyped banking crises and the subsequent bailout was nothing more than a scam to give the Jews who own the big banks over a trillion dollars of our money under the guise of a bailout. It was nothing but a gigantic Jewish swindle. It had nothing to do with saving our economy or preventing any depression or saving any failing banks. The whole thing was a lie. It was nothing more than Jews stealing our money.

The current health care plan is nothing more than a Jewish con to swindle $400 billion dollars per year from the people for the Jew-owned insurance companies. The Jews own the banks and the insurance companies and these two media-hyped ventures are nothing more than Jews stealing our money. To argue this or that point about the health care plan is irrelevant to its purpose. The whole proposal, in its entirety, is nothing more than a scheme to give the Jews a $400 billion dollars per-year subsidy for their insurance companies. It isn't about anything else.

All these programs, illegal aliens, unlimited immigration, so-called civil laws that require whites to discriminate against their own kind, health insurance schemes, bank bailout schemes, must be identified for what they simply are: the Jews are stealing our money.

Multiculturalism and abortion are sponsored by the Jews to exterminate our race. They are the Jewish attempt to perpetrate a holocaust against our people. The Holohoax is a Jewish cover, to make them appear innocent victims, while they commit their own holocaust against the white race.

So, yes, I agree, the Jew must be acknowledged as the force behind all these adverse laws and programs.

I also agree, that securing the U.S. as a national homeland for the white race must be our first and foremost objective. All programs, no matter how appealing, are of secondary importance.

I also agree with, "word and boot". That is why I promote both.

And some safety net is necessary unless you want loads of, for instance, industrial workers (who we'll need a lot of) peeved at you.

Soon we won't need loads of industrial workers. There's little they'll be able to do that automated systems won't be able to do better, cheaper.

Dewey is also quoted as saying, “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

The problem is, the kids who think for themselves are the rightful leaders of society. True progress has only ever come from those who can think outside of the box. That's what Bolshevism was ultimately about -- killing off (literally) a society's natural leaders.

This is the same Dewey for which we name our library cataloging system, right?

Market economics is not liberalism.

What version of market economics are you entertaining? Austrian economics, Keynesian economics, Friedman's neo-liberalism, old fashioned Adam Smith capitalism?

I say, altho it is ignored, a market economics constrained in a racial over-state. Yes, I understand that there is no inherent limit to a market. If you allow people, they will trade in snuff films, use mud labor, etc.

Historically speaking, the 'free market' has been constrained by racialist sentiment in the United States. We know from history though that the market was always in tension with established racial mores. It was also one of the major factors in the final unraveling of the White Republic established by the Founders. For one, we have market forces to thank for bringing millions of Jewish immigrants here.

But that doesn't change the fact that market economics is the best way to produce/distribute goods WITHIN a racial state.

A racial state would prioritize preserving its racial integrity over production/consumption. What is more important? The future of the White race or aisles of manufactured junk on sale at Wal-Mart and Target?

At least 50% of the people on here envision a WN state not a whit different from what Obama and his commies want - except they imagine themselves on the dishing-out end, rather than on the get-up-at-4am-to-build-the-Great-Aryan-Transpolar-Highway end.

I won't speak for the others posting here, but any realistic reform of current system would have to address the unsavory aspects of capitalism:

1.) The formation of a subversive cheap labor lobby.
2.) The values of expressivism, consumerism, and materialism encouraged by the advertising industry under free market capitalism.
3.) The ethnic grievance lobbies that arise from importing a cheap labor force.
4.) The plutocratic elites that come with the system.

My read on what's possible, and of course I could be wrong, is that white is non-negotiable. It's worth killing over, and our main goal, is an all-white nation. NO JEWS in it. NO MUDS in it. It is worth any amount of fighting, any tactic it takes, to achieve that.

We're of the same opinion here. This is the goal I have defended on my own website: a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America. That's the minimum.

Once that is achieved...I have laid out the kind of society I personally want to live in. Understanding that not all white men think alike, I have supported what I think could be a suitable arrangement: small states, microstates, city states, underneath a defensive umbrella.

That sounds nice. Personally, I would prefer to live under such an arrangement myself. I'm not so sure though that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube. I doubt the amount of freedom and small government enjoyed by early nineteenth century Americans is recoverable at this late date.

But I repeat, the market and small-stuff I'm talking about is AFTER all the JEWS and MUDS have been dispensed with, and I'm no flusher liberal like Hitler, I believe in extermination for the jews. For the muds, probably other arrangements could be worked out for the unguilty ones.

If separatism is the ultimate goal, an apartheid type system would have to be created. Homogenous White zones could be established. In order to enter such zones (on a temporary basis), non-Whites would need the necessary paperwork. The size of the White zones (the nucleus of the White ethnostate) could be expanded over time as the non-Whites are concentrated, squeezed out, and resettled elsewhere.

What I'm saying to you, Greg, is that you and TOQ are going down the wrong road in dunking our cause in the failure fondue of conservatism.

I've spoken to Greg and we mutually agreed that conservatism is worthless.

For one, we have market forces to thank for bringing millions of Jewish immigrants here.

How so?

2.) The values of expressivism, consumerism, and materialism encouraged by the advertising industry under free market capitalism.

What's expressivism?

There's a nice book out (I forget the title) which is full of reproductions of advertisements from popular magazines published during the Third Reich. They're not all that different from the ads published in American magazines from the same period.

3.) The ethnic grievance lobbies that arise from importing a cheap labor force.

That wouldn't happen in a racial state.

How so?

In the 19C, millions of Jews immigrated to the United States to work as a cheap labor force in Northern industry.

What's expressivism?[quote]

Here's a definition -

"Expressive Individualism holds that each person has a unique core of feeling and intuition that should unfold or be expressed if individuality is to be realized. This core, though unique, is not necessarily alien to other persons or to nature. Under certain conditions, the expressive individualist may find it possible through intuitive feeling to "merge" with other persons, with nature, or with the cosmos as a whole. Expressive individualism is related to the phenomenon of romanticism in eighteenth and nineteenth-century European and American culture. In the twentieth century, it shows affinities with the culture of psychotherapy."

In sum, 'expressivism' or 'expressive individualism' is a certain sort of aesthetic and set of ethics - the rock star aesthetic, most famously - that has been with us ever since the 1920's. A fish lives in water, but doesn't feel wet. Similarly, 'expressivism' is such a huge part of contemporary American culture that it often goes unnoticed and undiagnosed.

[quote]There's a nice book out (I forget the title) which is full of reproductions of advertisements from popular magazines published during the Third Reich. They're not all that different from the ads published in American magazines from the same period.

The roots of expressive individualism can be traced back to nineteenth century German romanticism. Charles Taylor discusses this in detail in his book Sources of the Self.

That wouldn't happen in a racial state.

The U.S. was a "racial state" until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Jews and negroes had long formed ethnic grievance lobbies by that time. In both cases, it was market forces (specifically, the need for a cheap labor supply) that brought those groups to America.

The problem is, the kids who think for themselves are the rightful leaders of society. True progress has only ever come from those who can think outside of the box. That's what Bolshevism was ultimately about -- killing off (literally) a society's natural leaders.

This is the same Dewey for which we name our library cataloging system, right?

Melvil Dewey invented the Dewey Decimal System in 1876. It's used mainly in school libraries.

The "philosopher of education" was John Dewey, who lived a little later. John Dewey was a fan of the Soviet Union.

This thread disappoints me. I thought TOQ was making good progress, especially in attracting a cadre of writers like Connelly and Elizabeth Whitcombe who apply MacDonald's framework, much as the neocons do with Leo Strauss. But I fear Greg leaves open the option of returning to the vomit of faileoconservatism, replete with fat Sambo's rationalizations for his Jew buddies.

We can learn some tactics from the Jews. We can't legally kill people like the Mossad does, we can't directly get them fired like the ADL does (though there may be indirect ways), but we can do what Norman Podhoretz does: we can shun people. Jared Taylor stands with the Jewish enemy, so he gets no fellowship and no resources from any WN. He's white (Alex's "WHINO") only in the same way fellow Jew-fawner Charles Murray is white. Murray doesn't pretend to be WN and we won't let Taylor get away with that pretense. Then we take it to the next level. We won't take anyone seriously who takes Jared Taylor seriously. That means you Greg.

What version of market economics are you entertaining? Austrian economics, Keynesian economics, Friedman's neo-liberalism, old fashioned Adam Smith capitalism?

Uh...I don't know. Certainly not Keynesianism or Friedman's. I'm not fully sure what Adam Smith entails other than comparative advantage and such, seems reasonable. Most of the Austrian stuff seems close to correct, but there may be elements I don't know about. I'd say small-businessman economics. That's what I was, a small businessman, for much of my twenties. A market where people buy and sell without state interference in the form of endless licensing, restrictions and taxes. This is where the libertarians are way ahead of us racialists - they have pointed out all kinds of technical possibilities that are impossible under the all-state we have now. Of course, we need as an absolute hard money, pegged to gold. I know others say Hitler didn't do it that way, and I know there are other ways to try to do it, but they rely too much on men. I think the gold standard is the best way to try to escape human greed and fallibility. It kept prices constant in the US for the first seven generations, according to an article I read a couple weeks ago. It is immensely demoralizing to the average man to have prices jump around while cheaters at the top are rewarded. Government is basically a moral problem more than anything. Defenders should be ruthless toward enemies and completely moral toward citizens. That's the ideal. We have to get as close to it as we can.

As I've said many times, the best envisionable future, as I can make it out, combines libertarian economic discoveries with timeless WN racial truths. I hate to use libertarian because it will be taken wrong by the skims, but they are on the cutting edge of this stuff, so I give them credit. This is where we need WN academic brains helping make our case, but they're stuck on IQ and genes. That stuff is known or will come regardless. The interesting area is the complete intellectual rolling back of the need for any state, and, thus, the possibilities for anyone who can take power away from ZOG. That's where the best future for Whites lies.


Historically speaking, the 'free market' has been constrained by racialist sentiment in the United States. We know from history though that the market was always in tension with established racial mores.

The market is and will always be in tension with any restrictions. Nothing can change that fact. Nothing can change that there will always be a financial incentive to do socially destructive things, even in an all-White state. But that's the best we can do - establish that all-White state. And get rid of the muds. Not by apartheid but by continental expulsion. So there is no standing body of muds anywhere nearby to tempt self-interested exploiters. That combined with the death penalty for certain type of economic crimes will ensure, as best we humanly can, that employers grasp that they will pay with their lives if they try to profit off their community's destruction. I don't see what else we can do expect organize all economic activity through the state, and that is throwing the baby of market efficiency out with the bathwater. We shouldn't allow the private greed of the losers to dominate any more than the private greed of the employers, should we?


It was also one of the major factors in the final unraveling of the White Republic established by the Founders. For one, we have market forces to thank for bringing millions of Jewish immigrants here.

Yes and no, imo. I would attribute the problem more to politics. If jews are held to be citizens and equals, the rest takes care of itself. I blame the short-sighted or greedy politicians. If you let people, they will do bad things, particularly if they have strong incentive. And in the case of stuff like race, even if 98% do the right thing, the 2% can do enough to destroy things for everybody. That's more or less what we have now. All I can say is there is no final solution save exterminating every non-white on earth. Short of that, exterminate the jews, put the muds back overseas, establish death penality for racially destructive employer behavior.


A racial state would prioritize preserving its racial integrity over production/consumption. What is more important? The future of the White race or aisles of manufactured junk on sale at Wal-Mart and Target?

