Strom, Conservatism, and the National Alliance

Some points of agreement, some points of disagreement.

I’d like to comment on Strom’s latest broadcast, on the topic of conservatism. Excerpts from Strom are in italics, my comments are in plain text.

Almost all non-Whites in America, no matter how conservative some might be in personal habits or family traditions, cleave to the liberal line and the Democrat party — because the Democrats are the party of White dispossession, payoffs to the underclass, and wide open borders. There is no hope that these people can ever be brought to support American conservatism. The more tradition-minded Blacks have their churches. The more tradition-minded non-White immigrants have their Asian or Muslim or nationality- or race-based groups to fall back on. Their conservatism is based on conserving their culture and preserving their people. Both liberal universalism and the new universalist, non-racial conservatism are alien to them. True belief in “everyone-is-equal” universalism is limited almost exclusively to White folks, whom the more intelligent non-Whites probably, and rightly, regard as crazy.

Nevertheless conservatives try to out-liberal the liberals when it comes to race. They make sure that the very few Blacks or Mestizos who show up at conservative events are highlighted in their publications. They lionize the very mediocre Herman Cain to prove to us how “non-racist” they are.

Despite the fact that almost all American conservatives are White, the conservatives and Republicans would rather have a limb amputated than do anything to secure the continued existence of White people — or even admit that they represent White interests. They can get away with this because they know that White Americans have nowhere else to go politically. They take Whites for granted. They can keep all their White support by just being a little less anti-White than the liberals. And they can avoid being called “racist” by the Jewish media by taking the same tack — shouting “slow down a bit” at some of the more outrageous anti-White policies of the regime in Washington, but never taking effective action or even speaking out against White genocide — or telling us who’s responsible for it…

…A better name for the conservatives would be the comfortable cowards. As long as they could move to a relatively safe suburb, smoke their imported cigars, puff themselves up with dogmatic 17th-century morality, engage in purposeless militarism and utterly empty patriotism to a flag and not a people, they were content. They like the comfortable reservation their enemies have allowed them in payment for their treason, and in their softness they fear a direct battle with those enemies. So they never fight one. They just keep on making deals (with people who are much better at making deals than they are) and selling out their children’s future, right to the end. Eventually, the children of those conservatives will be a tiny and hated minority, most of them unable to advance into even the third tier of the new elite, and will be forced to live cheek by jowl with the lowest peons of the Third World underclass that the billionaire Jewish elite is importing to our country. Whites are being pushed down to the proletarian level everywhere in North America.

That is an excellent summary of the stupidity, mendacity, and cowardice of conservatism.

One especially egregious example of how conservatives are given false hope and offered false solutions was brought out on this program several years ago by the writer Hadding Scott:

“For years the Republican party has tried to smooth over the differences within its coalition by deceiving the pro-White supporters of the party into thinking that their stake in the party is greater than it actually is. One especially clear example of how persons of pro-White sentiment are fooled is the Jewish ex-Marxist David Horowitz. Horowitz has written several books with titles like Hating Whitey, intended to be sold a White readership — White people who of course are starved for recognition of some of their problems such as anti-White crime and anti-White discrimination. Any White person who cares about his race and reads Horowitz carefully, however — which most people do not do — will be disappointed to learn that Horowitz the Jew has no interest whatsoever in preserving the White race. On the contrary, he complains that the more blatant anti-White policies actually backfired and have increased racial separatism. That is the kind of thing that worries Horowitz; he is not interested in the survival of the White race at all. But this fact is missed by many readers, who seem to regard his books simply as collections of useful anecdotes for complaining about how ‘unfair’ things are, a typical conservative playpen activity.”

Once again, we see the danger of Jews in not only conservatism, but the “movement” itself.  Strom could very well have discussed Hart’s vision of multiracial “white separatism,” as another example.  Or Weissberg or Levin or all the rest, always watering down the agenda, making it more “user friendly” for the tribe, and user-useless for us.

Pretending to be the ‘true’ exponents of ‘fair’ multiracialism will not stop the importation of cheap labor and the proletarianization of the White worker. It will not prevent the ever-more-numerous members of the more favored non-White groups from pushing our children out of the best schools. It will not close the wide open sluices of non-White immigration into the West. It will not stop the rape and sexual slavery of our children and women by peoples with a very different understanding of their value than we have. It will not stop the rising tide of non-White crime and corruption. It will not stop the open pandering to non-White interest groups by our careerist politicians. It will not stop the academic establishment’s pushing of multiracialist values on our students. It will not change the anti-White alien control of our mass media. Accepting the multiracialist values promulgated by people who want to kill you, and meekly asking for ‘fairness’ from those people and their employees is not a formula for success. It is a formula for death.

