The Meaning of the Obama Election
By • 12/5/08 |
Drug dealer-in-chief. |
My last column argued that racial right writers like Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailer were basically mistaken to see Barack Obama as a radical Leftist or black racialist. My contention that Obama is a moderate center-left politician rather than the extremist of the right’s fantasy now seems to have been confirmed by his choice of cabinet. The appointment of these ponderously respectable, centrist old hands has delighted conservatives and confirms that the US government will be run by the same old political machine as it has been for decades.
However, my skeptical attitude towards racial right fears does not mean I am not intensely disturbed by the Obama election. What is disturbing, though, is not that Obama will radically change our politics, but that he renders painfully manifest the truth of what was always there: the death of white racial consciousness. By racial consciousness, I mean the instinctive understanding among American whites that their country has a distinctive and precious heritage, that this heritage is rooted in the nature of the white race, and that only white people can be true Americans. Throughout most of American history, whites clearly felt this way. Even in the 1940s, for example, President Henry Truman maintained in his letters that America was a country for white people.
White racial consciousness has, of course, been on the decline for decades, and I argued last year that it was virtually non-existent today. However, even though rationally I understood that American whites had lost their sense of peoplehood, I did not recognize it emotionally until, dizzy with foreboding, I watched Obama give his victory speech on election night.
During the Bush years, it was possible to cling on to the hope that racial consciousness, however obscured and intimidated by leukophobia and race denial, still existed among American whites. Of course, the mainstream Republican party is thoroughly liberal on issues of race. The Bush administration supported amnesty and greater spending on minorities, and caved in to the leukophobic narrative that minority underperformance was due to mistreatment by whites. Rationally, I told myself that the mainstream of the Repubican party was really no better than the Democrats. Nevertheless, sub-rationally and emotionally the Republicans lulled me into a false sense of security. American conservatives are overwhelmingly negative about the legacy of the 1960s, after all. They blame social dysfunction on the sexual revolution and the emergence of the welfare state that took place during that time. Moreover, they are revolted by the disdain for America that characterized the anti-Vietnam War movement. Underlying Republican victories, it seemed to me, was a sense that America before the Civil Rights era was a better place.
My delusive sense of security had other sources. Bush infuriated the Left so profoundly that you couldn’t help but like the man. There had to be something positive about a man who could make Paul Krugman and Keith Olbermann froth at the mouth so. Also, on race and immigration issues, the Republicans were far superior to the Democrats. The immigration restrictionist House Republicans under Tom Tancredo were certainly a force for the good. Ending the Mary Frances Berry reign of insanity, Bush appointed affirmative action skeptics to the US Commission on Civil Rights, and his Justice Department actually prosecuted blacks for discriminating against whites. Wishful thinking could easily be reassured by such developments.
Obama’s election, however, has swept away these illusions and forced me to face up to the bleak reality of today’s America. If a racially conscious white America had existed, we would have seen a pervasive and profound revulsion against the very idea of an Obama presidency. Whites would have regarded it as an absurdity that a man who was not merely black, but the son of a Kenyan Muslim could be president of their country.
Such a revulsion failed to materialize. While we did see some evidence of unease with the prospect of a black president, it was fitful and weak. The most vigorous expression of white skepticism towards Obama was the outrage over Jeremiah Wright. However, whites allowed themselves to be easily consoled by Obama’s smarmy speech on race and soon dropped the matter.
The Obama election was decisive proof then that white Americans no longer believe in a white America, but rather diverse America. Indeed, the jubilation that has greeted the Obama victory, including naming schools and holidays after the man, is a celebration of the victory of diversity over whiteness. The American majority apparently thinks that Obama will set us free from the bad old white America, the America of slavery, segregation, and racism, and usher in a diverse America of inclusion, togetherness, and mutual understanding.
Those of us who have the gall to insist that white America was a great nation, the greatest in history, and far better than diverse America is likely to be—we find ourselves in a difficult position. Because of the triumph of the ideology of diversity, opportunists are going to flock to its banner. The Republican party may betray us even further. Already the leadership is talking about the need to prevent the Republicans from becoming the “old white-guy” party by stepping up the minority outreach initiatives that have been in place for years now and that always fail.
So what should we do? We go on attacking the ideology of diversity as mercilessly as we have in the past, exposing it as the ridiculous and pernicious sham that it is. Every day we should wake determined to point out on websites, discussion boards, and among our acquaintance that diversity does not bring liberation and inclusiveness and hope, but crime, corruption, and the lowering of standards. Every day, we must force white Americans to see that with increasing diversity our nation becomes less intelligent, less provident, less Western. Above all, we must reveal Obama and the rest of his crew for what they are: a bunch of fraudulent snake-oil salesmen and drug dealers who profit off of Americans’ anguish by selling them the narcotic of evangelical rhetoric even as their nation slides further into chaos.