I agree, hence my recommendations. I haven't figured all the details, but perhaps The Defenders over-state could be funded out of taxes on exports, rather than sales or income. International trade would have to be figured as part of defense. It would be established by the Defenders which countries could be traded with on which terms, including the Asian and other non-white countries. Always the interests of the race and the people would be kept first. Again, there's no way to guarantee you won't get people trying to subvert this system, but it will be much easier to keep it clean than what we have now if there are no muds in the country or even close to us. The Defenders will have to be schooled as essentially religious civil servants. They will be elite but they will not weigh heavy on the people. They will have to see things as a matter of honor rather than money and personal interest. Of course, human nature ensures no system can work perfectly, but whites, particularly Germanic whites, have proven capable of fundamentally honest bureaucracy. We want minimal, honest, efficient, dare I say religious bureaucracy for the single function of running the defensive overstate. This should require no more money than can be raised from taxes on exports. We will not be mongering wars and moralizing, as the WASP moralizers will be underground inspiring skunk cabbage after the revolution.


I won't speak for the others posting here, but any realistic reform of current system would have to address the unsavory aspects of capitalism:

1.) The formation of a subversive cheap labor lobby.
2.) The values of expressivism, consumerism, and materialism encouraged by the advertising industry under free market capitalism.
3.) The ethnic grievance lobbies that arise from importing a cheap labor force.
4.) The plutocratic elites that come with the system.



1) There will not be low-wage minorities available for hire. If employers can't find people at the wages they want to pay, they can either not operate or raise their wages. But without taxes or minimum wages, they will be able to pay people what they are actually worth - wages are not random decisions, there are laws at work. Without government distortion through regulation, supply and demand will find their meeting point. At the same time, there won't be any OSHA/union bullshit to make products more expensive. People can use whatever criteria they want to judge their purchases; it's not the government's job to make things safe, just to defend us against other races and foreign threats. Rather than relying on expensive, incompetent regulatory wastrels like the FDA, people can form private agencies, if they wish, to make the kind of studies they feel they need. Tv today is filled with lawyers seeking drug-effects clients. Guess what? All these drugs these ads mention were approved by the FDA. There is no safety. It is my hope that after a decade or two under a WN umbrella, the religious faith in regulation will somewhat dissipate. Particularly if we have microstates, and the Idiocracy whites look over at their micro-anarchist neighbors and see what they're missing. Why should we throw out the beauty of different ways of doing things in exchange for bogus safety of this or that commission or regulatory body? Too many WN have not thought about the White man - what, actually, is it? What system fits it? I say at its best, the white man is not one specific thing, it is many different things. It is a paradox that it requires collective defensive to allow its world-making individualism to flower. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity is beautiful, and it very much applies. Things need to be accorded the power appropriate to their position and ability. The opposite of what we have now, where every single substantial decision is taken by the federal government, and anyone who disagrees is beaten down. Only the worst and lowest forms of white man prefer that system. The only function that fits whites as a collective is defense against foreign enemies. The rest can by individuals through private arrangements. This is where the libertarian research is very interesting, in that they've demonstrated that nearly every function traditionally associated with government can be handled more cheaply and efficiently by private arrangements. I think this idea of living as a real and free adult is a real hidden appeal of our cause; I think it is leagues more appealing than the airy love-your-race that Duke and Strom pitch. The point is not that WHITE is so great, it's that all the good stuff is tied to white.

2) I think there will be a significant spiritual change simply by virtue of jews being off the airwaves. But this is, to me, an unclear area. It would seem that, much as I don't like the idea, there will have to be a transition period from ZOGvision to Aryan normality, and that is going to require government control of the media until people are back to where they should be. Very difficult stuff, and I don't have all the answers. You can't run tv without shows and scripts and production, and that implies lots of people and money. Not easy to see something like that willing to dissolve itself into private hands when the time comes. More thinking is required here. What I know is that the first thing we do will be put on a publicly televised trial of the top jews and the whiteskin shills who served them. We will allow the white public to vote on what ought to become of them. We will make up a Museum of Jewish Crimes in the DC Holocaust Museum, with a statue of James von Brunn out front, as a headstone for the hate race.

Setting up a National Race Academy with the highest intellectual standards to train and teach a segment of the elite to become Defenders should ensure that these people are respected, and the basic idea of protecting the race rather than undermining the community becomes established in the minds of the citizenry. Along with this, we need rigorous curriculum put out for families to HS their kids, or, if they like, use in conjunction with other families in schools of their own design. The government can keep a handful of tv channels for itself, and over these put out news. The rest will be privately owned, but if clowns agitate to racially undermine the state, they will be weeded out. That is, this is a racial state. Opposing opinions are not allowed. Just as ZOG is baesd on mocking and annihilating the concept and people-age of White, the White state is based on protecting the race that created it. Any whites who don't like this will have died in the revolution or fled abroad. If new ones crop up, they can leave or die. No threat to the racial basis of the state will be tolerated. I don't believe in prisons. I believe in shooting proven sex defectives and criminals. The libertarians have various ideas on private justice that bear consideration. It's not White to burden citizens with the care of animals, sex-defectives, head cases and drug users. The technology for making new people is known. Proven criminals and freaks of genital need to be shot and fed to piranhas. I also think, and this in the wrong place, we need, perhaps, to take seriously Mencken's idea, and offer one or multiple human Defender sacrifice each year in order to keep people in mind of just how serious our society and the mission of the Defenders is. If they are not willing to submit to an annual death lottery, in which, say, 1-5, chosen at random Shirley Jackson style, are sacrificed in a publicly televised ceremony, then maybe their heart is not in the right place. Maybe they could be sacrificed around April 20, or whatever day we want to call Thermopylae Day. It would be a national day of sacrifice and celebration. It would begin somberly with the televised sacrifice, but culminate in a great spectacle, as we pay respect to ourselves and our mission - we don't know why we're here, but we're going to penetrate as far as we can into the inner and outer reaches of every corpuscle. It would take a Goebbels or a specialist in designing public rituals to know exactly the right way to go about it, but it certainly could be done.

A White man has to be a man. A White government that denies him that chance is scarecely better than the jews' ZOG. Being a man, as I see it, means the man has room to try and succeed or fail, to make all the adult decisions for himself.

I guess I differ from some in that I don't see white people as fundamentally defective. I don't see them as fundamentally materialistic, either, really. Calling others materialistic tends to be a way of patting ourselves on the back, when in fact we are all at least 80% alike in our use of devices and contrivances. Nobody alive doesn't like and respect money. I do see Whites as subject to a lot of ridiculous, baby-izing, up-fucking, jew-devised legal/medial insanity, under which they are still managing tolerably well. I really do believe that if you break ZOG's wrist, most whites will snap back to something a lot closer to normal. I really disagree with the Hitler model of forcing people to be free, I like the clockwork orange idea better. We don't need a Hitler, we need a Willie Wonka. Hints, suggestions, inspirations - drawing out of people what's in them, not bashing them until they conform out of fear. Where the power is needed is in crushing the jews, and it is there, ironically, that Hitler was too liberal. I would not make that mistake. Where power is the problem, we need to acquire it and use it without any guilt whatsoever. Power can and will solve the jewish problem for all time. My reading of history is correct. Not the final solution of progressive legal discrimination, but the Orkin solution of exterminating every single nit we can get our spray gun on. They'v earned it. They deserve it. I believe they are going to get it.

So, Prozium, your comments are right on, but they always read as though your assumption is we have a state roughly like we have now. No, no, no. I know the history of apartheid, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the American South - we won't have any niggers or mexes about to do the dirty work. As Eric Thomson says, there is no such thing as cheap labor. We solve the temptation by removing it. Exterminate the jews, remove the muds back to their native lands, clean the mexiswamp down through the isthmus. Take away the cultists' playthings, what are they going to do? Without jews, the liberals are going to find it awfully hard to be more than a tiny group of mental freaks, and they will stick out among the normals, and if they rise up, they will be crushed by the Defenders. Of course, no human system can't be breached, but that's a given. Whites can be ingenious in their devising of crazy systems and pressing them on others. Nothing can be done about it except fight it. White genius and creativity don't just show up in the good people, they exist in our bad people too, and nothing we can do will change that, we just have to fight them. We can only worry about things in our time. Beyond that, we lay out for posterity the lessons we know, and what seems best - the actual execution is their job. We can't make and shouldn't want Clockwork Whites. We want a free society, not the white ant farm some of the Germanics desire. Like they say you can't be a gentleman without being a man, you can't be a White man without being a man. That essential point can't get lost in the politics we propose.


We're of the same opinion here. This is the goal I have defended on my own website: a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America. That's the minimum.


Good.

Some here have made points that we need more economic talk or a clearer idea to show people of the state we have in mind, hence I've been working that out lower on the forum. It is worth discussing because clearly WN here and elsewhere are divided on what kind of state they envision. WN implies nothing other than whites-only. I don't really know of a better term, though. We want a white nation. That's the main thing. Even if it were nothing like what I outlined, it would be better than what we have now if for no other reason than the rulers weren't dedicated to White genocide. But because our enemy will always define us in the worst way, it behooves us to lay out where our plans differ from theirs.


That sounds nice. Personally, I would prefer to live under such an arrangement myself. I'm not so sure though that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube. I doubt the amount of freedom and small government enjoyed by early nineteenth century Americans is recoverable at this late date.

Of course not! Would you really want to if you could? Not really, I doubt it. I wouldn't. We can cry over what's gone and can't come back, but we can also make it or find it anew. White is not a point, it is a quest. Unless you're Amish. I prefer the road and the risk to the routine. We always talk about how technology is used to control us, but it has an upside too. This, again, gets back to the libertarian ideas re secession and micro-states. Turns out virtually all functions of the state are unnecessary. We can't let our focus on race (which the libertarian, incorrectly, ignore) take away from the dawning realization on the part of a hell of a lot of smart people that government is the very worst way to handle most life problems. Combine that breakthrough with our racial knowledge - THAT is where we hit the jackpot. In my opinion.

Like I've said many times, I live in small-town Missouri. It is lower end as the sociologists judge these things. Our town council is drunks and pyromaniacs! (Literally - our mayor was convicted of arson, burning down her own bar!) Yet our community is lovely and livable and the town is always in the black. The conclusion is that even the dumber and poorer whites don't need anybody or anything but themselves to prosper. The problem is entirely in the concentration of power at the federal level. I can't totally criticize Hitler and Germany for consolidation in light of the beast to the east and the fact that Germany is hardly bigger than a couple American states, but I am not willing to throw out the good part of historical American politics (which you know at least as well as anyone writing on the 'Net) - the ideas of Calhoun, the ideas of states behind comfortable in their own skin (the Celtic south) and the idea of a genial competition and peacefully regional differences. Hey - we're White men. We don't have to agree on everything. Let people do things their own way. Of course, any tolerant system is self-refuting, as one white tendency is toward imperalistic moralizing. But I guess that's the cost of being alive. We have to kill if we don't want to submit. Not ideal, but what are you gonna do? The world is rough. Life is struggle, even under optimal conditions. Moralizers and perverts be with us always, as Jesus said before he disappeared into the cathouse. There's no way to cut them out of the picture yet. Perhaps genetic technology will make it possible one day, and people can choose to breed a more perfect strain of white man. Short of that I don't know better than what I've described above.


If separatism is the ultimate goal, an apartheid type system would have to be created. Homogenous White zones could be established. In order to enter such zones (on a temporary basis), non-Whites would need the necessary paperwork. The size of the White zones (the nucleus of the White ethnostate) could be expanded over time as the non-Whites are concentrated, squeezed out, and resettled elsewhere.

I don't think that's enough. We have to clear the continent like our forefathers should have done. Once we're established, we set up formal relations with the rest of the world, enabling travel and trade on terms that benefit us. Any mix of zones is going to be a standing temptation to profiteers and moralists. Let's make sure the chocos are at least an ocean away so their grubby little mitts don't get grabby.

I've spoken to Greg and we mutually agreed that conservatism is worthless.

