Occidental Dissent

It’s almost that time again.

I’m referring to the disgusting charade that now passes for Independence Day. Boobus Americanus will arise from his slumber and make his annual trek to the cineplex to see the new Transformers movie. The cheap American flags stamped “Made in China” will be on display again. Families will convene to shoot off imported fireworks and eat backyard BBQ. Jews like Ben Sharpio will write more of their usual, insufferable faux patriotic columns extolling America as a “nation of immigrants” or a “champion of democracy” or “the greatest country in the world.”

Nary a thought will be given to the Anglo-Americans who founded this country, built it from the ground up, lost it somewhere in the mid-twentieth century, and who are now headed towards demographic oblivion. The current anti-White regime in Washington and its propaganda arm (the mainstream media) will try to stress the continuity of the Obamanation with the America of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. In reality, Anglo-Americans are now a conquered people ruled over by aliens like the barbarians and Christians who once conquered the Roman Empire.

Our culture is now the subject of ritual denigration. It has been pathologized as racist, sexist, xenophobic, nativist, homophobic by a hostile urban elite. Anglo-Americans are taught in school from our earliest years to be ashamed of our past which is portrayed as nothing but a litany of crimes. The only cure for all of this hideous whiteness is the ”diversity” forced into every aspect of our lives. In the final days of Rome, the temples were smashed, the scrolls were burned, history was rewritten, the old pagan gods were outlawed. A similar process has been underway here as the counterculture was institutionalized.

I won’t be celebrating anything this weekend. What about you?

Regarding your recent series of posts: I’m wondering if you were somehow abducted by aliens who managed to swap your brain with mine of about five years ago. Really, I never thought I would see the day when you would be beating the drum about revisionism, anti-Semitism, Nordicism, and Third Reich fetishism of all things. These were the major themes of The Civic Platform for years. As for myself, I am now the outspoken critic of Jewish influence. It seems we have come full circle!

Now that the irony has been addressed, which seems to have everyone complaining about whiplash, I find your recent awakening to the Liberalism Question to be a sign of intellectual growth. I don’t agree with the Single Jewish Cause of Western decline either. My own stated view is that the Anglo-American political tradition (or “liberal capitalist democracy”) is the meta problem which has facilitated the disease of minority culture distortion.

Whites are locked up in an ideological prison. They can see only individuals, not the machinations of groups. They believe non-discrimination is a cardinal moral principle. They believe all human beings have a natural right to liberty and equality. This philosophical problem will have to be dealt with before we even get to the planning stages of creating racially homogeneous white republics.

So far, I’m with you.

We agree on several further points: subracial squabbling, Holocaust revisionism, and Third Reich fetishism are distractions from the major issue of racial preservation. I will also agree that addressing the Jewish Question isn’t politically expedient, although I believe it is necessary.

Here is where we part ways:

I take a dim view of anything that smacks of conservatism. Although Geert Wilders has been successful in the Netherlands, I don’t think anything will come of it. There won’t be any mass expulsions of Muslims. I predict nonwhite immigration to Western Europe will continue unless racial nationalists capture power. Wilders could be just another scheming opportunist like Nicholas Sarkozy (Jew) in France, but I don’t follow European issues these days enough to know for sure. I haven’t seen him attack liberalism as a philosophy either. Rather, Wilders strikes me as more of a neocon: a zealous defender of Western liberalism against illiberal Islam.

The conservative record in the United States could not be more clear. The GOP’s last presidential nominee was John McCain (an open borders fanatic). The GOP controlled the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court for most of the last decade. When George W. Bush left office in January, America was worse off racially speaking than it was under Bill Clinton. This is airtight evidence that conservatism is a dead road for White Americans.

What do you say?

Robert Lindsay is still trying to bake his political cake out of incompatible ingredients: a dash of race realism, positive white racial identity, the leftist view of American history, anti-racism, and a base of liberalism. Needless to say, this unusual combination is almost never found on sale. His brand of race realism rules out about “95% of the pro-White crowd.” It’s probably more than that, really.