These are troubling times for pro-white race realists, so troubling that you may fall prey to despair. If you do, you should remember that, no matter how bleak things seem, no one can know the future. All we can know is our own convictions in the present, and our only path to real happiness is to act on them. In doing so, we create a future different from anything we expect. While defending the truth may cause others to reject, or even hurt you, it will also reward you with a satisfaction and self-respect that more than compensates you for your pain. By holding firm against the tide of lies, you will know the moral courage that is the signal virtue of our people and join the ranks of those heroes who built and preserved the West.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
If Obama is not a radical or black racialist then why did he hang around Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers for all those years? It is clear that Jeremiah Wright and his church were deeply racist so it is resonable to assume that Obama shares at least some of that philosophy. However, I do believe that Obama (like all politicians) loves power. So he probably will govern within the democratic mainstream to better hold on to it.
I’m 22 years old and I’ve never seen any evidence that white racial conscioucness still exists beyond a few blogs.
The racialist right hasn’t a tactical clue.
Your solution to Obama’ election, on the other hand, is more faith-based Internet chat. The prescription is weak.
In the face of the seemingly insurmountable it is better to act on the basis that the Sun has arisen a trillion times than to hope it will somehow arise tomorrow.
On this continent alone many tens of millions are ready for our message. Caesar would bypass the regime’s obstacles and take the message to them.
Are we Caesars or software engineers?
One plan is to separate ourselves from the regime to the greatest extent possible – socially, economically, and politically.
Answer the original question, Ian: Are we Caesars or software engineers?
Shall we make our luck or leave success to chance and hope?
Pshaw,
I have no objection to listening to such proposals. I don’t disdain them, and I appreciate the noble motives that lie behind them. But I don’t think anything will come of them at the current time. After all, life is still pretty good in the US. It will take much more serious socioeconomic dislocation before projects like yours generate any interest, if they ever do.
Maybe Pshaw should join the League of the South if it’s secession he wants. They may be small but so was Sinn Fein at one point.
I see it as the triumph of “white guilt” rather than the death of white racial consciousness. “White guilt” is what tells whites to only recognize the existence of their race if it is for the benefit of non-whites. This is what compelled the media to promote Obama at the expense of McCain.
Kevin MacDonald hit the nail on the head in this article at VDare, where he called for: “Proud and confident explicit assertions of ethnic identity and interests among white people, and the creation of communities where such explicit assertions are considered normal and natural rather than a reason for ostracism.”
There are such communities/organizations, but many have the problem of being obsessively anti-Semitic. (At least, many of us consider that to be a problem.) Also, some such organizations advocate white separatism, which many of us do not wish to sign on for. Additionally, I am wary of any organization that makes a point of guaranteeing secrecy for its members. The goals of promoting “proud and confident explicit assertions of ethnic interests” and providing for a high level of secrecy are not consistent.
Don’t douse me in urine and call it rainwater, Ian. Socioeconomic dislocation exists in spades else Internet racialists wouldn’t write about non-White immigration and crime. What you mean is Internet racialists aren’t interested in selling a plan involving social, economic, and political separation to its real victims. Lacking a plan of their own they sell hope as realism while relegating the idea of making luck happen to the realm of fantasy or to the League of the South.
Are we Caesars or software engineers? The answer is we are software engineers. Internet racialism is afflicted with a moral problem.
Pshaw,
What’s this stuff about “we” being Caesars? There can be only one Caesar at a time. If you’re so keen on being a Caesar, go ahead and be one, and we’ll decide whether we want to follow you.
I don’t regard any kind of separatist project as possible at this time, although a Caesar might convince me otherwise. What we can do now is engage in reformist political activism—sending e-mails to Congressmen and possibly holding demonstrations—and create the revolution in ideas that is the necessary precursor to any major political change. I am not confident that our movement will bring about major political change, but I do think that, if it does, it will only be after we have a satisfying philosophy, which we do not at this time.
This is very interesting to me. While I support the concept of separation, I agree with Ian that it is highly unlikely at this time.
The issues that I think are winnable are reversing/repealing “affirmative action” and fighting the inevitable illegal alien amnesty. Winning on those would be very positive.
Ian,
Part of the satisfying philosophy you’re seeking is the concept that we’re all leaders – each and every one of us. Please do not equate management with leadership, however, for a manager cares nothing for his people and certainly does not “own” the results of his work except in a very parochial business sense. Now, substitute “leaders” for “Caesars” and there you’ll have your answer.
While letter-writing to congressmen is all well and fine, the presumption is they are listening. They are not. They haven’t listened in our lifetimes. Educating the public is a good thing, too; unfortunately, the Internet is a far from adequate medium.
What to do? Take the first step. Assume you’re a leader and ask yourself, “How can I separate my family and friends socially, economically, and politically from the regime to the greatest extent possible?” Months from now the serious pursuit of this question will have opened many doors for you.
Kevin MacDonald hit the nail on the head in this article at VDare, where he called for: “Proud and confident explicit assertions of ethnic identity and interests among white people, and the creation of communities where such explicit assertions are considered normal and natural rather than a reason for ostracism.”
Survival and growth require us to be explicit in the personal and implicit in public. The personal is defined as family and (long-term) friends. This tiny “community” provides the primary socioeconomic assurance necessary for survival.