To all of you good people who are supporting efforts based on that formula, I urgently ask you to reconsider. At this late hour, only an affirmation that we are White and that we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that our race survives can save us. White people have an absolute non-negotiable right to exist, to organize and govern ourselves, to have our own exclusive territories for our nations and peoples, and to keep the products of our labor for ourselves and our posterity. Only by taking that uncompromising stand, and backing it up with all the wealth and will and power we can muster, do we have a chance to provide for future generations of our people. Only by stopping our pretenses and halting our retreat do we have a chance of being worthy descendants of our ancestors.

I’m 100% against multiculturalism.  I’m extremely radical and in fact have been getting more radical with the passing years, not less.  However, I see value in the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” as proposed by Salter and Duchesne.  That’s not compromise, but strategy.  Whites are so totally deluded, so frightened by any expression of racial self-interest, that one technique that may help is to demand a place at the multicultural table for Whites, AND to have that place at the table filled by real pro-White radicals.  That can be the first balkanizing step to destabilize the multicultural consensus.  Note I said ONE technique.  I’m not saying that democratic multiculturalism should be the only strategy. Certainly, at the same time, the more radical message promoted by Strom can be used as well.  There are some Whites already primed for the full message.  However, others will need some preliminary steps to get to that point.  Whatever works.

That is the message of the men and women of the National Alliance. As our society descends into darkness, we must be building alternative structures of community and communication and racial and cultural preservation, structures which will survive this dark time and emerge into a brighter future of our own making. We need your help.Stay a part of the more timid efforts if you like, but with a goal of radicalizing and enlightening your co-workers there. Tell the other Whites in these groups about the Alliance. Support the Alliance with all you can afford in time and energy. Give as much as you can to the cause of our children’s future. Use your influence and intelligence to add to our efforts — and make them better. Take a stand. The half-measures and pretending of the conservatives are really a kind of lie, and a rather weak and ineffectual lie at that. The National Alliance represents the uncompromised truth...[Strom continues promoting the National Alliance].

So, he admits that "the more timid efforts" can have value in the process of radicalization. But what about the National Alliance?

Look, I agree with Strom on most things (NOT on Putin, though), but here’s a point of important difference. The “National Alliance brand” seems to me to be greatly compromised.  Certainly, all the unfortunate events since the death of Pierce have really tarnished that brand to an extent that I wonder if it’s worth trying to revive.  But the problem goes deeper.  With the benefit of time and perspective, and with hindsight, some view the National Alliance even under Pierce as a disaster.  All the time, money, and support from members – to what end?  So Pierce could stay isolated on the mountaintop, engaging in serial monogamy with Eastern European women?  What was accomplished?  Then, with his screed Who We Are, Pierce was exposed as a radical Nordicist, who must have had contempt for all the “Meds and Slavs” contributing “membership dues” to his “organization.” Well, it can be argued that those folks were only fooling themselves – after all, one look at the National Alliance’s book catalog, or a careful reading of The Best of Attack and National Vanguard, should have been enough to reveal the truth of the matter.  But, still, all in all, the whole endeavor was fundamentally dishonest, it accomplished nothing, and many view the entire National Alliance experience, including and especially the tenure of Pierce’s leadership, as a net negative episode in the history of the “movement.”  Thus, this attempt to revive the Alliance, and link it to the “glory days” of the Piercian era, is not going to make a good impression on those who would rather see that past buried and something new created in its stead.

New Frank Salter Book

New book.

See here.  Unfortunately, it is currently only available as a kindle edition.

Extreme White Pathology and Inferiority

More evidence that the White race is at the low end of the biological fitness spectrum.

Read here.

I've already written here on the objective worthlessness of the White race, and this is yet more evidence for that.  "Pathology" is too weak a word for what is described there.

If Britain still retains even the slightest possibility of hope, the following should now happen, at the absolute minimum:

1. All those responsible for these crimes, including the authorities who looked the other way, should be promptly put on trial, convicted, and publicly executed.

2. All "anti-racist" laws should be repealed.  "Anti-racist" publications should be shut down, organizations banned, and supportive activists, politicians, authorities, media personalities, and academics jailed (or deported if they are not of native stock).

3. Involuntary deportation of anyone not of native British stock should commence. It doesn't matter where they were born.

Of course, this will not take place.  Expect more immigration, more "anti-racist" laws, more coddling of aliens, etc.  Who knows? Maybe the girl victims will be prosecuted - one could assert they are "racists" who didn't willingly engage in sex with these nice and noble NECs and thus are responsible for causing this problem to begin with.  Yes, that's the ticket!  In fact, each and every NEC now in custody for this crime should be released and automatically appointed to the House of Lords!  Hail Britannia!