I know you do, intellectually. But what matters more than agreement on the basic idea is translating it into behavior toward people and positions. On this I argue, as I have to Greg, that TOQ is following an essentially conservative line by mixing standard conservatives with people who take a more WN line. I don't think that's the way to go. The crying need now is for, if you're staying soft, a White curriculum for HS, so we can begin to form the separate nation. If you're going hard, it is for ruthless attacks and mocking of the conservatives, not workign with them and smoothing over differences when it gains you no minds or material advantages. Perhaps we disagree on this, but it will continue to be fought.

I mean by "hard," not what I said about, that's just verbal hardness, but actual leadership. This is the crux of the matter as we get to late 2009: no one -- me included -- is offering any leadership, and leadership, honest to god political leadership, is what Whites need. Not lectures about IQ. Not demands for fairness. Not flipping the left's verbal tricks and civil rights bromides against them. Leadership. Uncompromising jew-naming, White-defending leadership.

The reason I criticize Francis in the past, and KM for the stupid mistake of using Sam to write his book foreword, and Greg for in some way finding no problem with this when from his VNN past he should know better, is that Sam did what I said in the other post, and KM looks to be following the same route: BLAMING the people. Rather than helping them and inspiring them and LEADING them. Sam's position, expressed in KM's book foreward, is that NOT of a leader but of someone standing to the side and saying, gee, you whites should be really mad about this. You're really getting screwed here. I will be real surprised if you don't rise up. Sam wrote as a neutral party, with no stake in the outcome. Always he kept himself at arm's length. He NEVER ONCE called himself a White nationalist or anything theresimilar. Sam Francis was unmanly, and it came through in nearly everything he wrote. That's what made him Canny. He knew just where the line was, and he always made sure his belly was on the side of safety.

Now Greg can say all day long he's not a conservative, but when that's the kind of man and attitude you're subsidizing with your support, you are in functional fact, a conservative.

This must always be kept in mind: there is a world of difference between leading and analyzing. One is jock-sniffing, the other is playing linebacker.

Let's not lie to ourselves. Just as the dumb guys with the swastikas fantasize they are warriors, we smart guys are apt to fantasize we are leaders because we are chock full o' good ideas.

We should know, if we've ever been in business or had any experience in anything, the world is full to its eyeballs of good ideas. What is rare as hell is anybody to execute them.

That's why Rounder is here. A forty-year-old Rounder is worth a dozen Macdonalds and infinite Sam Francises.

Didn't Mao say a revolution is not a dinner party.

We will never be led to freedom by the White Dinner Party.

The nation we seek will not come from temporizers, publishers, analysts, writers and remonstrators and 501c3 intake valves.

Let's just keep that in mind and not kid ourselves. NO ONE credible that I know of offers to leadership to the White race. Greg says my editing grew erratic. Well, Greg, after five years of daily writing more than most columnists write in a week, under difficult circumstances, perhaps I burned out. Perhaps too, Greg, VNN had achieved its most fundamental mission, to set a new tone, and knock WN into a new way of thinking. You say I worked with others who were bad. You have to take chances to make progress, Greg. A bunch of aged Ph.D.s who won't lead have no chance of winning. They just write more books saying the same thing. I would rather take a chance on destroying my reputation and website through alliances with people who in my judgment have some of the elements of victory in their makeup than keep on doing the same old things until I turn into an old clown.

Don't tell me about intellectual leadership, there's no such thing. Our cause is easy to define, and the outcome is easy to measure. What we need, what matters now, is leadership. I don't see anybody willing to offer it. I see endless conservative kibitzers and analysts, make the same old points that have always been made. That doesn't lead anywhere.

Who will offer the white community leadership? Him I do not see, not on the stage, not in the offing.

brother greg! you homosexual? we family bro.

alex, like we homosexuals shouldn't care about out nieces' and nephews' and godchilluns' future? (assuming we don't have any biological, or adopted kids of our own - I don't).

if your kid(s) were to die tomorrow and you found you couldn't have any more, would you say - to hell with the white race? or would you continue to press forward, to preserve the race for all the good people out there..

greg, I don't mean to answer for you, these were just some thoughts I had and I'm not even all that hardcore a racist. please forgive my intrusion and answer in your infinitely more eloquent way.

Oh Mein Gott, yet another ass licking, rectum loving, shit eating faggot on here. Chunk em all in the hoosegow Alex, for reasons of hygeine if nothing else.

This thread disappoints me. I thought TOQ was making good progress, especially in attracting a cadre of writers like Connelly and Elizabeth Whitcombe who apply MacDonald's framework, much as the neocons do with Leo Strauss. But I fear Greg leaves open the option of returning to the vomit of faileoconservatism, replete with fat Sambo's rationalizations for his Jew buddies.

We can learn some tactics from the Jews. We can't legally kill people like the Mossad does, we can't directly get them fired like the ADL does (though there may be indirect ways), but we can do what Norman Podhoretz does: we can shun people. Jared Taylor stands with the Jewish enemy, so he gets no fellowship and no resources from any WN. He's white (Alex's "WHINO") only in the same way fellow Jew-fawner Charles Murray is white. Murray doesn't pretend to be WN and we won't let Taylor get away with that pretense. Then we take it to the next level. We won't take anyone seriously who takes Jared Taylor seriously. That means you Greg.

Yes. Greg knows better. But, he is following Macdonald, who is following Francis. They tell themselves they are cleverly insinuating themselves into the elite, and influencing it. They are not. When I ask Greg to lay out their strategy, nothing but crickets. Who is this mysterious elite you are influencing, Greg? Show me how this works from the White state we seek back to your actions?

All they have is, uh, let's write a bunch more books saying the same thing, uh, maybe we run The Turd for representative, uh, maybe we hold a conference with Pat Buchanan on how those gosh-durn liberals destroyed the fifties. That's what they have.

Above all, let's never form a White advocacy group. That could have implications. Let's never speak to the public, only to private donor groups. Let's never confront the opposition outdoors. Let's never make an HS curriculum so the young have something prepared for them, forming the basis of a new nation. Let's do what we've always done and maybe this time it will bring results.

A market where people buy and sell without state interference in the form of endless licensing, restrictions and taxes. This is where the libertarians are way ahead of us racialists


An economic free-for-all under the “free market” mythos is largely responsible for the mess we are in now. Each man for himself in the realm of economics means each man for himself in the realm of politics, too. Libertarian thinking has no answer for us politically and it has no answer for us with economics either.

Without jews our current capitalist system of economic exploitation will not magically improve. Finance will still take precedence over all – what force is there in the “free market” to say that it does not?


The Defenders will have to be schooled as essentially religious civil servants. They will be elite but they will not weigh heavy on the people. They will have to see things as a matter of honor rather than money and personal interest.

This just does not make sense. What code of honor do libertarians have? The god religious civil servants worship is the “free market” – is it not? You are desperately trying to clothe NS economic principles in neo-libertarian rags, why make such a disingenuous effort? Why not call a NS a NS and be done with it? If the WN State is our friendly big brother in the political realm why can’t it be our friendly big brother in the economic realm too? Politics for the good of the race + economics for the good of the race = National Socialism no matter how you want to avoid it.

People can use whatever criteria they want to judge their purchases; it's not the government's job to make things safe, just to defend us against other races and foreign threats.

This is just nonsensical too. Robber Barons, sweat shops, quacks, frauds, etc all THRIVED under laze faire capitalism. Are you unaware of Sinclair’s The Jungle? Or do you just not give a damn? You really need to think this attitude through.


Things need to be accorded the power appropriate to their position and ability. The opposite of what we have now, where every single substantial decision is taken by the federal government, and anyone who disagrees is beaten down. Only the worst and lowest forms of white man prefer that system. The only function that fits whites as a collective is defense against foreign enemies. The rest can by individuals through private arrangements.

Where do the rights of Corporations and monopolies fit into your scheme of things?

Individuals STAND NO CHANCE against their collective interests.

You are walking us right back down the path that we trod 100 years ago. Reforms on destructive corporations and monopolies were only won at the expense and ruination of 10s of thousands of White lives and families. “OSHA/union bullshit” also saved White lives. Why do you insist that we play this same game out again? Call a spade a spade – place a National Socialist structure regulating a healthy series of guidelines and restrictions on businesses - and be done with it.


Turns out virtually all functions of the state are unnecessary.

White victims of economic exploitation just don’t enter into your way of thinking at all do they? A free-for-all Willie Wonka world with children’s heads being lopped off by bubble mixing machines is hardly worth the struggle we are facing.

The conclusion is that even the dumber and poorer whites don't need anybody or anything but themselves to prosper.

Do you want your gastro surgery at your local hospital or would you prefer it at the Mayo clinic? Small and simple is not always the most desirable or what we should be aiming at. The point is that we Whites should be collectivizing to rule our world and advance to the stars – because we find it good, necessary and challenging - not dispersing and escaping to the backwoods - because we find it momentarily satisfying. The former is Life-Affirming and the latter Life-denying. Our economics SHOULD BE MADE TO CONFORM TO THE FORMER.


I mean by "hard," not what I said about, that's just verbal hardness, but actual leadership. This is the crux of the matter as we get to late 2009: no one -- me included -- is offering any leadership, and leadership, honest to god political leadership, is what Whites need. Not lectures about IQ. Not demands for fairness. Not flipping the left's verbal tricks and civil rights bromides against them. Leadership. Uncompromising jew-naming, White-defending leadership.

The reason I criticize Francis in the past, and KM for the stupid mistake of using Sam to write his book foreword, and Greg for in some way finding no problem with this when from his VNN past he should know better, is that Sam did what I said in the other post, and KM looks to be following the same route: BLAMING the people. Rather than helping them and inspiring them and LEADING them. Sam's position, expressed in KM's book foreward, is that NOT of a leader but of someone standing to the side and saying, gee, you whites should be really mad about this. You're really getting screwed here. I will be real surprised if you don't rise up. Sam wrote as a neutral party, with no stake in the outcome. Always he kept himself at arm's length. He NEVER ONCE called himself a White nationalist or anything theresimilar. Sam Francis was unmanly, and it came through in nearly everything he wrote. That's what made him Canny. He knew just where the line was, and he always made sure his belly was on the side of safety.

Now Greg can say all day long he's not a conservative, but when that's the kind of man and attitude you're subsidizing with your support, you are in functional fact, a conservative.

This must always be kept in mind: there is a world of difference between leading and analyzing. One is jock-sniffing, the other is playing linebacker.

Let's not lie to ourselves. Just as the dumb guys with the swastikas fantasize they are warriors, we smart guys are apt to fantasize we are leaders because we are chock full o' good ideas.

We should know, if we've ever been in business or had any experience in anything, the world is full to its eyeballs of good ideas. What is rare as hell is anybody to execute them.

That's why Rounder is here. A forty-year-old Rounder is worth a dozen Macdonalds and infinite Sam Francises.

Didn't Mao say a revolution is not a dinner party.

We will never be led to freedom by the White Dinner Party.

The nation we seek will not come from temporizers, publishers, analysts, writers and remonstrators and 501c3 intake valves.

Let's just keep that in mind and not kid ourselves. NO ONE credible that I know of offers to leadership to the White race. Greg says my editing grew erratic. Well, Greg, after five years of daily writing more than most columnists write in a week, under difficult circumstances, perhaps I burned out. Perhaps too, Greg, VNN had achieved its most fundamental mission, to set a new tone, and knock WN into a new way of thinking. You say I worked with others who were bad. You have to take chances to make progress, Greg. A bunch of aged Ph.D.s who won't lead have no chance of winning. They just write more books saying the same thing. I would rather take a chance on destroying my reputation and website through alliances with people who in my judgment have some of the elements of victory in their makeup than keep on doing the same old things until I turn into an old clown.

Don't tell me about intellectual leadership, there's no such thing. Our cause is easy to define, and the outcome is easy to measure. What we need, what matters now, is leadership. I don't see anybody willing to offer it. I see endless conservative kibitzers and analysts, make the same old points that have always been made. That doesn't lead anywhere.

Who will offer the white community leadership? Him I do not see, not on the stage, not in the offing.