People being people, relationships expand outward in ring-like fashion. Expansion means each ring eventually intersects other rings of like-minded people. The more rings the better, of course, for there is a limit to the size and quantity of one’s quality relationships. Equally important is for the point of intersection be within each community’s sphere of quality relationships. This is necessary for the creation of a tightly collaborating social, economic, and political network.
Want to draw geographically atomized Whites together again? Provide them with socioeconomic reasons and methods for doing so. No Internet “organization” comprised of “anonymous” members could implement such a plan without breaching the social assurances that come with one’s family and friendships. Once again, let this be our first general order: Explicit in the personal, implicit in public.
Pshaw,
What exactly do you mean by separating ourselves “socially, economically, and politically from the regime to the greatest extent possible”? If I followed your advice, would it mean that I couldn’t watch Lost any more? (That would be a heavy price to pay because I really need to know what the smoke monster is and whether Kate ends up with Jack or Sawyer.) Would it mean I couldn’t invest in stocks and bonds any more? Would I have to end my subscription to Netflix or stop playing silly flash games on i-am-bored.com? Would I have to grow my own vegetables?
No matter how much we may complain about American culture, we’re all thoroughly embedded in it. That isn’t a bad thing. It may infuriate us, but American culture is still a great one, capable of answering most of our physical, economic, spiritual, and intellectual needs. Would your separatist culture be able to do as much? Or would it be some dreary utopian emptiness?
There’s no statement more depressingly and banally American than saying, “We’re all leaders.” I wish you would separate yourself from that kind of self-help psychobabble. And basically what it means is that you want me to do your work for you.
I need more from you before I can take you seriously. Come up with a real plan and try not to make it sound too creepy and culty.
Ian,
I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this last comment speaks for itself.
I wasn’t being completely serious in my last comment, Pshaw, just giving you a taste of what the typical American is going to answer back to you until you start confronting the enormous difficulties in the project you propose.
Pshaw said, “While letter-writing to congressmen is all well and fine, the presumption is they are listening. They are not. They haven’t listened in our lifetimes.”
I know something about this, and I can tell you that all letters to Congressmen are tracked and catalogued per issue. Their correspondence directors can tell them, for instance, that the mail from their districts on amnesty is running eleven to one against.
A portion of Congressmen are ideologically committed, but far more, probably a majority, are persuadable within certain limits. That is, you are not going to get a Member of Congress to declare himself to be in favor of white survival just because he got a lot of letters, but at the height of the 2006-2007 amnesty furor, many members were dissuaded from going along with the business and non-white lobbies because of the flood of mail they were getting.
It makes a difference.
Survival and growth require us to be explicit in the personal and implicit in public.
What the MacDonald article says is that there are already plenty of public implicit expressions of white identity. It is explicit expressions that are scarce.
Best of luck to you, Pshaw, although I am not sure we have the same approaches in mind.
Do Netflix, Ibox, and MTV present enormous difficulties for homeschool families? No? Why is that, do you think? Could it have something to do with parental leadership? I certainly think so. Ask those parents if “every parent a leader” is mere psychobabble, Ian. Ask the US Marine Corps if “every man a leader” is psychobabble and if they are looking to pawn their responsibilities off on others. http://inverted-world.com/cms/images/smileys/wink.gif
The greatest difficulty lies in motivating Internet racialists to prescribe and implement something beyond mere hope, anonymous chatter, ego-stroking noise, and letter-writing campaigns. But this is your soapbox, Ian. I’ve merely asked a few questions and presented another perspective. Go with it or piss on it, as you will.