Which is odd. Lindsay has attracted many racialist readers (myself included) with his incisive observations. His blog entries have been featured on Amren. He is very fascinated with the pro-white scene and writes about it quite regularly. We agree on many points and matters of fact, but tend to draw different conclusions. I don’t sense any duplicity in his writings that wafts off the likes of Lawrence Auster (Jew) or Ian Jobling.

In this post, Lindsay again talks about his anecdotal experience with the liberal stratum of White Californians and reiterates his often stated view that White Nationalism is simply impossible in America. I don’t believe his sweeping conclusions are warranted by the sample size he is using.

Here in the South, I find most people around my age to be either “casual racists” or otherwise receptive to racialism. These people have never heard of White Nationalism. They tend to be uninterested in politics. Most are thinly Protestant Christians (rarely attend church). None are haunted by any sense of guilt over the Holocaust, Jim Crow, slavery, extermination of the Indians, oppression of women, etc. Most hold at least negative views about negroes, illegal immigration, and affirmative action.

There is no organization on the ground trying to recruit them to White Nationalism. Instead, the movement is bottled up in cyberspace. Perhaps it will remain there indefinitely. Maybe that will change.

I would wager that White Nationalism has a better chance of breaking out into the mainstream (in the South) than Lindsay’s version of race realism. These days liberalism and racialism are mutually exclusive. Racialists don’t have much use for the Left and tend to jettison its neurotic obsessions with racism, feminism, homophobia, political correctness, all its talk about “freedom” and “equality,” and so on. Liberals don’t have any use for white racial consciousness (except in the negative sense), immigration restriction, opposition to affirmative action and multiculturalism, or any of ideas that animate White Nationalists.

After 1965, there is no longer any middle ground between the two. Whether it be neocon race realism (Jobling) or liberal race realism (Lindsay), I don’t see much of an audience for a third way.

rah, rah, rah …

I suspect my readers probably know by now that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white Connecticut firefighters in the Ricci case. Count me unimpressed.

Nothing much has changed. The rules of the game regarding “disparate impact” have been slightly tinkered with, but affirmative action remains intact and as strong as ever. If anything is true, Ricci will probably go down in history as the highwater mark of conservative opposition to racial preferences. The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court clearly points to a future where the federal courts will become progressively less hospitable to white racial interests.

Guy White believes nominating conservative justices is “the one good reason to vote Republican.” I find that ironic considering how the GOP itself practices affirmative action by putting a woman on their national presidential ticket and a negro in their highest office. The Republicans are already talking about running an Indian in the 2012 presidential race. But who knows, I could be wrong. If we give them another 48 years, maybe the Pubbies will finally get the job done (ehrm .. .with a country that is half as white as it once was).

The whole basis of conservative opposition to affirmative action is their fidelity to the liberal principle of non-discrimination. Conservatives lost the philosophical battle against liberalism decades ago. They accept liberal principles, but resist the liberal conclusions drawn from them. That’s why conservatives never win.

Supporting these phonies only delays the inevitable. The Republicans will never get rid of affirmative action (or gay marriage) because it is too valuable as a wedge issue. Richard Nixon said as much.

The Ricci ruling only perpetuates the illusion that our political system is fair and just. The kabuki theatre of ”liberals” vs. “conservatives” will drag on and continue to fool the dullard masses … and not an insignificant number of racialists. True nationalism will remain a sideshow for now.

Update: Jared Taylor’s take on Ricci.

Guy White has responded to the comments I made about him yesterday. He disagrees with just about everything that was said here.

1.) It is true that Amren doesn’t allow criticism of the Jews in their comments. Whites, Negroes, Muslims, Hispanics, Asians — every other race can be criticized and its faults deplored, but not Jews. They are rewarded with a special privilege. Making a fuss about Jews is “too controversial” and would distract from AR’s stated mission of raising white racial consciousness.