Yes. Greg knows better. But, he is following Macdonald, who is following Francis. They tell themselves they are cleverly insinuating themselves into the elite, and influencing it. They are not. When I ask Greg to lay out their strategy, nothing but crickets. Who is this mysterious elite you are influencing, Greg? Show me how this works from the White state we seek back to your actions?

All they have is, uh, let's write a bunch more books saying the same thing, uh, maybe we run The Turd for representative, uh, maybe we hold a conference with Pat Buchanan on how those gosh-durn liberals destroyed the fifties. That's what they have.

Above all, let's never form a White advocacy group. That could have implications. Let's never speak to the public, only to private donor groups. Let's never confront the opposition outdoors. Let's never make an HS curriculum so the young have something prepared for them, forming the basis of a new nation. Let's do what we've always done and maybe this time it will bring results.

You are on a roll. Some of the best stuff I have ever read you write. Bravo on every point.

I don't think that's enough. We have to clear the continent like our forefathers should have done. Once we're established, we set up formal relations with the rest of the world, enabling travel and trade on terms that benefit us. Any mix of zones is going to be a standing temptation to profiteers and moralists. Let's make sure the chocos are at least an ocean away so their grubby little mitts don't get grabby.

Of course. The ultimate goal is a final and complete separation. I had in mind parts of Alabama and Georgia where negroes are an outright majority in many counties. I come from this area. Clearing the Deep South of non-Whites will be a more arduous process than deporting them from lily White Northern Missouri/Iowa. It will undoubtedly take many years to accomplish.

I know you do, intellectually. But what matters more than agreement on the basic idea is translating it into behavior toward people and positions.

I can see your point about the attitude (ridicule and contempt) that we should adopt towards conservatives. I've had many exchanges with John Zmirak. I'm not a fan of Justin Raimondo or Tom Fleming either. All three have repeatedly attacked White Nationalists over the past year or two.

On this I argue, as I have to Greg, that TOQ is following an essentially conservative line by mixing standard conservatives with people who take a more WN line. I don't think that's the way to go.

I know there is some overlap between Greg's circle of writers at TOQ and the fringes of paleoconservatism. I'm not sure if this has affected his editorial stance though. After all, TOQ "names the Jew" and endorses the White ethnostate, which is essentially your position. That's hardly conservative. It goes far beyond anything I have seen at Takimag or VDARE.

The crying need now is for, if you're staying soft, a White curriculum for HS, so we can begin to form the separate nation. If you're going hard, it is for ruthless attacks and mocking of the conservatives, not workign with them and smoothing over differences when it gains you no minds or material advantages. Perhaps we disagree on this, but it will continue to be fought.

I don't have any problem ruthlessly attacking and mocking mainstream conservatives. 99% of them attack us out of political expediency. There are only a handful of prominent conservatives (probably less than 50) who are even remotely sympathetic to White Nationalism.

I'm not in the habit of attacking people who don't attack us. That's my litmus test. If no gunfire is emanating from their side, I choose other targets. White Nationalists have allies, sympathizers, and people who won't stand in our way. I see no reason to attack friendlies or neutrals. They're not impeding our efforts so long as they remain silent.

Good.

Some here have made points that we need more economic talk or a clearer idea to show people of the state we have in mind, hence I've been working that out lower on the forum. It is worth discussing because clearly WN here and elsewhere are divided on what kind of state they envision.

We're in agreement on the definition of White Nationalism. See below. I think we should move on to the next question: What steps should be taken to ensure the permanence of a WN revolution?

WN implies nothing other than whites-only. I don't really know of a better term, though. We want a white nation. That's the main thing. Even if it were nothing like what I outlined, it would be better than what we have now if for no other reason than the rulers weren't dedicated to White genocide. But because our enemy will always define us in the worst way, it behooves us to lay out where our plans differ from theirs.

Nothing to argue with here. White Nationalism is the idea that Whites should secede from the United States and create a Jew-free, White ethnostate. As I said above, that's the minimum we should rally around. The various other differences that divide pro-Whites can be left to the political process once the ethnostate is established.

But, he is following Macdonald, who is following Francis. They tell themselves they are cleverly insinuating themselves into the elite, and influencing it. They are not. When I ask Greg to lay out their strategy, nothing but crickets. Who is this mysterious elite you are influencing, Greg?

MacDonald uses that term a lot too but never seems to define it. Until someone convinces me otherwise, the white elite are just multiple-degreed lemmings who like single malts. Paul Findley shows how people who thought they had elite status promptly lost it when they ran afoul of the Jews. Maybe they weren't so elite to begin with. If white elites have no meaningful influence, what is the value of a political strategy designed specially to influence them?

Libertarians tend to think in abstract terms. They have all sorts of theories about government, economics, and ethics. I’m impressed less by their abstractions and more persuaded by the empirical results that follow their implemention.

We’ve tried almost everything the libertarians recommend over the course of American history: the gold standard, multiple currencies, financial deregulation, private roads/railroads, absence of the Federal Reserve, absence of the income tax, cutting back government bureaucracy, legalization of drugs, laissez-faire capitalism, international free trade, federalism/small government, expansion of civil liberties, neutering the state, deunionization, no Social Security, no Medicare/Medicaid, no Earned Income Tax Credit, no welfare system, no minimum wage or collective bargaining, no workplace safety standards, dispensing with virtue ethics, private schools, etc. We have a vast well of experience with radical liberty to draw upon. Yet the libertarians always seem to prefer their abstract arguments and deductive reasoning to historical ones. Why is that?

We know how free market laissez-faire capitalism ends: in vast concentrations of wealth (land and capital) in the hands of a privileged few, huge multinational corporations that tower over the remaining small businesses, monopolies and cartels, private transportation systems that suck every penny out of the common man, race replacement through ‘cheap labor’ immigration, a radicalized, uneducated and degraded proletariat constantly engaged in strikes and riots and infected with Marxism, environmental degradation, financial panics and depression, shortage of credit, depressed wages, a plutocratic elite that buys elections and corrupts the political system with its largesse. It was a good system for the wealthiest few who didn’t use public services, at least for a while, until the top heavy economy periodically collapsed under its own weight in the inevitable cyclical depression.

The system is inherently unstable for both labor and capital and gave rise to the very social forces which succeeded in undermining and overthrowing it. If by some chance we ever were to return to Gilded Age conditions, history would unfold again in much the same way. It is worth noting that this is the degenerate condition that millions of Jewish immigrants found Americans in when they arrived on our shores. Their arrival in the New World was part of the ‘cheap labor’ glut that flowed out of Eastern and Southern Europe into Northern industry at the time. The Jews would later climb the same ladder into the American plutocracy used by J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford.

Aside from the small faction of libertarian ideologues, there is no constituency for returning to the days of the Robber Barons. The working class justifiably balks at surrendering the handful of concessions won from Capital over the past hundred years. The middle class, still reeling from ‘free trade’, clamors for ever more public services (which Obama promises to deliver). Even the wealthy realize that a managed economy is ultimately in their interest. It stiffles labor militancy and the growth of radical class-based redistributionist movements. The government is also useful (as in the Panic of ‘08) when it pulls their collective chestnuts out of the fire.

White Nationalists support ending non-White immigration and deporting the non-White labor force already in the United States. In doing so, we have earned the implacable hostility of the business community; both small businesses and multinational corporations alike depend on their non-White helots. We’re proposing a permanent and radical increase in the price of labor that will bankrupt any number of businesses. The only way forward to the White ethnostate is through a knife fight to the death with the pro-business lobby and the ethnic grievance organizations that are allied to them. That’s not a fight we can possibly win with a libertarian economic agenda that will alienate the working class and lower middle class.

Once the beast is subdued (the cheap labor lobby and its hanger ons), White Nationalists will have to be permanently on guard to ensure it never rises from the dead. As you note, this could involve constitutional measures, draconian penalties for racial treason, a permanent class or religious order of “Defenders” charged with the responsibility of overseeing the culture and economy, a national academy to train the “Defenders,” government control of the media, public schools that indoctrinate our youth in the racial ideal, or some combination the above. Whatever the case, the salient point is that a transition to a White Nationalist ethnostate (a process likely to take generations) will require authoritarian measures which run against the grain of libertarianism, and probably not solely on a temporary basis.

Indeed, there is nothing “libertarian” at all about what we are proposing to do: overthrowing civic institutions and replacing them with a new blut und boden racial order, mass violations of sacrosanct individual rights and property rights, engaging in ‘aggression’ against sovereign individuals in the name of collectivism, engaging in racial and religious intolerance, imposing ethical and aesthetic standards on a libertine populace, etc. A true libertarian (whose mind is governed by universal abstractions) would never entertain such measures. In many ways, the White Nationalist worldview (based solely on collective self interest, not highminded universal principles) is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the other species of liberalism.

If you really think about it, libertarianism has no future in a White Nationalist ethnostate. In selecting our form of government, our primary concern must be the nature of our elite, not the ‘rights’ of individuals. After a successful revolutionary struggle, I seriously doubt White Nationalists will want to go back to the days when America was governed by a shallow Judeo-Capitalist plutocracy whose primary qualification to rule was their ability to make money. Social mobility will have to be organized on some other basis than the Horatio Alger myth; perhaps along the lines of the “essentially religious civil servants” you described above. At a minimum, this would require a highly regulated economy, not the laissez-faire free market favored by libertarians.

Most importantly, the status system will have to be forever severed from market economy, which is another blow against libertarianism. We’ve seen the mischief the advertising industry has caused by creating artificial needs and instilling sick materialistic values in the masses. This is closely linked to the low White birthrate, racial nihilism, and popularity of contraception and abortion in the West. You’ve already mentioned that status must be linked to values like duty, honor, and self sacrifice in the new system. I would go beyond that and argue for a return to virtue ethics in your HS curriculum. We need to move beyond the silly expressivist notion that each child should be allowed to nurture his own individuality. From our perspective, some values are manifestly superior to others.

In a White ethnostate, ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ would be knocked off the pedestal they now occupy in contemporary political discourse. More important considerations like community and the preservation of our genetic integrity would rise to the fore and take precedence. I seriously doubt we would break wholly with the tradition of individual rights or basic republican equality before the law. The old values would still have their place, but they would no longer be considered absolute, center stage, or universally applicable to all races. The market economy is also another likely survivor, albeit in a form unrecognizable to the one we are familar with today.

I will stop short of saying that pro-Whites need an entirely new political philosophy. We don’t need to establish a new set of (false) universal principles which could later be invoked to sabotage our racial interests. Instead, we should take our direction from art and literature that reflect our racial ideals, and adopt a critical posture towards all systemizers and their fetish for abstractions.

In a White ethnostate, there would be no shortage of outlets for individual talent and genius. You could easily spend your entire life trying to restore racial sanity to Kirksville, MO. That's one small town. Your efforts alone probably wouldn't be enough to get the job done.

There are thousands of towns all across America in similar desperate condition. In such places, there will be plenty of 'freedom' to do what matters. The 'freedom' of young White girls to drop their panties for sweaty negroes in the restroom of integrated clubs might be taken away. The 'freedom' of Jews to own mass media outlets and poison the morals of the masses will similarly be dispensed with. A healthy civilization doesn't need 'freedom' of that sort.

No one is proposing that an all powerful central government run everything. Outright race sabotage should be illegal. It shouldn't be licensed in the name of liberty.

Melvil Dewey invented the Dewey Decimal System in 1876. It's used mainly in school libraries.

The "philosopher of education" was John Dewey, who lived a little later. John Dewey was a fan of the Soviet Union.

John Dewey, at the behest Justice Felix Frankfurter, succeeded in getting the Ivy League's numerus clausus (quota system) on Jewish enrollment at Harvard rolled back. This opened the doors just wide enough for the whole constellation of American elite universities to be taken over. He personified the sort of high WASP noblesse oblige which ultimately resulted in the incremental handing of the whole country over to the new alien elite in fits of Fabian rectitude.

