Here’s some fresh evidence that conservatism is for retards. The cover story of the latest issue of National Review is an article by Kevin D. Williamson called Keeping Blacks Poor. It argues that liberal policies like the minimum wage and union membership are holding the black man down. As I don’t have a subscription to this rag, I can’t tell you if Williamson argues that ending transfer payments to negroes is the solution to their downward spiral.
Notice the poor black fellow on a bicycle (undoubtedly, a Democrat) with that forlorn look on his face. Since when do blacks ride bicycles or vote for Republicans? Since when do conservatives ever learn anything? That’s what I am wondering. The small print at the top indicates that this issue will also talk about “The Massachusetts Miracle.” The massive turnout by White Democrats who voted for the Republican candidate to stop Obamacare is not the lead story here. On the contrary, National Review wants to talk about another pathetic outreach attempt to black voters who will never vote against a co-ethnic in the White House.
Unfortunately, this nonsense does get into circulation by default. I’ve had White conservatives tell me before that liberal social policies are the cause of black-on-white violent crime. There are people who seriously believe this stuff because alternative racial and cultural explanations are not allowed to circulate in the PC mainstream. You can’t point out that black-on-white rape has exploded because blacks no longer have any fear of lynch mobs, or that other segregationist predictions like the failure of integrated schools have come true.
Conservatism is immune to experience. In spite of all his pandering, Hispanics buried John McCain. Over 95% of blacks voted for Obama. In 2008, Whites stayed home and turned “Purple States” like Ohio and Pennsylvania into Blue States. Republicans would rather lose than appeal to the self interest of White voters. They are only winning now because Whites have turned against Obama and the Democrats.
Anyway, I will file this one away in my drawer of reasons why I am not a conservative. This material might be of some interest to future historians writing about the decline and fall of White America.
Re. “This material might be of some interest to future historians writing about the decline and fall of White America.” Sometimes I feel that, that’s about all we are accomplishing at times, showing that there are a handful of cognoscenti going on record, and stating that a remnant few actually knew what was happening to their clueless people. Voices crying in the wilderness.
“Anyway, I will file this one away in my drawer of reasons why I am not a conservative.”
How do you feel about the Council of Conservative Citizens?
This is the natural result of not being able to say “Jew” and instead using the code word “liberal,” after a generation, people forgot who they were talking about.
Liberal Media? Liberal Trial Lawyers? Liberal College Professors? Liberal ACLU? Liberal Intellectuals? Liberal New York Politicians? Replace “liberal” with “Jew” and does anything change?
Buckley and the National Review are before my time, but this can be traced to Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh especially has been adept and never saying “Jew” and always saying “liberal.” Most of his conservative listeners really don’t get it.
So whites became “conservatives” and the opposition became “liberal.” All white people can immediately notice the racial differences between themselves and blacks or mestizos, but many cannot with a Jew. So conservatives, even when speaking in code (welfare queen, illegal immigrant) never forgot who the blacks and mestizos were, but they forgot the Jews.
Since the whores who run the Republican party only care about the color green, they kept their mouths shut and did what they were told.
Is it impossible for you to distinguish between racialist conservatives and deracinated “conservatives”?
Do we really have to forfeit a movement that the majority of Americans identify with, that could potentially be the bridge between our movement and the mainstream, because a couple blatantly subverted rags publish some nonsense and call themselves conservative?
Does the presence of philo-semitic racialists mean that you will no longer be a racialist?
Does the presence of anti-semites with Mexican wives mean that you will no longer be anti-semitic?
If you don’t want to be conservative or traditional, that’s your prerogative. But please refrain from taking Jew-imposed dichotomies and constructs and beating your fellow racialists over the head with them.
Boffin,
They used to call themselves the White Citizens’ Council or Citizens’ Councils of America. I much prefer either of those labels to “Council of Conservative Citizens.”
From what I have heard, the CofCC was kicked out of CPAC. Mainstream conservative groups won’t touch them. No one really considers the CofCC a “conservative organization” except its own members.
As a “mainstreamer” ploy, I don’t think the rebranding has worked. The CofCC doesn’t seem to be advancing further into the conservative mainstream.
Wikitopian,
Most people who realize the extent of our problems don’t bother describing themselves as a conservative. In fact, if one acknowledges the horrible situation we’re in, one has to agree that it’s going to take some extreme measures to save us. Most conservatives wouldn’t want to engage in mass deportations, violation of property rights, suppression of pro-race-replacement churches, etc.