2.) In your previous post, you claimed to have reaped a rise in site of traffic because of your rejection of  “extremism.” Indeed, you even provided graphics to illustrate your point. You did not say anything like “my pursuit of the truth has led me to this conclusion.” The thrust of your post was the calculation that you could attract more page views by adopting a more moderate tone.

3.) Better men then you (Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow) are ostracized from mainstream conservative publications because of their racial views. If your material has been published on FreeRepublic, it is likely because you are a newcomer to this scene and Jim Rob and his moderators aren’t familar with you. James von Brunn (the DC Holocaust museum shooter) was also published there and even cheered on by Freepers, but that was also simply an oversight on their part, not a reflection of their established policies.

4.) You aren’t going to succeed (that is, win acceptance by mainstream conservatives) where Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Ian Jobling, and Lawrence Auster have failed. Auster used to be published in FrontPageMag until David Horowitz dropped him because of his racial rhetoric. Brimelow and Taylor used to write for National Review, but those days are long since over. As for Jobling, in spite of his grandoise aspirations he writes only for his own little internet ghetto. You are just as marginalized as Alex Linder or William Pierce ever was. In this respect, there is no difference between “radicals” and “moderates” except in the imagination of the latter.

5.) If you haven’t already noticed, anything that smacks of “race realism” or “White Nationalism” is still extremely controversial at the furtherest extreme of the conservative movement. I’m referring to the paleocons here. Witness the abuse the mild mannered Jared Taylor recently endured at Takimag. Whether he likes it or not, Taylor is seen as a “radical” by virtually everyone outside his “race realist” milieu. Tom Fleming of Chronicles has described racial nationalism as the “greatest tragedy” to ever befall the human race.

6.) I don’t believe I have ever written anything about Jewish crime, so I fail to see your point.

7.) I’m not a Nazi either, so don’t go there. The original subtitle of this blog was “Racial Preservation in North America.” I don’t write much about the Third Reich. It is a rare day when I even mention European issues.

8.) I don’t believe in an enormous global Jewish conspiracy, so you can drop that straw man. There is nothing secretive about what the Jews are doing. Their hierarchy of organizations are out in the open lobbying the federal government for any number of destructive policies: open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, hate crime legislation, multiculturalism, affirmative action, support for Israel, etc.

The cumulative impact of Jewish influence on American culture has been extremely negative from a pro-white point of view. That’s all I need to know about the Jews to support their exclusion.

9.) Sorry, I don’t believe a negative interpretation of Jewish influence has much to do with schizophrenia.

10.) If you could, please explain how the world is better off (from a pro-white view) on account of the Allies winning the Second World War. I’m operating under the delusion that Allied wartime propaganda demonized racialism and led to a huge shift (for the worse) in white racial attitudes in the United States and other countries. If that was good for us, I would hate to know what you think is bad.

“I’ve argued since the beginning that the right, the conservatives should distance themselves from the Nazis. I’m glad to see that the Nazis feel the same way about us.” — guywhite

Although he has been mentioned here before by several commentators, I’ve never followed the blogger Guy White. Robert Lindsay recommended a post of his this morning though and I decided to take a look. The question being posed: Is Pro-White activism harmed by radicalism?

Guy White and Robert Lindsay seem to think so. In support of this theory, White boasts of a recent jump in his traffic. He then proceeds to draw the dubious conclusion that “Average Joes” are now flocking to his site. Lindsay’s support of this theory is especially interesting given his well known commitment to Stalinism which puts him far outside the mainstream progressive left. The success of his own blog is also evidence against the notion that radicalism is such a loser. For Lindsay, radicalism (his eclectic mix of race realism and communism) seems to be working out quite well.

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Guy White that pro-White activism of any sort is “radical” by definition. In the United States, any confession of white pride is enough to get one instantly branded as a racist and white supremacist. It is not an exaggeration to say that nothing is more politically incorrect, more thoroughly taboo than white racial consciousness. You can’t be “respectable” and ”radical.” You have to choose, but the “moderates” (who are from a middle class background) are unable to grasp this truth.