Reading this article brings to mind what I consider to be the hidden significance of the “red state/blue state” divide that has persisted over the past several presidential contests. This divide is actually a manifestation of a fissure that has existed in American political life since the close of the so-called “era of good feelings” in the 1820’s. Red State America is actually a projection of the mindset and political values of the old confederate states,while Blue state America is similarly a projection of the mindset and political values of abolitionist, unitarian New England. The South, and much of the West(which was settled by Southerners) is red state America. The South and West is the sole remaining repository of true conservatism left in America today, and since they voted against Obama, we may assume that the majority of people in these states are both white and have retained a sense of white racial consciousness, despite the relentless brainwashing they endure in schools, churches, and in the entertainment and news media. In this last presidential election, the Republican Party reaped the grim harvest that comes from marginalizing their most loyal constituency-Southern, and Southern-minded whites. It is surprising and predictably suicidal of the sultans of the GOP to continue disregarding their base. The northeastern elite of the Republican Party-what we used to call “Rockefeller Republicans” and now call “neocons”-run the party unfairly, and with predictably disastrous results. By loading the dice against us-naking Republican primaries “winner take all” affairs and placing almost all of the early primaries outside of the South, mostly in Blue States like Iowa and New Hampshire, for example-they once again assured that the candidate of the party would be all but chosen before the South had its say. This time they chose the second most liberal Reblican in the Senate-a man who despises the South and his Southern roots, and spent virtually no time campaigning in the South, thereby demonstrating his contempt for the region. He deserved to lose! Outside of grudgingly obligatory appearances in Southern primaries, the only time I can remember McCain venturing into the South during the campaign was to grovel at the feet of black Democrats in a humiliating prostration in Memphis at the National Civil Rights Museum on Martin Luther King Day. The pathetic spectacle of this wimp boohooting before a crowd of jeering black Democrats on national T.V. makes me despise him to this day. I guess it was worth it though-just look at all of the black votes he garnered as a result! I know Colin Powell was impressed! He was also brisk for business in announcing his disgust for the confederate flag, being the precious little politically correct bootlicke that he is. To vote for such a monster simply because he’s the white alternative to Obama speaks volumes about the white racial solidarity of the still unreconstructed South, and red state America. We in the South have been treated like a colony and denied the right of self-determination since the 1820’s, and the existence of a red state/blue state divide in 2008 tells me that the differences between the two regions is permanent and irreconcilable, unless of course we’re swamped at the ballot box by third world immigrants. With the election of Obama, and the prospect of a socialist-marxist ruling regime for the foreseeable future, and immigration amnesty just around the corner, I really think its time to seriously revisit the topic of secession. If the rest of the red states want to join us, fine. If not,let us go our way in peace. England let Scotland go without bloodshed recently-why shouldn’t the South be allowed to do likewise? As Joseph Fara observed recently, America needs to be split into two nations-one for those who wish to play by the rules, and one for those who don’t-the rules being the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Southerners, being the quaint creatures that we are, still believe in those things. Any other region of the nation that also reveres them is welcome to join us.
Pshaw:
I am with Ian on this one. I don’t quite know what to make of your posts. Take a look at Concerned’s article on white activism, and tell me where you can improve the approach outlined there.
I can assure you that I am much more than an internet jockey. I have put boots on the ground and in several local arenas I have helped to make a difference. But there is much much more we can all do.
MJ
Irish: It makes a difference.
There are 10-20 million illegal aliens in this country. Barack Obama has won the presidency. The Democrats own the House and Senate. For reasons having to do with cheap labor, many sitting Republican congressmen support amnesty. Take a look around you. Look back 50 years. Sooner or later the Republicans cave and the proponents of White America’s “cultural” deconstruction win. Always. Bank on it.
Hal K: What the MacDonald article says is that there are already plenty of public implicit expressions of white identity. It is explicit expressions that are scarce.
Understood. Nevertheless, I don’t believe MacDonald is advocating expressions of white identity in settings where legal, financial, or social persecution may result. If he is, it wouldn’t matter anyway. Common sense dictates that we be explicit in the personal, implicit in public. The alternative is unemployment, the unnecessary persecution of one’s wife and children, and longer imprisonment in cases of self-defense where the outcome yields an unexpected result.
Pshaw:
It is true that some people run into trouble when their views become public. Still, I think that this is the envelope that has to be pushed. This is what the BNP is doing. I would like to see something like a political counterpart to VDare, say. If an organization does not have too radical an agenda then I think it could make some progress in the area of promoting “explicit” positive expressions of white identity.
Like Ian Jobling I’m downright skeptical of big projects, which of course never get anywhere because they refuse to face the reality of the current situation that we are largely isolated keyboard warriors.
My advice for what its worth is to concentrate on social networking between likeminded inidividuals in the local area, to start establishing the bonds of trust and friendship for which any enterprise requires as its start. Its a lot easier to put time and money towards some goal when you know the individual on a social basis that when a man behind a keyboard asks for funds.
My advice is apart from a few sensible restrictions e.g. No Neo-Nazi’s or Holocaust Deniers the chapter should not press a party line or demand members conform to any particular strategy. I.e. Some members might wish to be completely open with his beliefs, others might want to keep their beleifs private and concentrate on figting battles against illegal immigration for instance. I suspect many will not have engaged in any activism and are just interested in testing the water before committing themselves.
I agree with Dr. Jobling that Obama is a cause for great concern, but never for incapacitating despair. The half of the white population who supported McCain probably didn’t do so because they thought amnesty was a good idea, but out of a surreptitious racial consciousness. If this is indeed the case, we may be doing better than we think right now.
Question: Obama has made a conscious effort throughout his career never to say, do, or write anything controversial. He voted present numerous times as a legislator rather than take a stand that might come back to haunt him later. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review, yet again managed to leave no paper trail that may come back to haunt him. Yet he openly and notoriously associated with the likes of Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and probably others who openly detest America and Americans. Why was Obama so careful in the former cases, yet so lackadaisical in the latter cases?
Answer: Obama was born and partly raised in Hawaii, probably the least culturally American of all the states. Most of the rest of his childhood was spent in Indonesia under the tutelage of a mother who hated whites and America with a passion. Then he went to anti-American cesspool colleges. So, to him people like Rezko, Ayers, and Wright are normal Americans. After all, they are just like his mother. In short, the only thing American about Obama is his passport, and now his job. We might as well exist in the eighth dimension for all he knows.