‘Do we really have to forfeit a movement…’
I’m sorry, do we have a choice? The leaders of the conservative “movement” are in bed with the leaders of the “liberal” movement. They are both financed and owned by the Jews. The better question is, “How do we separate the masses from their leaders?” If we could do that it wouldn’t matter what we called ourselves.
“This is the natural result of not being able to say “Jew” and instead using the code word “liberal,” after a generation, people forgot who they were talking about.”
This is true. I grew up in the hinterlands.
When the internet arrived, I was astonished to discover the writings dating from the 20s pointing out that “Communism” or “Bolshevism” is just Judaism. How come my 8th grade teacher, who spent many hours explaining how McCarthy was right, never told us the red-diaper babies were Jews? Turns, out, wasn’t the “Russkies” who were our enemies at all. It was the Jews in Russia, who had the actual Russians by the hair of their heads, that were, and are, our enemies.
Wiki,
Yes, I think we should forfeit the “conservative” label. I don’t think racialists will ever wrestle back control of the word. That was a battle Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Gottfried’s generation fought and lost.
The vast majority of White Americans who call themselves “conservatives” are Baby Boomers. They will be retiring en masse over the next two decades. Their ideology will die with them.
National Review isn’t just any blatantly subverted magazine. It was the flagship publication of the movement. Every mainstream conservative publication and website heeds the anti-racist party line.
Instead of preaching to conservatives who are set in their ways, whose formative life experiences occurred decades ago, we should be targeting people under 40 years of age. I know for a fact that the WN critique of conservatism has sunk deep roots in the minds of a lot of younger conservatives. They give lip service to conservatism in public, but privately they renounce the label. They know it is a racket; a safe way of making money.
Given our marginalized situation, how far do you carry this logic? The entirety of Western Civilization rejects our White interests. Is defending the West for retards, too? What about America? Its founders were a bit punch-drunk on some of the Masonic prattle about equality and universalism. Is defending America for retards?
Dr. Paul demonstrated that the “conservative” label is still in play. I know from having taken this message to ordinary folks that it really can connect with people. I know it’s gaining momentum, too. In fact, myself and dozens of other retards from across the state, the nation, and beyond will be meeting this evening to discuss our progress on specific legislative concerns, our recent public rallies, and our increase in membership.
We might have ourselves a retarded conversation about what other racialist groups are doing, but I don’t know if there would be much to talk about.
The Ron Paul people claim to be libertarians. If you engage them in conversation, one of their favorite talking points is that they are not conservatives. This is one of the main reasons they draw a younger crowd. Most young people (those under 35) don’t identify with conservatism which they associate with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Why do White Americans refuse to talk about their racial interests? How did we reach the point where defending Western Civilization has become controversial? That wasn’t the case in the Fifties and Sixties. The short answer is that “conservatism” has enjoyed its status as the official opposition to the Left for half a century now.
If you want to call yourself a “conservative,” that’s fine. I think it is a lost cause. I don’t think you will ever persuade aging Baby Boomers to become racialists. I also think the “conservative” label is an albatross in reaching young people. You would have a lot more success flying under “libertarian” colors.
The proposition that “conservatism” is the reason that defending White American racial interests failed is facile, especially given your understanding of how movements and institutions get subverted. I suppose we could dance over to the libertarian label for a while, but it’s more ideologically problematic than conservatism and is even MORE influenced by Jewish infiltrators. That “Libertarian Republican” wanker we dealt with serves as a recent example.
I’ve used “bioconservative” with some success. It lacks any scare words (or syllables) that the masses have been conditioned to avoid. And it’s a conversation starter. Moreover, the conversation begins with a great positive that no one can obeject to: life. It’s antithetical to our opponents’ characterization of us as “haters”.
Like you, I also used the term “communitarian” with some positive feedback a few years ago, and this term may continue to have a place in reminding people that we do not exist as isolated individuals; instead, we are part of a group whose existence must be secured.
Ben,
I use “Evolutionary Traditionalist” when I have the kind of time and attention necessary to explain a comprehensive perspective encompassing philosophy, politics, science, and religion. When I first meet people, I’m a “traditional conservative”.
In Alabama, the segregationists became conservatives. Originally, they jettisoned the racial rhetoric for strategic purposes (they were going to sneak up on the liberals), but eventually this led to the habit of speaking in public only in aracial terms. The result was mass deracialization and the marginalization of racialists on the fringes of the political spectrum.
Most conservatives wouldn’t want to engage in mass deportations, violation of property rights, suppression of pro-race-replacement churches, etc.
Who would? Not I. All I’d support is making the grass browner on this side, at least until a long trial period had proven this solution unworkable.