The only way forward to the White ethnostate is through a knife fight to the death with the pro-business lobby and the ethnic grievance organizations that are allied to them. That’s not a fight we can possibly win with a libertarian economic agenda that will alienate the working class and lower middle class.

[...]

Indeed, there is nothing “libertarian” at all about what we are proposing to do: overthrowing civic institutions and replacing them with a new blut und boden racial order, mass violations of sacrosanct individual rights and property rights, engaging in ‘aggression’ against sovereign individuals in the name of collectivism, engaging in racial and religious intolerance, imposing ethical and aesthetic standards on a libertine populace, etc. A true libertarian (whose mind is governed by universal abstractions) would never entertain such measures. In many ways, the White Nationalist worldview (based solely on collective self interest, not highminded universal principles) is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the other species of liberalism.

If you really think about it, libertarianism has no future in a White Nationalist ethnostate.


Finally, a man not afraid to call a spade a spade. A pro-White authoritarian state is nothing we should deny the logical necessity of or fear in politics OR economics. Well stated, Mr Ebbe.


Aside from the small faction of libertarian ideologues, there is no constituency for returning to the days of the Robber Barons.

I agree. Who do we think we’re playing to anyway? We either represent the White working class politically AND economically or we don’t; there is no separating the two. The fact that we have tried goes to show just how muddled our thinking has been the last 50 years and why the “left” has eaten our lunch every step of the way - and why we have a negro as president now. The White working class has no representation and we have no program to offer them.

Could we be doing any worse job of alienating the White working class IF WE TRIED?

As Alex might put it: those crickets you hear chirping after your last post is the sack of cats on this site mulling over how they are ever going to start cooperating economically.

*chirp*

But - Look at what can be done with the right emphasis and a little imagination: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/17012

Now I ask: Is that really so undesirable or something to fear?


DEATH to the judeo-Capitalist plutocracy and judaic spirit that rules over our lives!

Free enterprise and capitalism are two very different things.

In our post-agricultural, post-industrial consumerist society, restrictions limiting or even dismantaling capitalist enterprises such as Wal-Mart, Home jewPot, Lowes, and perhaps more importantly corporate restaurants, would create an environment in which every American family could successfully operate a small business. Want to open a hardware store or restaurant? Good luck with that shit.

Man was freest when he controlled the means to his own livelihood in agriculture. Under capitalism, we're all peasants to the feudal corporations. Getting rid of a lot of these fuckers would allow every man to own his own "farm" again, so to speak.

True, free enterprise (freedom of competition) is the only way to go, but the cycle of capitalism always ends in the same place. Much like communism, capitalism has it's interesting points in theory, but human nature always gets in the way of the final product.

Ass cancer is a neutral term, as I see it.

No, Alex, it's crass.

No, Alex, it's crass.

It fits the affliction.

Free enterprise and capitalism are two very different things.

In our post-agricultural, post-industrial consumerist society, restrictions limiting or even dismantaling capitalist enterprises such as Wal-Mart, Home jewPot, Lowes, and perhaps more importantly corporate restaurants, would create an environment in which every American family could successfully operate a small business. Want to open a hardware store or restaurant? Good luck with that shit.

I'm in a small town of 17,000 with a SuperWal-mart and a Home Depot. We also have 3-4 other smaller hardware stores that predated the HD. None have gone out of business since the HD appeared years ago. It's not as simple as saying the giants drive the small ones out of business. Partly the small ones have to find niches; they also have to work harder. In small towns, if the big box stores aren't there, the smaller stores aren't selling it. You'd have to buy it online or drive 100 miles to a big city. The picture is far from as stark as the leftists draw it.

You want to operate in retail (not just clothes but general) you have to pretty much make one of three choices: unique products, special services, low cost.

Food example here in Kirksville:

- low-cost (Aldi)
- special services (Hy-Vee - "a smile in every aisle")
- unique products (Wal-mart - all kinds of items the other two don't carry)

Those are the only food stores in town, except you have lots of dollar stores to fill in the gap. They get buy on a combination of low prices and, even more so, the convenience of their location.

Wal-mart started as a small store. What differentiated it was the owner, Sam Walton, got off his ass and made deals. Your average mom-and-pop store does not want to do that. It wants to sit on its ass and enjoy the markup because its customers can't drive 90 miles to get better deals. A lot of the whining about Wal-Mart is simply the combined hue of the lazy + the leftists. It's certainly not coming from W-M workers or customers. It comes from professors and other useless eaters.

Melvil Dewey invented the Dewey Decimal System in 1876. It's used mainly in school libraries.

The "philosopher of education" was John Dewey, who lived a little later. John Dewey was a fan of the Soviet Union.

Dewy is fairly described as the jewiest non-jew who ever lived. He was a pervert and a liar; a blackmailer and a subverter. He should be buried in a jewish cemetery though he be 100% WASP (I think).

I believe it is also important to blame the Jew for the two biggest scams of this calendar year. And they need to be summarized in the simplest of terms:
the media-hyped banking crises and the subsequent bailout was nothing more than a scam to give the Jews who own the big banks over a trillion dollars of our money under the guise of a bailout. It was nothing but a gigantic Jewish swindle. It had nothing to do with saving our economy or preventing any depression or saving any failing banks. The whole thing was a lie. It was nothing more than Jews stealing our money.

The current health care plan is nothing more than a Jewish con to swindle $400 billion dollars per year from the people for the Jew-owned insurance companies. The Jews own the banks and the insurance companies and these two media-hyped ventures are nothing more than Jews stealing our money. To argue this or that point about the health care plan is irrelevant to its purpose. The whole proposal, in its entirety, is nothing more than a scheme to give the Jews a $400 billion dollars per-year subsidy for their insurance companies. It isn't about anything else.

All these programs, illegal aliens, unlimited immigration, so-called civil laws that require whites to discriminate against their own kind, health insurance schemes, bank bailout schemes, must be identified for what they simply are: the Jews are stealing our money.

Multiculturalism and abortion are sponsored by the Jews to exterminate our race. They are the Jewish attempt to perpetrate a holocaust against our people. The Holohoax is a Jewish cover, to make them appear innocent victims, while they commit their own holocaust against the white race.

So, yes, I agree, the Jew must be acknowledged as the force behind all these adverse laws and programs.

I also agree, that securing the U.S. as a national homeland for the white race must be our first and foremost objective. All programs, no matter how appealing, are of secondary importance.

I also agree with, "word and boot". That is why I promote both.

The ghost of Julius Streicher would agree with you. His tabloid focused on jewish sexual and financial shenanigans. All that was left was for FIPS to supply brilliant sexy cartoons.

This thread disappoints me. I thought TOQ was making good progress, especially in attracting a cadre of writers like Connelly and Elizabeth Whitcombe who apply MacDonald's framework, much as the neocons do with Leo Strauss. But I fear Greg leaves open the option of returning to the vomit of faileoconservatism, replete with fat Sambo's rationalizations for his Jew buddies.

The problem is one of personality and instinct overcoming intellectual knowledge. The right way to go is to develop a core, a kernel, of White anti-jew fighters, intellectual, political, financial, martial. You don't do that by playing down differences and taking the path of low standards - tolerance for jews like Gottfried and jew-excusers like Taylor. Most humans are more or less impervious to evidence against the fantasies floating in their heads, especially when the fantasies coincide with pleasurable emoluments.


We can learn some tactics from the Jews. We can't legally kill people like the Mossad does, we can't directly get them fired like the ADL does (though there may be indirect ways), but we can do what Norman Podhoretz does: we can shun people. Jared Taylor stands with the Jewish enemy, so he gets no fellowship and no resources from any WN. He's white (Alex's "WHINO") only in the same way fellow Jew-fawner Charles Murray is white. Murray doesn't pretend to be WN and we won't let Taylor get away with that pretense. Then we take it to the next level. We won't take anyone seriously who takes Jared Taylor seriously. That means you Greg.

Yep. The thing is, and I will write about this at greater length, anyone who goes to grad school for liberal arts has his mind enriched but also deformed in a very real way, similar, mutatis mutandis, to the way lawyer's minds are deformed. It is no acccident that the best writer in English, ever, - HL Mencken - had no formal academic training past high school. I never went to grad school, but I would certainly be a better writer had I not gone to college and gone directly to paid writing. Of course, that's hardly possible these days when everything requires a degree, ensuring you know how to kowtow to the Mau-Maus and have wasted four years of your thickest energy. The writing of those who have gone to grad school has an upside and downside. The upside is the writer knows how to write formally. Generally spelling, grammar, syntax, footnotes are in place. The downside is everything that writer writes after he leaves school is written in the tone of one fearful of being caught out. This is because grad students read hundreds of books, attend dozens of seminars, get dissed and discussed over and over until they're wave-crazy. They can't write without feeling they're being looked at, and this queers or snips any budding style the odd one might have had going in.

So you end up with people who are trying to be radicals, because they know it is intellectually indicated, but, because of the professional deformation they have undergone in the long years in the academy, they have simply lost the dynamism and wildness you need to spark the real thing. The best they can manage is a limp $PLC. It's almost as cute as it is pathetic.

But of course, it could be contended that many successful political radicals came from middle-class academic backgrounds, Che for example. Rightists, and racialism is rightism, no matter Metzger's opinion, don't tend to be cultists as leftists are. After all, if they were prone to unreality, they would be leftists. While this makes them more desirable as people, it makes them less suited to forming radical cadre. They simply can't get past acting gentlemanly, not making people feel bad, being respectful even when they disagree. This renders them essentially unfit for the revolutionary task, save as dredgers up of useful facts and quotations.

I have no fear of looking bad. I have no Ph.D. and have never been to grad school. I don't have to impress anybody. So I can write with the inner wildness one needs, the wildness that when combined with factual knowledge can lead to liberating breakthroughs in terms and frames. To me, and anyone else in my class, the academics are miners excavating rough diamonds. But they have no idea how to carve and set them. I do. They provide the bones, but I know how to flesh the body and make it dance.

We don't win over elites, we make ours the quest for the ages. We lure new elites not by the promise of riches and fame but by the prospect of glory eternal. That's what lured me - a person who had other options - the prospect of going down in history as the man who defeated the jews. Not just in a time and space, but for all eternity. There's your unique selling propsition, not fucking IQ differences or some fucking Mythos, whatever that is, I guess a cereal of some sort.

Glory, baby. It's hard to be on glory road when your colon doesn't work. Where is the new me? Him I want to read.

Do you grok me, Aryan water brothers? Any of you?

I'm in a small town of 17,000 with a SuperWal-mart and a Home Depot. We also have 3-4 other smaller hardware stores that predated the HD. None have gone out of business since the HD appeared years ago. It's not as simple as saying the giants drive the small ones out of business. Partly the small ones have to find niches; they also have to work harder. In small towns, if the big box stores aren't there, the smaller stores aren't selling it. You'd have to buy it online or drive 100 miles to a big city. The picture is far from as stark as the leftists draw it.

Good points. Though I know that at least one of those hardware stores in Kirksville is owned by a multi-hundred million dollar corporation that I used to work for. My point there being even the percieved "small guys" are big corporate.

Most truly independent small businesses catering in common goods have been in business long before the giants started their monster expansions in the 1990s, and thus have a pre-established customer base. How does a new business get started up competing with corporate grocery stores, corporate dollar stores, corporate restaurants, corporate gas stations. I just feel that the real freedom of competition, if you will, is being constrained more and more over time. Sure you can theoretically, but in certain cases not realistically.

My concern is more in the future. I think it's fair to say that the big ones will carve out enough of the market that the concept of "small business" (speaking strictly of your typical store-front type of business) will be a concept known only to a minority.

Wal-mart started as a small store. What differentiated it was the owner, Sam Walton, got off his ass and made deals. Your average mom-and-pop store does not want to do that. It wants to sit on its ass and enjoy the markup because its customers can't drive 90 miles to get better deals. A lot of the whining about Wal-Mart is simply the combined hue of the lazy + the leftists. It's certainly not coming from W-M workers or customers. It comes from professors and other useless eaters.