A Tentative Endorsement

Metapedia.

See here.

This looks good; for now, my endorsement must be tentative, since I've only seen a miniscule fraction of their total content. But so far, it seems to be a good project.

Your Friendly Neighborhood NECs

Don't notice the difference between them and ECs.

Read here.

But...GNXP (Breezy's buddies) has said that we must import "hundreds of thousands" of such "cognitive elitists" each year. A certain "Serbian-Greek" has in the past become hysterical over any assertion about the fundamental incompatibility of ECs and NECs. Remember that when reading articles such as this.

Two News Items on Brown Privilege

It's brown privilege.

Killing American children.

Molesting English children.

Let's see now.  First, brown immigrants from Latin America - including and especially illegal aliens - have infinitely more rights than those lowly White American peons.  Second, wonderful brown immigrants from the sewers of South Asia - those cogelite NECs! - have infinitely more rights than the lowly English natives. Remember, being called "racist" is worse than preventing child molestation - and, of course, worse than preventing the largest terrorist attack in American history.

That's what we can call brown privilege: remember, brown is sound and white is not alright.

On Nixon

An interesting factoid.

Read here.

Keep in mind that Nixon was the prototype of the GOP betraying White interests, with his promotion of affirmative action and busing, while posing as a champion of the White "silent majority." And then we have Nixon's interest in China - was that interest motivated solely by geopolitical strategic considerations?

One wonders how much Nixon's anti-White animus had its origins in "Yellow Fever."  

Movement Cherrypicking: Plagiarism and Gay-Baiting

Selective, very, very selective.

Read this.

Well, so one of the complaints about the execrable South Asian NEC D'Souza is plagiarism, a charge more mainstream sources have also leveled against the even more execrable South Asian NEC Zakaria.  Very good.  But then the plagiarism of Andrew Hamilton is ignored, and his boringly repetitive essays praised by movement comment thread peanut galleries. If plagiarism is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it, no?

This sort of "movement" cherrypicking extends to the favorite past-time of "gay-baiting" various "movement" personages. That is 100% politically motivated (here I refer to internal "movement" politics. not real Yockeyian High Politics). After all, there are some august "movement" personages widely rumored to be gay (no names, I don't engage in this sort of womanly gossip-mongering), but who are NEVER the target of the sort of vulgar gay-baiting that takes places on "movement" blogs and comment threads. The reason? Well, gay-baiting in the "movement" is typically done by "activists" belonging to specific "precincts" within the "movement" and they share with those august personages a similar set of beliefs. On the other hands, the targets of the baiting are memetic opponents within the "movement" to those doing the baiting, so the accusations and insinuations come out specifically in those cases  (the "movement" being so obviously successful that it can afford to be ridden with this sort of sordid public squabbling).  It's clear that there is no principled opposition to homosexuality as such, because a distinction is made between "our guys" (let's not mention the rumors) and "their guys" (mention the rumors at every opportunity). That says more about the character of the baiters than it does the baitees; even more so, it says much about the character of the pathetic cesspool known as the "American racialist movement."

It's a Good Thing

Darwinian selection.

Read this.

The main article is worthless, don't waste too much time on that. Instead, read the comments section, in detail. While I usually abhor comments sections on blog posts, that one is useful.  Note the widespread disgust for Engelman; more important, note the prediction that the likes of Engelman will ruin the pro-White sites they participate in, and the observation that Amren has already been so compromised (with declining online rankings). Of course, the decline of Amren preceded Engleman's participation; he has merely hastened it.

In fact, most of the major pro-White sites and blogs are in serious decline: in some cases with diminished readership, in all cases a sharp decline in the quality and quantity of posts and comments, in each case reflecting increasing desolation and lethargy.  In some cases, these are sites I was previously involved in, and left when the rot set in, and those in charge refused to listen to the warnings of myself and others about what was happening, and refused to take to heart the suggestions made to effectively deal with the problems.  And these people never noticed that, even at their best, that their blogs/sites were just going around and around in circles, never making progress, never advancing in ideas and action in any meaningful sense.