The “moderates” are victims of a self delusion. They look at the racialist fringe, which they spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing, and draw huge distinctions between themselves and their more radical brethren. These distinctions only exist though in their own minds. The “moderates” are still radioactive to the mainstream and to everyone with pretensions of respectability. As a consequence, they remain just as isolated and contained as anyone else.

Consider Ian Jobling. He is the most famous exponent of the ”moderate” point of view. Several years ago, Jobling broke with Jared Taylor over his failure to condemn anti-Semitism. He went on to blame Taylor’s links to radical anti-Semites like David Duke as the reason American Renaissance had failed to garner mainstream attention and respectablility. Jobling confidently started his own website and smugly awaited mainstream attention and success.

It wasn’t forthcoming. His little trafficked forum is still dwarfed by the likes of Stormfront and VNN. Jobling failed to capitalize on his one asset: when you lack mainstream respectability, when you don’t have to give lip service to America’s court etiquette, you are free to tell the truth. Trying to keep a foot in both worlds, one in mainstream neoconservatism, the other in beyond the pale racialism, doesn’t seem to impress anyone.

Here’s another irony which escapes the “race realists”: the most successful “mainstreamer” American racialist was, in fact, none other than Ian Jobling’s bête noire, the hated David Duke who won the majority of Louisiana’s white vote in two of his political campaigns in the early 1990’s. He is also the author of Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. Duke’s success in politics contradicts the “race realists” who insist that we ignore the Jewish Question out of political expediency.

Is pro-White activism harmed by radicalism? To a certain degree, yes. Is extremism one of the major factors keeping White Nationalism out of the mainstream? Probably not. If every neo-Nazi in America were to vanish tomorrow, the public image of White Nationalism would remain unchanged. The mass media, the universities, the government and all other critical institutions would remain in the hands of our sworn enemies.

The “moderate” vs. “radical” division isn’t as important as the one between liars and honest men. Whites began to lose control over America the moment they began to call themselves “conservatives” and engage in self censorship. One verbal concession led to another. Traveling down that road again will only invite the same results. We shouldn’t ever shrink from discussing any topic openly and honestly out of fear of the political consequences.

Is the Bible the fountain of Western morality? The Monitor seems to think so. I don’t. Read through this website and draw your own conclusions. Whether it be rape, murder, human sacrifice, slavery, or genocide, it can all be found and justified in the Bible. Contemporary Westerners and Bronze Age Israelites share only a handful of the same moral beliefs. A random guy on the street could put together a better list of moral commandments than the omniscient Jewish god.

Dennis Mangan has described Tanstaafl’s suggestion that “Lawrence Auster’s opposition to Darwinism” is “rooted in his Jewishness” as a “logical absurdity.” In other words, the idea is so prima facie ridiculous (Darwinism is “bad for the Jews”) that it is unworthy of comment. Per Auster, it is something only Jew-hating crazies could believe. Really?

Mr. Mangan obviously hasn’t done his reseach. A simple Google seach turns up thousands of results of Jews and fundamentalist Christians linking Darwinism to Hitler, National Socialism, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Consider this WND article: Rabbi defends show linking Darwin, Hitler about a Coral Ridge Ministries production called “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy”.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition, tells us, “This dazzling production shows how ideas always have consequences, often unintended, and how Darwinism has impacted American culture,” Lapin wrote. “It discusses how the philosophy of evolution can dehumanize people and how Adolf Hitler, on his own admission, was influenced by Darwinian thought.”

In other words, Darwinism must be opposed because of its consequences for Judaism and Christianity, not on its merits as a scientific theory. This tripe is actually standard fare among conservative Jews, evangelical Christians, and followers of the so-called Intelligent Design movement.

Mangan has obviously never read Richard Weikart’s book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, provided “crucial funding” for the book’s research.

Auster is a well known traveller in all three circles. But to someone of Dennis Mangan’s way of thinking, it is absurd to suggest that say, an organization like AnswersInGenesis could be motivated by a fundamentalist version of Christianity as opposed to the weight of the evidence in their fanatical opposition to Darwinism.

The whole world knows by now. Hard to believe.