Looking at it from another angle, what about the huge role Wal-Mart has played in dismantling a good portion of the American manufacturing industry?

An economic free-for-all under the “free market” mythos is largely responsible for the mess we are in now.

What we have is a very far thing from a free market in most areas. Go to Hong Kong if it's still free - basically no taxes. We don't have anything remotely like that. It is the success of the judeo-statist to persuade the unthinking and unwary that the problems we have now are the result of business rather than the state. Who takes fifty percent of your money in taxes and gives you nothing? That's not a free market by any means.


Each man for himself in the realm of economics means each man for himself in the realm of politics, too. Libertarian thinking has no answer for us politically and it has no answer for us with economics either.

General statement from someone unqualified to make them. Libertarians have plenty of specific cases related to different industries, and the cases they make for removing regulation are usually plausible.


Without jews our current capitalist system of economic exploitation will not magically improve. Finance will still take precedence over all – what force is there in the “free market” to say that it does not?

'Exploitation' - commiespeak for forcing you to...decide if you want to buy something or not. You never hear commies speak of people exploited by commie bureaucrats or taxes, do you? You ever hear of "greedy government"? No. You only hear of greedy corporations.


This just does not make sense. What code of honor do libertarians have? The god religious civil servants worship is the “free market” – is it not?

Civil servants worship the free market? Then why are they working for the government? Civil servants want easy work and lots of benefits. If they had ambition they wouldn't work for the government.


You are desperately trying to clothe NS economic principles in neo-libertarian rags, why make such a disingenuous effort? Why not call a NS a NS and be done with it?

You don't anything about NS economics. It involved cartels and slave labor, among other things. I don't support those.


If the WN State is our friendly big brother in the political realm why can’t it be our friendly big brother in the economic realm too? Politics for the good of the race + economics for the good of the race = National Socialism no matter how you want to avoid it.

Yeah, and how do you know someone is working for the good of the race? That sounds like something Erich Gliebe or one of his crook buddies would lie in order to mulct you. The only duty of the top-level government is to defend the collective. The rest can be carried out through private, voluntary associations. Let anyone who wants to print money do it - and let the buyer beware. There is no safety, let alone government-guaranteed safety. Only at the price of enslavement, and that's not worth it. That's where we become less than white men, we become ants or dependants.


This is just nonsensical too. Robber Barons, sweat shops, quacks, frauds, etc all THRIVED under laze faire capitalism.

Ooh, all the scare words with no objective meaning other than you-don't-like-them. I guess 2009 was supposed to blow up out of the pasture with no intervening development; I guess everything is supposed to be comfortable and well paid, and the Holy Father in Washington will see that it's so.


Are you unaware of Sinclair’s The Jungle? Or do you just not give a damn? You really need to think this attitude through.

So you think meat is safe because we pay a shitload of taxes to meat inspectors? I guess you haven't heard about all the contagion outbreaks in recent years. The point is, which is miles beyond you education and possibly cognition, is that a large and growing body of people has made very great inroads in demonstrating that nearly everything traditionally associated with government and regulation, including meat inspection, is far more cheaply and reliably done through private means. Of course you have no idea of any of this, as your mind has the black of evil private meatpackers wanting to poison their customer vs. the white of the angelic inspectors who will stop at nothing to make our meat supply the safest on earth.


You are walking us right back down the path that we trod 100 years ago. Reforms on destructive corporations and monopolies were only won at the expense and ruination of 10s of thousands of White lives and families.


Ah, the good old tyme commie religious hymn: the people who take 50% of your money at gunpoint are the good guys - the people who pay 100% of your salary and offer you endless things to buy at reasonable prices are the bad guys.


“OSHA/union bullshit” also saved White lives. Why do you insist that we play this same game out again? Call a spade a spade – place a National Socialist structure regulating a healthy series of guidelines and restrictions on businesses - and be done with it.

Ah, the faith in regulation, even dumber than the faith in Jesus. Do you think regulators are drawn from angels? Do you think they're some unqiue kind of human that is all-knowing and incorrupt? Or do you think they're a bunch of half-competent bureaucrats half-assedly enforcing regulations devised by the very industries you fear?

All you get when you support regulation is taxes.


White victims of economic exploitation just don’t enter into your way of thinking at all do they? A free-for-all Willie Wonka world with children’s heads being lopped off by bubble mixing machines is hardly worth the struggle we are facing.

You're a communist with the fears of a child.


Do you want your gastro surgery at your local hospital or would you prefer it at the Mayo clinic? Small and simple is not always the most desirable or what we should be aiming at. The point is that we Whites should be collectivizing to rule our world and advance to the stars – because we find it good, necessary and challenging - not dispersing and escaping to the backwoods - because we find it momentarily satisfying. The former is Life-Affirming and the latter Life-denying. Our economics SHOULD BE MADE TO CONFORM TO THE FORMER.

Spoken like a true buhlieving NA cultist. Here's what I'm trying to impress upon you: Economics has laws of its own; it cannot be made to conform to ideology.

Of course. The ultimate goal is a final and complete separation. I had in mind parts of Alabama and Georgia where negroes are an outright majority in many counties. I come from this area. Clearing the Deep South of non-Whites will be a more arduous process than deporting them from lily White Northern Missouri/Iowa. It will undoubtedly take many years to accomplish.

Not if the jews are gone. I think it's in Turner Diaries where they drive the van with a loudspeaker down the street and tell all the niggers to get over to the high school football field or they'll be shot. I think nig removal even from heavy-infestation areas is a minor technical problem at best.

BTW, I guess we might be lily-ish up here compared to your neck of the woods, but I can assure you there are plenty of niggers all the way up through Northern Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota. There are plenty of niggers in the twin cities, and plenty in the Quad Cities area too. Anywhere there's a river or a main road there are niggers.


I can see your point about the attitude (ridicule and contempt) that we should adopt towards conservatives. I've had many exchanges with John Zmirak. I'm not a fan of Justin Raimondo or Tom Fleming either. All three have repeatedly attacked White Nationalists over the past year or two.

Yes. On my other post I discussed the typical grad-graduates (Ph.D's) mentality - it is essentially impossible to get these people to fight, let alone fight with gusto. They just can't get over seeing it as declasse. I did see a great Fred Scrooby post at Majority Rights the other day. He gets it. He completely grasps the VNN spirit of jewing the jew: the problem is we're not fighting back - not even verbally. That's what I've been trying to teach people to do. The Ph.D.s, even if they can understand the point intellectually, will simply not get down in the gutter and slug it out with the jewscum. But that's what we must do. The only way we can attract average people is by showing we mean it, at least with words at the start, and we do that by giving no quarter. This differentiates us from the chortlers (Limbaugh) who deal with the small stuff and always wave the white flag when they approach the third rail of race. Ph.D.s seem professionally unable to understand that the need always to prove one is right is a weakness, not a strength. Can't we start loving ourselves? Can't we accept that we're good people? That we're not lying? That men 100 years ago like Grant and Stoddard wrote and spoke the truth? We need to assume our case and operate from the basis of laughing at any white who, as a dupe, still maintains the world is flat. And for the dupers and their high-toned Takifag enablers, we need nothing but and must exhibit nothing but relentless accusatory hostility. Only then do we begin to approach bringing a gun to a gunfight. Hitler said, It is not enough to believe; you must fight. Our challenge is not intellectual, is animal. Fight or flight. I mean, there's some thought involved in the best tactics for overcoming the jews, and for setting up the new White state, but in general our battle is simply a fight that we need to raise forces for, not an intellectual puzzle.


I know there is some overlap between Greg's circle of writers at TOQ and the fringes of paleoconservatism. I'm not sure if this has affected his editorial stance though. After all, TOQ "names the Jew" and endorses the White ethnostate, which is essentially your position. That's hardly conservative. It goes far beyond anything I have seen at Takimag or VDARE.

Certainly it meets my double litmus test for being pro-White - as editorial material. All I'm saying is that I don't see the strategy pursued by Sam Francis bearing any more fruit than it ever did now that it championed by Kevin Macdonald and Greg Johnson. I think it will produce what it always has: lots of good essays and books, but no change. Of course they can do what they think best, but I think if some of these brains would form a White ADL rather than hold another groupthink symposium our cause could get somewhere. Ten years of Internet publishing have pretty much laid our case out for everybody to see, the spirit of the times is to form a real group. Not an NA type group, not a civil rights group, but an agitation and advocacy group. I'm done talking about that unless I do it myself, as only losers expect others, particularly those they criticize and mock, to take up their own standard if they won't themselves. That's Canny Sammy territory.


I don't have any problem ruthlessly attacking and mocking mainstream conservatives. 99% of them attack us out of political expediency. There are only a handful of prominent conservatives (probably less than 50) who are even remotely sympathetic to White Nationalism.

I think the key to understanding the conservatives is that no matter what they say, if we were a real power, not one of them would put a pinky toe in the way of our juggernaut out of the diversity principles they espouse today, no matter how much they privately disagree. I look at the cons, I see weakness and self-interest, nothing else.


I'm not in the habit of attacking people who don't attack us. That's my litmus test. If no gunfire is emanating from their side, I choose other targets. White Nationalists have allies, sympathizers, and people who won't stand in our way. I see no reason to attack friendlies or neutrals. They're not impeding our efforts so long as they remain silent.

I generally agree, but I would say that anyone who affects to lead us but does not go after the jew is the enemy or, if he's simply wrong, effectively serving the enemy, amounting to the same thing.

We're in agreement on the definition of White Nationalism. See below. I think we should move on to the next question: What steps should be taken to ensure the permanence of a WN revolution?

That is a tricky thing. Ultimately there is no guarantee, of course. Short of that, we can physically exterminate all non-whites. Or remove them from our continents. That deals with the external threat. For the internal threat - the threat of some neo-sicko-liberalism recrudescing, we could provision against it institutionally thru the institutions I mentioned - Defenders trained in an Aryan Racial University of some sort. Details would have to be puzzled out. I hear that Mandarin Chinese and Prussian bureacracies were particularly notable, historically, for the honesty of their offices. Those could be studied for pointers - that is what Calhoun would do. And like I said, we could take Mencken's joke suggestion about random annual sacrifices seriously, so that anybody who wanted to work for the small, efficacious over-state would run a small but real risk of forfeiting his life as the necessary tribute to human scheming and perversity and intellect's attempt to overcome it. Now, if we could create a functioning HONOR CULTURE (bringing back, in new form, some of the best parts of Hitler's German and our own Confederacy), and if this entrenched over time, I think it would be reasonably self-sustaining. To expect more than that would be utopian. It doesn't matter what form of government, the answer is always "if you can keep it." Life is struggle, as Hitler said. Each generation must relearn and recommit - but this is a lot easier to do when, per Burke, the solid traditions are in place, and people love them. The White race now reexamines its own history, finds certain things wanting and, unper Burke, creates new institutions and practices, which in time themselves become traditions.


Nothing to argue with here. White Nationalism is the idea that Whites should secede from the United States and create a Jew-free, White ethnostate. As I said above, that's the minimum we should rally around. The various other differences that divide pro-Whites can be left to the political process once the ethnostate is established.

That begs the question of whether discussing the state we seek beneath the racial composition level attracts or repels people. My suggestion is that the vision of a White racial state obeying known economic laws and the time-honored principle of subsidiarity will give both the individual and the state the proper scope, and prove attractive to more people than it repels, and help our cause more than blank recitations of mud crimes and exhortations to love our race.

If we're going to tap around the edges of the faileocons, why ignore the potentially huge market of people now learning from the libertarians to hate the Fed, love the idea of secession, and love the idea of getting to make the adult life-decisions the ZOG overstate has usurped from them?