Most conservatives wouldn’t want to engage in mass deportations, violation of property rights, suppression of pro-race-replacement churches, etc.
I wouldn’t either. I mean, how long would they stick around, in an area we control, if, for example, we tried some of the following:
1: Whites-only immigration.
2: AA reversed to favor whites (including reversing the Jew-white dynamic).
3: Taxes on non-whites pegged to those in neighboring multiculti paradises +x%.
4: All white taxes are earmarked for whites, black taxes for blacks, etc., (with common taxes dispersed based on racial pay-in rates).
5: Whites who miscegenate or agitate on the part of non-whites become non-white in the eyes of government.
6: Government hiring quotas based on tax base demographics (e.g., if whites are 90% of the tax base, they get 90% of the government jobs).
7: Tax breaks for those who hire only whites.
Non-whites and their white allies would self-deport. I consider all of this oppressive, but far less so than the idea of forcibly rounding them all up, into camps, and onto trains and buses.
If you really wanted to get nasty you could just make employing or associating with non-whites illegal, and provide free transportation to would-be emigrants. Could also set up hand in glove with voluntary internment facilities so people don’t starve on their way out).
It’s hard for me to imagine how it could ever be necessary to round people up by force to get them to leave. All we’d need to do is make the grass greener on the other side, which wouldn’t be too hard or need to be too oppressive (especially relative to what’s being done to us right now).
8: Extensive government ad campaigns to make non-whites feel unwelcome.
Svigor
5: Whites who miscegenate or agitate on the part of non-whites become non-white in the eyes of government.
I like it.
But your plan as a whole will only work on non-jewish non-whites. Jews would have to be deported, otherwise a fifth column of jews would stubbornly cling to our nation collaborating with international jewry to bring about our total extinction.
This is the natural result of not being able to say “Jew” and instead using the code word “liberal,” after a generation, people forgot who they were talking about.
Liberal Media? Liberal Trial Lawyers? Liberal College Professors? Liberal ACLU? Liberal Intellectuals? Liberal New York Politicians? Replace “liberal” with “Jew” and does anything change?
__
There is also a fairly large contingent of status-seeking shabbos goyim amongst many of these Jews as well.
Svigor,
Your proposed solution would be like throwing rocks at a hornets nest. They wouldn’t pack up and move to “greener pastures” but rather go into a frenzy and attack everything in sight.
In any case, the conservatives wouldn’t even support your measures of reversed affirmative action and government discrimination. It’s not in their mentality. This entire discussion is probably a moot point since, in all likelihood, Whites will never again control the political apparatus in the West. If we retain our democratic institutions the non-whites will be able to outvote us by sheer numbers within the next generation.
And even if – by some miracle – Whites spontaneously rise up in the 11th hour against their own displacement, their votes will be cast aside by a Federal court or executive order. This has already happened in California with Proposition 187.
Svigor,
Your proposed solution would be like throwing rocks at a hornets nest. They wouldn’t pack up and move to “greener pastures” but rather go into a frenzy and attack everything in sight.
That would be fine with me.
9: Agitators declared Enemy Combatants would be interned and where possible, deported.
In any case, the conservatives wouldn’t even support your measures of reversed affirmative action and government discrimination.
I’m not saying they would. I’m saying my measures would be less objectionable, and thus receive more support. It’s not binary, it’s a continuum.
As for the “no matter what we do” stuff, that doesn’t change what we have to do. Due diligence, and all that. If we don’t perform due diligence, we have no right to complain.
But your plan as a whole will only work on non-jewish non-whites. Jews would have to be deported, otherwise a fifth column of jews would stubbornly cling to our nation collaborating with international jewry to bring about our total extinction.
Maybe. I think the large majority would move on to greener pastures. Hell, take NYC and LA out of the picture and you don’t have that many Jews to deal with anyway.
Germany barely has any Jews any more, and Germans probably welcome them with open arms.
Btw, my list is a paltry one compared to a thread at Majority Rights on the subject. It was a thread where everyone chipped in ideas like the ones I listed, but I can’t find it via search.