As Steve Sailer has pointed out in his new book, Obama strived to identify with blacks because he thought that would advance his career. After all, that’s what his mother taught him to do, and his radical friends only reinforced this idea. It wasn’t until he lost his election with Bobby Rush for not being black enough that Obama changed his tune. He learned that he appealed instead to liberal whites. He was the only black politician who didn’t scare them half to death. And Obama has been making a point of appealing to liberal whites ever since, and with the greatest success imaginable.
Like the Clintons and Bushes—and unlike the Pauls and Tancredos—Obama has no firm ideological convictions. He will say or do whatever he thinks will advance his career the most. He’s a political chameleon.
I have to agree with Messrs Jobling, Jaws, and the rest on Pshaw’s statements.
Since you haven’t begun to tell us how you plan on normalizing explicit white racial consciousness, it’s best to assume the worst. All of us have racked our brains for ways to accomplish what you advocate in a satisfactory manner—to no avail. As was the case with Timothy McVeigh, it is easy to do much damage to our cause and difficult to be of benefit.
As far as the Internet goes, in my opinion it’s the greatest invention of the 20C. The Internet makes it impossible to keep people like us down and isolated from one another. The Internet has done more to help us get our message out than anything else I can think of. Does the Internet have limits? Definitely. But we would do well to exploit the advantages of the Internet within those parameters.
I’m also concerned with your prescription that we should all be leaders. One of the problems with the WN movement is we have too many leaders and not enough followers. Why? Because being an open WN leads to ostracism, loss of job, assaults, and worse. And the direct benefits range between few and nonexistent. So, only the most independent and hard headed thinkers are willing to embrace WN ideas. These are hardly the kind of people predisposed to take orders from much of anybody. But until WN’s can present a united front there probably isn’t much hope.
The situation is not the same everywhere around the globe. Look at the resistance the Russian population is putting up against the same Diversity shinannegans by the Russian government - you may not agree with their tactics (violent beheadings, etc.) but you do have to agree that there is substantial racial awareness among that population.
It seems to me that we are in this situation because we have had a soft life for too long. The white race got to be great by facing adversity. This is an opportunity to emerge stronger, tougher, and smarter than before.
With such great doubt about the ability of a movement to gain any strength for separation, I call you to look at the doubt of the Irish peoples’ will before the Easter Rising of 1916 for Home Rule.
In this example, it took true believers to make themselves martyrs in order to change the opinion of the people. These leaders knew that whatever possible gain their military operation would have would be marginally successful tactically. However, Padraig Pearse and James Connolly were counting on the British reaction, which was the exectution of most (except for Eamon De Valera) of the leaders. The British violated their own laws in executing wounded individuals when they shot James Connolly in a chair at Kilmainham Gaol, which was a major factor in turning the Irish population further towards Independence.
This could be the ravings of a crazed GermanoCelt, but I think Americans could be made to realize that diversity fails in the very near future. This, of course, would require great sacrifice (I’m not saying leaders should needlessly step on their sword) from true believers in the cause.
However, I can rationally say I see Ian’s objective when he says life is still pretty good in America.
The revelation that Obama will govern as a center-left president means that Lawrence Auster’s hope for a traditionalist backlash to Obama will not be fulfilled. Obama will likely govern in a manner similar to Clinton, and because he is likable and black any effort to criticize him will be next to useless. (If Reagan had teflon, Obama will have magic armor all—nothing will stick to him.)
Pshaws call for separation makes snese to me, but like Ian I’m not sure what he means.
Here a re a few idea:
Live debt free. Do not make your family dependent on government or big business.
Be independent If you are a business person make hiring decisions based upon the quality of prospective employees. Avoid hiring college graduates except where necessary. Utilize on the job training whenever possible. Universities, media, government, and big business are the four arms of the enemy.
Move to a small town, participate in Chirch or Synogogue, and become involved in local politics. Try to prevent sprawl, which affects small towns as well as cities. Whenever exurbs appear, the vacuum created by pulling the middle class residents out of town sucks in underclass renters to the heart of town. A prosperous middle class person can wield influence in a town like Norfolk, NE, or Pitsburg, KS, but has no voice in Boston.
That’s enough for now. I’m interested in Pshaw’s idea. What concrete steps may a person take to separate as he suggests?
The ideas of freedom and liberty are inherently tied to the white race. The idea of individual liberty (as opposed to collectivism) is foreign to even advanced non-whites such as the Chinese. This is why the idea of seccessionist movements based on conservative political ideas could successfully lead to the creation of white-ethnic states even without explicitly making race an issue. I am a member of the League of the South and would encourage others (particularly those who live in the South) to join as well.
A free and independent South would abolish affirmative action, eliminate the welfare state, and impose harsh criminal penalties. Most blacks, particularly the criminal element, would not be able to survive in such an environment and would be forced to flee to more liberal Northern states. They will be replaced by freedom-loving whites who will flood into the region to escape the rapidly declining U.S. Other red states will recognize the success of such a state and possibly follow suit in withdrawing from the empire. I don’t think such ideas should be dismissed as unrealistic; the idea of “red state seccession” is starting to be whispered about in mainstream conservative circles and the disillusionment that is sure to come from an Obama presidencey will likely increase these sentiments.