We say to these whites, yes, Ron Paul and the libertarians have many good ideas, but unlike them we can put them in their proper context: an all-white nation. Be serious, you know that negroes are unfit for any kind of personal liberty. All the good things and problems the libertarians identify are only available and can only be solved in a White context. If you want to be an adult in all these other areas (money, schools), why not go the whole hog and just admit we want an all-White nation? I mean, if that weren't the real bottom line, isn't it obvious that the feds wouldn't have banned White free association? Libertarians offer some economic freedom to white people, but only white nationalism offers true and full political adulthood to the race that made this country - and the rest of the successful world.

That's how I'd argue to libertarians. I see less need to attack them because libertarianism while only workable by whites is not intellectually tied to race. Therefore, you can ignore race as a libertarian without truly being a fraud, at least theoretically, whereas conservatism is utterly and wholly inextricable from race, and anyone who pretends otherwise is an out-and-out fraud or sellout. I don't see the libertarians as our competitors. Our competitors are the conservatives because we come from the same background and premises, making our cases hard to distinguish. Because conservatism is logically built on race, the average guy will assume things the conservative is not willing to say publicly for PC reasons, even though in fact the conservative will never actually defend them in real life. This has the effect of making WN, who will put the whole thing out there, appear extreme or redundant, keeping their natural allies - normal people - in the camp of the pseudos - the paleoconservative weaklings and the neoconservative boughtlings. Thus, I advise we use bait with the libertarians (people, not their name writers, who should be fought with), and bashing with the conservatives, who should be exposed as profiteering frauds.

Can WN's campaign in the mainstream ? Most in this thread seem agreed that political theories as we know them only apply to white people.Of course other races can and do espouse them but at base if its not whites your directing your political message to you are wasting your time.The whole concept of the USA can only be a white thing as it were.The "melting pot" would seem to historically refer to different white tribes as opposed to the modern concept of bantu, semite and coolie.
I think Americans taking a stand for the race are handicapping themselves even using the term "white" as a definition.What is an American ? Surely the only definition that can be made is an Aryan.The typeformers,the creators,the builders,the engineers,every good and decent thing that has come from America has been created and developed by whites.
I think American activists need to look at the rivals,just as Buchanan and Paul are two steps removed from WN's the same is true for WN's in the other direction.Is it absoloutely essential to scream white power when saying in a calm voice States Rights ?

If as Klaus says Greg agrees with Alex about Jews and conservatives, why did Greg come here a week ago and make the 4 posts he did?

If as Klaus says Greg agrees with Alex about Jews and conservatives, why did Greg come here a week ago and make the 4 posts he did?

I've spoken to Greg and we agreed on three basic points:

1.) Naming the Jew.
2.) The need for a White ethnostate.
3.) The worthlessness of conservatism.

Greg was trying to explain the actions of Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan and Jared Taylor. He wasn't endorsing their various strategies. Huge difference there.

We had a few laughs about the cryptos who think they can "sneak up on the Jews" through aracial conservatism. I don't know how anyone got the impression he isn't on our side.

That is a tricky thing. Ultimately there is no guarantee, of course. Short of that, we can physically exterminate all non-whites. Or remove them from our continents.

You're right. There is ultimately no guarantee that the social forces which subverted the White Republic established by the Founders won't resurface at some later date in a WN ethnostate. Fortunately, we have the benefit of 220 years of hindsight. There are obvious lessons to be drawn from American history that weren't perceived by our predecessors.

The thorniest problem of all (which can serve as our starting point) tends to be only dimly perceived by American WNs: how to permanently maintain a high level of White racial consciousness in a racially homogeneous ethnostate. Expulsion of all Jews and non-Whites from the U.S. and Canada would eliminate several problems for us, but would create an even larger one in perpetuating our own highly racialized identity in future generations. Without Jews and non-Whites to interact with on a daily basis, the racial consciousness of our successors will wane and soften, as it did in the past outside the South.

How do you propose we address this problem?

That deals with the external threat. For the internal threat - the threat of some neo-sicko-liberalism recrudescing, we could provision against it institutionally thru the institutions I mentioned - Defenders trained in an Aryan Racial University of some sort. Details would have to be puzzled out. I hear that Mandarin Chinese and Prussian bureacracies were particularly notable, historically, for the honesty of their offices.

1.) We could inculcate White students in our racial ideals through the public schools and universities.

2.) We could pressure the churches to racialize their theology.

3.) We could regulate the mass media to ensure that news and entertainment conforms to standards of racial deceny.

4.) We could establish your caste of Defenders/Guardians and charge them with the task of disrupting counterrevolutionary activities.

I don't see how libertarianism fits into this scheme though. Libertarianism cuts against the grain of all of these proposals.

Those could be studied for pointers - that is what Calhoun would do.

Calhoun was a republican, not a liberal. If I remember my history correctly, he didn't have much of a problem suppressing anti-slavery speech. For Calhoun, 'freedom' meant the right to legislate, not the absence of the initiation of force. During his tenure in the Senate, there was a famous contest with John Quincy Adams over the gag order that prohibited anti-slavery resolutions from being tabeled and read into the congressional record.

And like I said, we could take Mencken's joke suggestion about random annual sacrifices seriously, so that anybody who wanted to work for the small, efficacious over-state would run a small but real risk of forfeiting his life as the necessary tribute to human scheming and perversity and intellect's attempt to overcome it. Now, if we could create a functioning HONOR CULTURE (bringing back, in new form, some of the best parts of Hitler's German and our own Confederacy), and if this entrenched over time, I think it would be reasonably self-sustaining.

We used to have such an honor culture in the Old South. It was popularized by Sir Walter Scott novels. I'm not so sure though that aristocratic trappings can be perpetuated in a liberal democracy with a mature capitalist economy. History suggests otherwise. Social leveling and irreverence seems to be an inherent feature of the system.

That begs the question of whether discussing the state we seek beneath the racial composition level attracts or repels people. My suggestion is that the vision of a White racial state obeying known economic laws and the time-honored principle of subsidiarity will give both the individual and the state the proper scope, and prove attractive to more people than it repels, and help our cause more than blank recitations of mud crimes and exhortations to love our race.

Any White ethnostate is highly likely to simultaneously be a Spartan garrison state. The rump of the degenerating Union will remain a potent military threat. The expulsion of legions of non-Whites and Jews from our borders will invariably creates enemies for us all over the world.

The history of the Confederacy is worth revisiting: a state founded on the principle of decentralization was forced by necessity to centralize. As a practical matter, a White ethnostate will need a strong central government to repel its enemies, at least for many generations.

Buchanan on protectionism:

http://www.takimag.com/article/the_return_of_protectionism/

Lew Rockwell on protectionism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/35832.html

LRC crony "Manuel Lora" on protectionism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/35836.html

LRC crony Gary Barnett on protectionism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnett/barnett13.1.html

I've spoken to Greg and we agreed on three basic points:

1.) Naming the Jew.
2.) The need for a White ethnostate.
3.) The worthlessness of conservatism.

Greg was trying to explain the actions of Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan and Jared Taylor. He wasn't endorsing their various strategies. Huge difference there.

We had a few laughs about the cryptos who think they can "sneak up on the Jews" through aracial conservatism. I don't know how anyone got the impression he isn't on our side.

I have no doubt he and TOQ are on our side. I don't agree with their refusal to ostracize and attack Buchanan, Vdare and Taylor. To show respect to those who never show respect to WN, who never acknowledge it openly, is to show weakness. It is correct to attack Buchanan, not to praise him. We are the real thing. Buchananism is nothing and leads nowhere.

How about taking a shot or two at your old friend Lewpus? He's far worse than Taylor or Buchanan.

The thorniest problem of all (which can serve as our starting point) tends to be only dimly perceived by American WNs: how to permanently maintain a high level of White racial consciousness in a racially homogeneous ethnostate. Expulsion of all Jews and non-Whites from the U.S. and Canada would eliminate several problems for us, but would create an even larger one in perpetuating our own highly racialized identity in future generations. Without Jews and non-Whites to interact with on a daily basis, the racial consciousness of our successors will wane and soften, as it did in the past outside the South.

How do you propose we address this problem?

If the price of losing racial consciousness is not being around other races, geez, where do I sign up? I don't see whites occupied with things other than racial conflict as a bad thing but a good thing.

Of course, white citizens' racial understanding will be more theoretical and intellectual if the other races aren't around, except as travelers/visitors/ambassadors, but that's not a problem, not compared to what we have now. The solution is simply to diffuse the knowledge of racial differences through the various media. Without any jews to stifle the facts, the default setting will be racial normality. Whenever the issue arises, whites will have common knowledge to aid them, rather than multicult communist slogans about diversity.


1.) We could inculcate White students in our racial ideals through the public schools and universities.

Do we want public schools? I don't. Apart from the academy for the Defenders. Still, in the transition from ZOGworld to Whiteworld, there might be a period in which ZOG's PS were used as an existing transition belt to spread the new racial orthodoxy - ie, the facts about race rather than lies.


2.) We could pressure the churches to racialize their theology.

All we have to do is 1) yank their tax status privilege; 2) convey to all religious leaders that preaching against the racial basis of the state is a capital crime. That should be enough.


3.) We could regulate the mass media to ensure that news and entertainment conforms to standards of racial deceny.

This falls under the purview of the Defenders/intellectual or media division. No one is allowed to preach against the racial basis of the state, as we know from history that threatens all of us collectively. There also needs to be a reintroduction of a production code, as Hollywood used to follow in the mid part of the 20th century. The new state recognizes media as a form of politics, and does not allow enemies of the race to undermine people through preaching race mixing or immorality (promoting homosexuality, for instance). This is a tough area. People will feel they are stepped on. However, the social costs of allowing people to trash our race and basic Aryan morality are too high to let these go on. It is obvious there is a lot here that would have to be worked out.

The expression of White differences through independent (micro)states built around different tendencies has to be balanced against collective racial defense, the basis of the new order. Is this vision even possible? Somehow it must be possible to combine a high degree of individual freedom with collective racial defense. Altho the idea of a monofunction over-government is appealing in that it would be light on the people (inexpensive to fund), it would involve the state in a number of non-military areas including trade and media and education. What, then, will be left to the microstates to decide? I just don't see any way around the signal political fact that "media is politics," as the jew billionaire said. It simply cannot be left open to subverting minorities. In fact, defending against intellectual subversion through the media might be the larger portion of the Defenders' task, since MAD would take care of foreign nuclear powers, and the continent would be physically free of muds.


4.) We could establish your caste of Defenders/Guardians and charge them with the task of disrupting counterrevolutionary activities.

I don't see any way around their being the prime enforcers of a racial code and a basic moral code (in the media).


I don't see how libertarianism fits into this scheme though. Libertarianism cuts against the grain of all of these proposals.

The word's a red herring, I just use it for shorthand, and to give proper credit to people who have demonstrated there are better ways than government regulation to solve human problems. We want a racial state, not a libertarian state, which I doubt is sustainable. But we can still make use of libertarian insight by getting rid of the huge tax burden the modern state places on White men in the name of keeping them safe. We need to liberate the White man from government taxes second only to liberating him from nigger crime and jewish lies. For those who disagree, and who want the government taking care of them like they're retards rather than adults -- those who seek in a White state a government with the same functions ZOG exercises today -- that's why I think microstates would work. The race and morals is off the table - no one is allowed to mess with that, we will kill over it. For the rest, the mundane functions ordinarily -- but as the libertarians show, not inevitably -- associated with government, let White men divide and separate and arrange themselves as they see fit. I want to live in a no-tax minimalist state that leaves me alone. I don't mind paying a little bit more for imports in order to pay for the over-state, which looks out for my collective racial interests. But I don't want any part of the modern regulatory apparatus, which is a form of slavery, any more than I want continued veiled jewish tyranny. Let the whites who enjoy working half their live for the government form their own state. Let them keep on turning over half their salary in exchange for the illusion of safety, education and so many other things.