In the sort run, this is bad; in the long run, it's a good thing.  It's a form of Darwinian selection.  The problem is, however, that currently there is nothing better available to fill the niche space. Groupuscules like the Western Destiny-EGI Notes- Richard Lynn's Pseudoscience axis can in no way even fill a fraction of this gap. What is required is one or more sane and competent and visionary full-time activists, people with a plan, people who know how to identify and weed out the trolls and the dysfunctional, people who eschew freakish people and freakish memes, people who reject the easy path of convenience and compromise, people who know how to do things the right way.  People who have, as stated, a plan - how to get from "point A" to "point B" - without spending years circling around point A in fruitless intellectual onanism and self-indulgent navel-gazing.  People flexible enough to have alternative contingency plans in case things go wrong - and the foresight to have prepared such contingencies in advance. Thus, we require an entirely new breed of movement activist, almost an entirely new species of individual.  Until then, the nihilistic destructiveness of the likes of Engelman, and the the self-destructive spiral of "movement leaders," can only be viewed with a sense of wistful schadenfreude.

Will the "Movement" Support Paul Ryan?

Another man on white horse?

Read here.

Hey, what's wrong with that?  He's a good "conservative," no? How many "racialist" "activists" will be queuing up to vote for Ryan in 2016, if they can't vote for Rand Paul?  Of course, what they really want to do is vote for Putin - why don't they emigrate to Russia so they can be closer to demigod Trad Vlad?

On Paul and Putin

The pathetic "movement."

One of the most pathetic aspects of the travesty known as the (American) "racial nationalist movement" (aka "White nationalism") is the fanboy "man on the white horse" syndrome that exists with so many "activists."

On the one hand, we have the Paul family, that gets many folks all hard-breathing and starry-eyed come election time.  Ron Paul, that decrepit old fraud, was bad enough, but his son - named after a particularly obnoxious Jewess - is infinitely worse.  Rand Paul is firmly established among the hardcore anti-White far-left, and there really can be no doubt about that.  Come 2016, we'll see how many breathless and fawning racialists flock to the Rand Paul banner.

And then there's the king of the schoolgirl crushes - Trad Vlad himself.  Now, I agree with Strom on many things, likely on most things.  But two things I disagree with him most strongly are his high opinions of William "Who We Are" Pierce and Vlad "Let's turn Russia Central Asian" Putin.  Putting aside the issue of Pierce for now, I have to ask - how many times do we need to discredit Trad Vlad before some folks understand?

Let's try again.

This is what Putin cares about: he wants to be the powerful leader of a "strong Russia," a Russia that has risen again to the level of a major world power.  Now, Putin will crack down on anyone within Russia who he believes opposes that agenda, and he will not hesitate to act against those like the Ukrainians who threaten from the outside.  What does this mean?  It means that if Jewish oligarchs threaten that agenda by looting the Russian state, then Putin will oppose them.  It also means that if Russian racial nationalists and other "extremists" threaten that agenda by valuing racial and cultural integrity over some sort of "Russian" Eurasian hegemony, then Putin will "crack down on extremism" as well.  If making comments on the "White birthrate" fits the agenda, then you'll hear those comments.  If flooding Russia with Central Asians, and silencing anti-immigration Russian nationalists, suits that agenda, then that's what will happen - and it has.

As much as I have sympathy for Ukrainian nationalists who have been exploited by the Jewish/US forces, the reality is that in this Russian-Ukrainian conflict, real racial nationalists do not have a "dog in the fight." Certainly, Putin is no more pro-White than is Rand Paul.  And this sort of hero-worshipping "man on horse" fetishism is a sign of mental weakness - an inability to face up to harsh reality as it is, with a need to manufacture false hopes. "He's really one of us," they always cry - from Reagan to Paul Sr. and Jr., to Buchanan, to Putin.  No, he is NOT one of us.  Get over it and deal with reality as it is.  

Why We Need Dictatorship

Stupid voters.

Read here.

That's not an isolated incident.  It happens over and over again (see McCain, John for another sterling example).  White voters are stupid and ignorant, stupidity and ignorance being the normal state of nature for the masses, and the need to constantly lie and manipulate stupid voters is, as Yockey would say, "repulsive to honor" ("honor" being something foreign to the System and the "Movement" alike).

Book Review at Western Destiny, 8/9/14

Nietzsche's Coming God.

Read here.

On Plagiarism, Principle, Morals, and the Movement

VMI better than the "movement."

I’ve written about the issue of plagiarism before, and now I would like to cite comments on that topic made by the Virginia Military Institute.  Thus I quote this website (proper credit given!), with the following excerpts (italicized bold emphasis added):

Plagiarism is dishonorable. It involves using the words, information, insights, or ideas of another without crediting that person through proper citation. Since authorship is ownership, using the intellectual property of others without credit is theft. Passing off another person's work as your own is lying. You can avoid plagiarism by fully and openly crediting all sources used…

 …Parallelism means paraphrasing material but keeping a source’s argumentation and paragraph structure. This is not acceptable. Not only words and phrases and sentences require footnotes. If you borrow someone else's ideas, you must also acknowledge the fact by a footnote. Even if you cite another person's ideas in your own words you must indicate this with a footnote or it constitutes plagiarism. Give credit where credit is due. You wouldn’t want people to steal your property - - don’t steal theirs. You will have to use other people's discoveries and concepts to write your paper, but build on them creatively. Do not compromise your honor by failing to acknowledge clearly where your work ends and that of someone else begins.