As far as the idea that Obama’s election shows a lack of white racial consciousness, I am not convinced. In most deep South states, Obama only got 10-15% of the white vote. Even with the recent ineptness of the Republican Party, the fact that many conservatives stayed home, and unprecedent media bias in favor of Obama, Obama still lost the white vote by 10 points. Obama’s victory is more of a sign of the increased number of non-whites in our country than any sort of shift in political opinion. Four years ago, Obama would have lost the election. His victory is the result of an increase in the number of non-white voters and a demographic shift in general.
Personally, I think the election of Obama is a good thing for our cause. Obama’s election and the recent comments of Colin Powell are already causing many whites to begin to wake up. Also, Obama’s far left ideology and corrupt connections mean that he is bound to, at some point in his administration, to severely overreach or be caught up in some scandal. This will only cause the awakening of even more whites.
As far as the debate over what course the so-called white nationalist movement should take is concerned, I think it is great that sites like this exist so that concerned whites can brainstorm and bounce ideas off of one another. However, I don’t think we should sit on our hands and wait for the perfect strategy before taking action. Join NumbersUSA, write your Congressman about illegal immigration, wear Confederate flag t-shirts when in public (the flag sends a definite message to viewers and will embolden other whites), spread our message on message boards and comments sections, support pro-white publications, etc. There is plenty we can be doing now while at the same time discussing more effective strategies.
Sam Francis, no enemy of Confederate heritage, wrote a devastating response to such secessionist notions in an essay once. What we must do is reconquer America.
I respectfully disagree with you, Irish. Only in a secessionist state can we re-establish control of our government and culture. Once that has occurred, the reconquista of the entire nation can begin. But folks, we ain’t goin’ nowhere until you people start having children. Demographics is destiny.
MJ
Irish, as a Southerner in good standing, I know Sam Francis did scorn the idea of secession, and I disagree with some qualifications.
If we were to remake the US in our own image, the northern liberals would be squirming and resisting the way we are. It’s worth remembering that liberal judicial imperialism made the Religious Right. Without such gems as Roe V Wade, putting religion in the closet and taking homosexuality out, feminism, and of course race, the Evangelicals would have been happy to spend their time well out of the public eye. If we seize control of the levers of power and exert our will the way liberals have done, we’ll again be at each others’ throats. We’d have the proverbial tiger by the tail.
Actually, I’d favor a return to our original constitutional system where power to decide the social issues in particular resides with the states and local folks. But secession would be far superior to what we have now.
If the liberals out in California and Massachusetts want to commit cultural and demographic suicide, that’s unfortunate. All we can do is to save ourselves, and that’s all we should do.
In my view, pro-whites should focus on making small, feasible improvements on our current situation rather than wasting their time dreaming about radical solutions to America’s racial problems that are completely out of the question at this time, like racial secession and mass deportation of non-whites with American citizenship. The prerequisite to any serious change in racial policies is widespread racial consciousness among white Americans, particularly powerful ones. Absent such a shift in attitudes, the average American will just dismiss people who talk about racial secession and such things as nuts. Our task now is to work to bring about this shift in attitudes, not to dream about what might happen if we are ever successful. We should therefore focus our efforts on discrediting leukophobia and spreading awareness of racial differences and the harm caused by diversity. Everything else is just wind.
Dr. Jobling, I agree that the incrementalist approach is certainly the most viable. But one of the prerequisites would be some form of white solidarity. Instead, we have just the opposite; whites are at each other’s throats.
This is why localism must be encouraged. As long as everything is controlled from Washington, DC, at most half of the country will be satisfied. The other half will be outraged. We saw this with Clinton, with Bush, and now with Obama.
What does localism have to do with white racial consciousness? If we’re allowed to celebrate our own cultural heritage and people by state and locality, it would not foster a good environment for immigrants. As things stand now, we’re expected to forgo our cultural values because these things make immigrants uncomfortable. The more we celebrate our unique regional cultures, the more uncomfortable the immigrants will be.
Maybe white solidarity is too much to be hoped for. But with a healthy dose of localism we perhaps could stop being at each others’ throats.
Concerned, just had one three months ago (in wedlock, BTW), and intend on at least three total, so as to constitute a net gain for the race.
Irish - My wife and I just had our third - congratulations! As I’m sure you’re aware by now…life as you know it is OVER! LOL!
As far as demographics being destiny goes, I say to everyone to have as many white children as possible. As you probably all know, the rest of the world have growing populations, whereas Western countries (barring immigration from statistics) have a declining population. The only reason our population is “growing” is due to massive non-white immigration. The solution in two parts: have as many white children as possible, and stop giving Western medicine to cultures who cannot handle it. The harsh reality would force non-whites to change their behaviors or perish. Of course, the children might also push many women back into the home, which is a positive side effect of our desires.
Increasing white racial consciousness requires a three-pronged approach:
- intellectual
- social and political
- economic
Internet discussion provides an intellectual foundation from which a political movement can be formed. However, until the numbers of internet commenters reaches a point where there are enough commentators are present that they can locate and meet up socially with other commenters in there area a political movement is not a viable option.