Hunter,
“Anyway, I will file this one away in my drawer of reasons why I am not a conservative. This material might be of some interest to future historians writing about the decline and fall of White America.” I have said this before elsewhere, but it doesnt seem to be getting through yet. The game is not over, its just starting. The game of course is the survival of Whites in North America. This is a 100+ year game. Even by 2050, if there is no awakening yet, Whites are still half the population of the US. And even by 2100, if there is no awakening yet, Whites are still something like 25% of the population, over a hundred million individuals. Yes, it can be discouraging that events do not seem to be moving very quickly now, but things are happening. You need to have faith that the genes will tell; that the vast numbers of extremely intelligent and talented Whites within our population will awaken once they really begin to be confronted with an increasingly third-world US. Every White is naturally ethnocentric, and it is only by an unnatural barrage of media suppression that there has been no awakening thus far. However, this cannot last forever. It is a slow process that will accelerate as time passes; it is all but inevitable. Our task now is to do everything possible to keep the flame alive and spread the message. Historians will not be writing about the decline and fall of White America. They will be writing about the future rise of White Nationalism as a mainstream movement, and the future partition of the former US.
“In Alabama, the segregationists became conservatives. Originally, they jettisoned the racial rhetoric for strategic purposes (they were going to sneak up on the liberals), but eventually this led to the habit of speaking in public only in aracial terms. The result was mass deracialization and the marginalization of racialists on the fringes of the political spectrum.’
Dead on Hunter.
Assimilating to Republican Party discourse norms was the biggest mistake Southerners made since their failure to go for Lincoln’s jugular by attacking the District of Columbia.
Most whites driven to conservatism are by temperament left-leaners.
Sadly, the Left has been disfigured by Jews: a truly white party of progress would be an awesome thing (as it was in the past).
Svigor #16:
“5: Whites who miscegenate or agitate on the part of non-whites become non-white in the eyes of government.”
Excellent! Force them to put their money where their mouth is. Force them finally to pay a price for what they’ve gotten away with so long scot-free. Force them to pay the going rate. Force them to pay the cost which they try to force on everyone else: force it on them. Make them for once live up close and personal with the real-life consequences of their actions: if you do what they do you will be classified administratively as a non-white and sent to live with the non-whites.
Andrew #25: good comment and an extremely important one. Everyone should read it.
Andrew, where you say…
“Even by 2050, if there is no awakening yet, Whites are still half the population of the US.”
…three things need to be added.
1) The current “official” date of whites becoming a minority in the USA is now 2042, not 2050. Most expect it to be moved even closer as things progress.
2) Illegal aliens are not included which makes the projections too optimistic.
3) “White” according to the US Government is often called Non-Hispanic White – an insulting non-group – and includes Arabs and Jews among others.
We may still have a hundred years but I seriously doubt we have 25% – of real Whites – by then. What we must have by then are vertically integrated, confident, militant, exclusive White enclaves/nations regardless of our percentage. If so we can slowly recover much of what has been lost.
Svigor,
Those are good ideas (post #16). I sometimes get caught in the trap of us needing to force all the invaders out. As many as can be given sane incentives to leave should be. Hopefully only a small percentage will require force.
And yes, race traitors must be given the boot as well so that they can no longer be free riders and triangulators.
“And yes, race traitors must be given the boot as well so that they can no longer be free riders and triangulators.” ( — Willy Garrett)
If every Congressman and Senator who voted for the 1965 “It’s Good For The Jews” immigration bill had been made to understand they’d be obliged to move to the Third World for doing that — in other words, they’d have to “put their money where their mouths were,” as the saying goes — obviously the vote would have gone the other way.
They want the Third World so much? Hey it’s out there waiting for them, here’s the one-way plane ticket.
Blacks hate being patronized. Blacks vote for the Democrats because they are liberals. They aren’t being tricked into it. They know what conservatives believe, what liberals believe and they stand with the latter. The writers at the National Review don’t know any typical black people.
There seems to be a concerted effort by neo-conservatives to woo blacks into the Republican party. One would think after fifteen years of failing to transform blacks into aracial conservatives that they would finally give up. Just last week Glen Beck dedicated an entire show to government policies that ail the congoid community and keep it mired in poverty. Blacks in the audience took turns flogging the government for their failures and it got so pathetic at one point that even Beck sheepishly interjected that government isn’t entirely culpable for black social pathologies.
The theme of much of conservative scribbling, television and broadcast journalism of late is that the “gubmint” is the enemy of the black race. And you thought race didn’t matter to conservatives especially where white people are concerned. Similar to the liberretardians, race is meaningless except when they decide to proselytize among non-whites. I hope I’m not the only one that notices the glaring hypocrisy.
At any rate you can’t win with black people. They willingly accepted massive government intervention in the 1960’s since at that time lack of government activism was blamed for their plight. Now, government is the bogeyman. Be courteous to a black person and they’ll accuse you of being phoney and patronizing. Treat them like everyone else and you’re a racist.
Racial separation is the only viable solution.