Calhoun was a republican, not a liberal. If I remember my history correctly, he didn't have much of a problem suppressing anti-slavery speech. For Calhoun, 'freedom' meant the right to legislate, not the absence of the initiation of force. During his tenure in the Senate, there was a famous contest with John Quincy Adams over the gag order that prohibited anti-slavery resolutions from being tabeled and read into the congressional record.

Interesting. I was thinking of him in connection not to speech but in ways of polling the true interests of the community. He had some ideas that have never been tested but could be in a microstate. Different states will allow them to pursue their different ideas, within a uniform racial context so that they aren't disrupted with mere animal concerns of self-defense. White genius, scientific and artistic, can flourish if white talent isn't wasted through suppression, affirmative action, and diversion into technical fields rather than letters.


We used to have such an honor culture in the Old South. It was popularized by Sir Walter Scott novels. I'm not so sure though that aristocratic trappings can be perpetuated in a liberal democracy with a mature capitalist economy. History suggests otherwise. Social leveling and irreverence seems to be an inherent feature of the system.

Maybe. We can't force people to want the right things. We can remove the jews and muds, keep the media free of moral/racial subversion, provide materials to offer their young true-contexting and technical instruction. Beyond that, if they're not White, well, they don't want to be.

If people follow authority, and if they know the over-state functions NOT as their parents and lecturers but truly as their defenders, even to the point of willingly sacrificing a number of their members each year as a testament to the seriousness of their commitment, then this will tend to promote honor over money in the eyes of the population. There will be desire to get one's kids into the National Race Academy, like that top Japanese college.


Any White ethnostate is highly likely to simultaneously be a Spartan garrison state. The rump of the degenerating Union will remain a potent military threat. The expulsion of legions of non-Whites and Jews from our borders will invariably creates enemies for us all over the world.

Yes, perhaps initially. If a White state rose out of a continental collapse, it would certainly be worried about little but preserving its physical existence. My words are toward the after-party, when physical defense concerns have been eliminated on the North American continent from the north pole to Panama.


The history of the Confederacy is worth revisiting: a state founded on the principle of decentralization was forced by necessity to centralize. As a practical matter, a White ethnostate will need a strong central government to repel its enemies, at least for many generations.

Depends on the circumstances. If the north had followed the law, the South never would have had to centralize. If you're under attack, of course you need a strong defense. The circumstances will make the ethnostate until the ethnostate can remake the circumstances. I don't necessarily think that there would be decades-long battles. We have different tools today. In the right hands, change can happen extremely quickly. Katrina hits New Orleans, and a day later, niggers lose their civil right to maraud in white neighborhoods and instead find themselves being shot. That's how change works, many times.

Congratulations on nearly getting the formatting correct, I know that's not easy for you, for some reason.

The mentality behind your post... It never ceases to amuse me that your type thinks it is looking down on the Buchanans and Ingrahams. Let me ease your mind: Buchanan and Ingraham have far higher IQs than you do, and a multiple of seven figures more than you do in the bank. They're fully aware that you go against the jews on race or Israel and you run a real risk of being thrown off and under the gravy train.

I don't look down on Buchanan, Ingrahm, etc. I think in their own way they are brilliant and articulate. I'll certainly agree they make more money than I do, and I know where they stand. It would just be nice to get some honesty
from them.

I think a lot of white society knows who runs it, and there is resentment, but it is unarticulated and leaderless. For all acknowledgement that the recent rally in DC had a lot of Glenn Beck types and was pro ZOG, it also showed
people were angry, and millions of people don't like Obama.

There are some people who name the Jew. Frank Weltner was one of them, and his radio show was thoughtful and tried to get people to think. Frank
has washed his hands of white America, and said the only real choice left
is for whites to form their own churches and get tax-exempt status and
go from there.

When you talk about a HS curriculum, do you have a definite program, or
merely a reading list?

I posted this as a reply to Alex's VNN article on Buchanan, but it never appeared, so I am posting it here.

I always love it when Alex writes an essay. I don’t have time to sift through the discussion forum looking for his little gems. That said, I strongly disagree with his attitude here.

Pat Buchanan will not save us. Nor will Ron Paul. Nor will any politician. Nor will we be saved by race realist policy wonkery. I see no salvation for our race short of creating a new political system, either by replacing the US system as a whole or by seceding from it.

But Buchanan the writer and commentator has his virtues and his uses.

1. Linder constructs his argument about strategy in terms of crafting a message that gets to dim ordinary people. I am not sure that is the right audience. Historically speaking, dim masses don’t count for much, because they are easily controlled by elites with access to political power and the power to shape attitudes through education, religion, and the press. How would Linder’s strategy change if white nationalists focused on changing white elite opinion?

2. The white elites in the US are not dim. If dim is the average, the elites are above dim. Some of them are fiendishly intelligent. The white elites in the US can, however, be characterized by high degrees of individualism, conformism (the two actually go hand in hand), materialism, and insecurity about their status. The richer they are, the more insecure they are, because the more they have to lose.

3. They can lose status, of course, because in the US, status depends more on achievement than birth. In more traditional societies, one has status through birth, whether one is a street sweeper or an aristocrat. Here, one’s status is “earned.”

4. Now, in both kinds of society, it is other people who “grant” one’s status. If nobody will treat an aristocrat like an aristocrat, then he has no status. But for whatever reason, in a country like England, an aristocrat like Sir Oswald Mosley might take very radical political positions, and even go to jail for them, but enough people still recognized him as an aristocrat that his social standing was never destroyed. In the US, we are much more individualistic. We grant or withhold status based on what each person does or says, not who his parents were.

5. At first glance, that seems like a great system. There are certainly fewer barriers to upward mobility. In the United States, money buys anything.

6. Unfortunately, money also guarantees nothing. Thus the people who fight hard for upward social mobility are also haunted by downward mobility. They know that the very individualism that allowed them to rise also allows them to fall back. For if their business partners, social contacts, and others turn their backs on them, they can easily be ruined, and whether this happens is merely a matter of individual choice, based upon nothing more stable than calculations of self-interest.

7. Tocqueville long ago observed that American individualism goes hand in hand with a high degree of social conformity. Why is this? Here is my theory: human beings are social animals, with a need for social approval and recognition. In individualist societies, however, the extension of social approval and recognition is highly conditional and constantly re-evaluated. Therefore, one has to be more attentive to gauging and conforming to public opinion in individualistic societies. Thus a high degree of individualism and social mobility promotes a high degree of social conformism, because people also value social approval and social stability. (The ambitious love upward mobility, but once they get theirs, they want to hold onto it.)

8. This is why social mobility in individualist societies is most available to people who combine intelligence and ambition with a shallow, extraverted, conformist personality type. Frat boys with MBAs.

9. Furthermore, the more ambitious one is, the more one needs social approval and recognition, because one needs to secure the cooperation of more people to do bigger things. Thus as one approaches the pinnacles of the white money and power elites, one finds individuals who have higher and higher levels of ambition, aggressiveness, narrow cunning intelligence, extroversion, social conformism, and a pathetic, childlike insecurity.

10. No sane society should be ruled by people like this. But we were far better off when we controlled our own “symbolic realm” — the realm of ideas, ideals, honors, and opinion that governs the granting and withholding of social status.

11. Unfortunately, that realm has now been captured by an alien, hostile elite, the Jews, who have rigged a new status system to reward whites who betray their own kind and promote and engage in race-destructive behavior. The segment of society most controlled by this hostile elite is the entertainment industry, which is thus on the cutting edge of race destructive white behavior. Whites in Hollywood attain status through anti-natalism, feminism, homosexuality, miscegenation, adopting non-white babies, and the like. Where Hollywood goes, there goes America, if the Jews who are scripting our dispossession and extinction have their way.

12. The strategic question of White Nationalism, therefore, is: How do White Nationalists change elite opinion when our plutocrats tend to be shallow, extroverted, and insecure about their status, which happens to be determined by our polar opposites, the Jews?

13. The problem is compounded when White Nationalists themselves aspire to attain or hold onto elite status. Aside from the personal benefits of such status to White Nationalists, such status is also beneficial to the movement, since elite members have greater access to the elite.

14. I believe that this is the context in which one has to understand the strategies of such people as Samuel Francis, Patrick Buchanan, and Jared Taylor. If I wanted to (a) promote white nationalism to status-conscious, insecure elites, and (b) maintain my own status and thus access to these elites, I would give a wide berth to the Jewish Question, since the Jews now control the status system in our society, and if they felt sufficiently threatened by people like Francis, Buchanan, et al., they would shut them down and destroy any access they might have to their preferred audience.

15. If I were Francis, Buchanan, etc., I imagine I would play the following dangerous game with the Jews. Because they would work to shut down and marginalize anyone who was openly impervious to the Jews, one would have to signal a certain porousness to them, specifically by cooperating with whatever marginal Jews will associate with White Nationalism, e.g., Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Marcus Epstein, Paul Gottfried, etc. These Jews obviously think they are getting something by cooperating with White Nationalists, if only the chance to spy on our gatherings.

16. But we have to give White Nationalists some credit too, for they might think they are using these Jews to advance White Nationalism. Maybe they are foolish or naive to think this, but that is probably what they think.

17. If Francis et al. were merely working as fronts for the Jews, in order to mislead and sabotage White Nationalism, then why would they have any public affiliation with Jews? Wouldn’t that blow their cover? Wouldn’t that make their task more difficult?

18. The mere fact that at people like Buchanan, Francis, and Taylor interact in a collegial fashion with certain marginal Jews does not constitute evidence that they are working for the Jews. It does not follow simply as a matter of logic. In fact, it would make more sense for them not to associate with Jews.

19. It is certainly reasonable and prudent to be suspicious of the judgment of White Nationalists who think they can manipulate Jewish opinion to advance our cause. It is certainly reasonable to be cautious in dealing with such people. But suspicion is not proof, and using such people cautiously does not mean that they cannot be used at all.

20. As an introvert, I have little patience for extroverts, and highly extroverted, status-insecure elite members like George W. Bush strike me as especially soulless and contemptible. Frankly, I wish we could save our race without dealing with such people. In my darker moods, I wonder if a race that allows itself to be led by people who put trivial issues of personal status ahead of collective survival can be saved, or even if it deserves to be saved. There is something disgusting about people who have all the money in the world and permit themselves less freedom to speak their minds than a truck driver or short order cook. As N. B. Forrest once asked on VNN about Mel Gibson: How much money does one need to give the Jews the finger? I wish I could shame these people, but I cannot, for their sense of shame is held captive by our enemies. Thus I have little patience for efforts to soft sell these people on their own race’s survival. What kind of people need to be soft-sold their own survival?

21. That said, Pat Buchanan has his uses. I recommend his books to skittish, insecure, status-conscious mainstream conservatives to nudge them in the right direction. If they like Buchanan and become comfortable advocating his take on the world, then perhaps they can be brought further still, by reading Sam Francis’ Essential Writings on Race, then American Renaissance, then maybe Kevin MacDonald.

22. Even if Alex’s worst suspicions about Buchanan are true, that would in no way lessen the value of his books. Even if the Jews are using him to mislead, we can still use him to wean people away from mainstream Republicanism in the direction of White Nationalism. To think that such attempts would be doomed to failure is to underestimate our own power and to ascribe to the Jews some sort of occult force of invincibility that they simply do not have. That is how losers think.

23. I do not think Pat Buchanan is our competitor. I do not think he is our enemy. And even if he were, we are strong and clever enough to use him for our own ends.

An afterthought: The depressing truth I am struggling to come to grips with is that our race must be saved IN SPITE OF ITSELF, and AGAINST ITS WILL. No healthy organism needs to be provided with a moral justification for its survival. But white people do. From a biological point of view, this is morbid and decadent. But since we are not in a position to simply remove this weakness, we have to deal with it. That is the most important strategic question.

Buchanan coined the phrase "Congress is Isralie occupied territory."