Populist parties with a weak ideologicl foundation usually fail -the Australian One Nation party being a classic example.
Another way of boosting the social and economic spread of white interests is through spending patterns - not hiring immigrant casual labour, not patronising ethnic restaurants, not going to movies with an explicitly anti-white message etc.
Whites could also start up matual aid societies where they can trade services etc. Apparently this sort of thing is already going on in some European countries.
White people are the Jews of the future, aliens in their own land!
There will be a dedicated core, a remnant, holding as sacred White history and traditions, amid a population that is indifferent at best, and hostile at worst.
Mozeltoff!
Ian, this meme of whiteness is just as bogus as the one for blackness.
What will save the US is more East Asian immigration and much less NAM immigration. I’d rather have a Korean for a neighbor than a dumb Irishman.
Ian, this meme of whiteness is just as bogus as the one for blackness….
How so?
…What will save the US is more East Asian immigration and much less NAM [non-Asian minorities] immigration….
Does this include Chinese immigrants, who are potentially more loyal to China than to America?
Also, that notwithstanding, does this include both Southeastern and Northern Asians? They are actually very different, to the effect of being different races.
…I’d rather have a Korean for a neighbor than a dumb Irishman.
—Brutus
So, do you support race-replacement in America?
If so, then why?
>Does this include Chinese immigrants, who are potentially more loyal to China than to America?
There is nothing “potential” about that, unfortunately:
(Derb is married to a mainland Chinese woman, btw.)
Bush is almost universally viewed as a scumbag now, by almost every political movement and ethnic group worldwide. As much as I don’t consider Obama the ideal candidate, you can bet that I’m breathing a sigh of relief that Bush is gone. He was such an intolerable screw up, and much of the damage he caused will be irreversible.
Perhaps in a better day I’d complain about Obama and what he represents, but from a functional perspective, from a pragmatic perspective, I am just glad that Bush is gone. This is bad for racialism, because the Black Man is going to be viewed as the hero who reverses Bush’s mistakes, but mistakes are mistakes, and I just glad that Bush is FINALLY gone.
that this heritage is rooted in the nature of the white race, and that only white people can be true Americans.
Too harsh, too sweeping, too radical.
DK,
I’m going to post a more extensive answer to this later, but for now I’ll just ask you whether you think this statement also qualifies as “too harsh, too sweeping, too radical”:
>Israeli culture is rooted in the nature of the Jewish people and only Jews can be true Israelis.
Ian:
I’m not sure if that parallel is entirely valid. Israel was explicitly founded as an ethno-state, America, for historical reasons, was not.
I would separate the two points in this statement:
“this heritage is rooted in the nature of the white race” is unquestionably true, whereas
“only white people can be true Americans” may indeed be too harsh, too sweeping, and too radical.
Culture and race are collective phenomena, therefore any trait of theirs is going to follow a statistical distribution. True America is a country where white race and its culture are dominant (numerically and spiritually), but select individuals of other racial backrounds also can fully and successfully assimilate. America has been traditionally welcoming towards such individuals, and I don’t think this element of our heritage should be abandoned.
Numbers are of the essence, of course. As always.
True, Israel is to a large degree a racial and religious-based society. However, even in at least Israel proper, non-Jews are citizens in Israel. Additionally, Israel has never welcomed those without some Jewish connection to the country to become citizens, though they certainly have welcomed those with a most dubious Jewish connection. If they had done so, they would be responsible to give these citizens full-rights and cultural participation, and to some degree, in some ways, certainly with their non-Jewish populations, they fail to achieve that, and do not even desire that.
But I am personally not looking to Israel as the epitome of functionalism. And anyway, the U.S. is in a far different situation, and has many non-white people who are American and feel they are American, though there are certainly problems and populations that are resistant to assimilation, and numbers of immigrants do change the job market and the culture. This is the reality. Now, if as a white Christian, you seek to protect your majority status and culture, that is your right. But you are going further, insisting on a definition of Americanism that excludes large swaths of our citizenry.
How is that realistic? How are you a realist?
Let me ask you this: does Israel appear to have the social harmony that you seek for the U.S.? Do you want that sort of constant friction? Do you want irreconcilable narratives to become even more heated and acrimonious? Or do you want to retain your majority status, but also offer empowerment and enfranchisement to those already here who want to participate?
What exactly do you want?
DK,
All very interesting, but you don’t answer my question. Would you consider the parallel statement on Israel “too harsh, too sweeping, too radical”? And as I say, I’ll answer your other questions, very valid ones, later.
Would you consider the parallel statement on Israel “too harsh, too sweeping, too radical”?
Yes. There are non-Jews invested in the Israeli state, though a far smaller percentage than non-whites invested in the U.S. Never the less, it overreaches to some degree even for Israel, particularly for Israel’s citizens who are neither Muslim nor Jewish in Israel proper.
Let’s say we police up our borders and deport every illegal. Let’s say we get rid of affirmative action once and for all. What would your position towards black and mexican citizens be then? Are you calling for deportation, partition, secession or something else? Or would that be enough to satisfy you?
When you come down to it, Obama won because he was the other name on the ballot. George W. Bush did more to elect Obama than anyone. Bush proved what should have been obvious-a liberal Republican president will always fail.
A liberal Republican alienates his own voters when he moves left. The Democrats oppose him anyway because of his GOP label. A conservative president can keep an over 50% majority. A liberal Republican never will. This was proved by both Bush 41 and Bush 43.
It was almost impossible for a Democrat to lose this year with Bush’s low poll numbers and a weak candidate in McCain.
Many of you are trying to fight changes of historical and generational tides that are measured in centuries. White populations in the west are declining precisely because of white cultural, political and economic success of the past millenium—-the prosperous have fewer children, a truth that has been noted for centuries!
Wouldn’t it be more realistic to try to incorporate to whatever degree you can socially, politcally and economically with non-white westerners, while respectfully maintaining and championing your European heritages? I mean, a biracial individual such as Obama may not be what you want America’s future to be —- but when you rationally view national census, historical, sociological trends and data, do you have any other choice but to make some peace with that emerging American, and for that matter, international demographic?
Perhaps because you more or less have to in order to survive, you’ll find that there is a place for you and yours, and that your values and goals have encouraged and indeed determined much of what these new non-whites are as people.
And you can rejoin the world community knowing your true and respected standing, no longer in the grip of such apocalyptic fears and anxieties.
nikcrit,
A word about “apocalyptic fears and anxieties.” Yes, indeed, the pro-white movement, including myself, has taken a predominantly apocalyptic tone, and those who assume that the decline of the white race will necessarily bring about apocalypse are mistaken. While I believe that no race other than whites could have created Western civilization, it may be that it will be preserved even after our decline by non-whites who appreciate what we have done or that white elites will retain great power even as their people dwindle so that they are able to perpetuate their culture. Also, if Western culture also disappears, it may be that some other great culture will supplant it. Finally, it may be that whites will not decline and Western culture be preserved that way. In short, the future may be perfectly tolerable or even magnificent. There is no way of knowing, and it is indeed a shortcoming of my writing that I have not considered that possibility.
However, it is also possible that pro-whites’ apocalyptic fears are entirely justified and based on accurate forecasts. It may be that civilization will indeed decline if whites dwindle. We should, therefore, go on repeating our apocalyptic message to the world, even though modesty requires us to make clear that we are not all-knowing. There is no certainty in forecasting the future; there are only good guesses. Pro-whites should go on defending the prospect of apocalypse as a good guess and go on blaming the mainstream for not seriously considering it.
On your other point, it indeed looks ever more likely that we will have to accommodate ourselves to non-white majorities in nations that were formerly white homelands. Nevertheless, it is possible that we will achieve our goal of convincing whites to preserve their majority status. If we do not, however, we must still figure out how to accommodate ourselves to the new reality in the right way. That means understanding who we are and forming a just estimate of our place in the world and of the nature and purpose of our movement. So all the questions I address on this site must be fully answered before we can take up yours.
” —- but when you rationally view national census, historical, sociological trends and data, do you have any other choice but to make some peace with that emerging American, and for that matter, international demographic?”
Yes, we do. Civilization Rise and Fall. We are falling. China, for example, is Rising. When a civilization declines, one of three things happens: it goes dormant, it blurs with another, or it goes extinct. There are plenty of civilization that have taken the first path, many that have taken the second, and some that have taken the third. China is a good example of the later.
We would prefer not to take either the second or the third. Which is why we oppose Multiculturalism. Some of the Multicultural elites, undoubtedly push their agenda out of blind hostility to the West and hope for extinction. Most just want to do as you say, and fuse new blood into a dying system. They do this, because they do not care about ethne; rather, they care about their prosperity and their stability. This is the major difference in value.
That said, even if we agreed with the value of prosperity over ethne, and thought that the policies enacted were not just as likely to cause cultural extinction as blurring (you don’t exactly see yourself as a West Caucasian, do you?), we would still disagree with the logic on two accounts: 1) we assume prosperity, especially our prosperity, is related to Ethne, and not independent from it 2) we are cognate of the chaos and decline that happens when civilizations clash or power shifts.
This is little different from the immigration issue 1) People that push for it care more about prosperity in general than their culture and 2) are secure form the costs, so are not threatened (or don’t think they are) by shifts of power.
We would rather take our chances, tighten our belts, and rebuild what needs to be rebuilt.
The minority vote hurt white people and the influx of the minorities in this country has hurt the white future greatly. This should infuriate any white person with a brain but sadly the white majority doesn’t think this way. Even with all the evidence that any logical white person should see, people still don’t get it. It almost seems like people need to have a personal experience where they’re involved on a deep level to make the switch in thinking. I still can’t believe the media ever let Obama off the hook on the Rev Wright preaching. Had it been a white person in the same circumstances, they would’ve been done when it broke. Just goes to show you the double standard against white people.