In today’s corrupt, Judaized society, I’m sure that these principles, the invocation of honor, will be met with eye-rolling and snarky scorn.  The same will hold within the “movement,” which is as Judaized as anything else (indeed, some plagiarizing writers who are the most critical of Jews tend to be the ones who themselves display Jewish-like behavior).  In the “movement” we see the same lack of principle at work as we see in the general society – a society that the “movement” allegedly opposes: short-term convenience over long-term principle, doing what’s easy over doing what’s right, tactics always considered and strategy ignored, and a mocking attitude toward principles of behavior such as honor and loyalty that which were, at one time, essential components of White European Manhood.

There will be excuses of course.  One can imagine it: “We are in a fight for survival!  We can’t play by the rules when the Jews and Leftists do not!  We can’t sacrifice White survival on the altar of honor!”  Yes, indeed, one can imagine that very well, since we’ve all read it and heard it before.

But do codes of honor, such as what applies at military academies, really preach that behavior should be so rigid that one should choose national destruction with “honor” over survival depending upon more questionable behavior?  No.  Let’s not confuse means and ends.  For a military officer, the End, the Objective, is (or should be) winning the war, defending the nation. So, yes, when the ultimate objective is at stake, when the prize is nothing less than what one has become an officer to defend, then one does, at that point, what’s required to achieve that objective.  That’s a moment of supreme decision, a moment that you would want someone of sound character making that ultimate decision (more about that in a moment).

But, let us be honest.  All the steps toward that ultimate objective are not “life or death” decisions.  At each step, the individual will almost certainly be able to choose between two alternatives, BOTH of which would enable the individual to advance toward the goal.  One alternative would consist of doing the right thing, being honorable, and displaying sound character, even if it takes a bit more effort.  The other choice is taking the easy way out, the convenient short-cut, the more dishonorable way, sacrificing character for expediency.  And let us be honest again: the “movement” today is far from the point of making supreme decisions for White racial survival, the “movement” today is in fact at the point in which “activists” engage in the daily decisions leading toward the far-away final objective, those every day steps along the path in which choices exist between doing what’s right and doing what’s merely easy and convenient.  There’s no existential racial crisis at stake today in “movement” politics or in blog posting.  Let’s be realistic, shall we?

Putting aside then the pompous blowhard excuses of “anything is required for racial survival!” we then ask: why do military academies put such an emphasis on honor, integrity, and character?  Is that just some sort of antiquated nonsense of “dead White males?”

Actually, these academies train for, and select for, character as much as, or more, than they do for intelligence or military skill.  And here is the reason why. An officer will need to lead men, including leading men into battle.  An officer will be making life and death decisions.  An officer will often be tempted between doing what’s right, what’s best for his men and for his country, or doing what’s easy, what’s convenient, what’s personally expedient and privately useful.  An officer will need to distinguish between a brief, fleeting tactical advantage and long-term strategic goals.  An officer may be faced between winning a battle and gaining personal glory or winning the war and safeguarding the nation.  In more extreme cases, an officer will be faced with a choice between maximizing personal comfort, wealth, and security by turning traitor or sacrificing oneself for the nation.  It stands to reason that you absolutely require officers of sound character, of firm moral principle – men who can be trusted to do the right thing, even if doing the right thing is more difficult than to cut corners when it is personally convenient.  Who wants to be led into battle by the morally defective?  By the disloyal? By the dishonorable?  By the weak, who can’t be trusted to sacrifice a bit of effort to do things the right way?  And, finally, when a supreme decision needs to be made, when survival depends on a possibly “unethical” action, who is better qualified to make that decision and to live or die by its consequences – the man of honor or the morally corrupt and selfish weakling?

Military academies value honor and integrity because, all else being equal, the honorable officer is the better officer, the more trustworthy, the one who has the moral stamina to survive the crucible of war without breaking, without committing treason for expediency, the one who will do the right thing, and display clear-thinking and courage in a crisis.  The dishonorable officer, who “did what I had to do to get by,” will be the one to collapse under pressure, to turn traitor, to panic, to sacrifice long-term advantage for immediate gain and glory.

The same applies to the “movement.”  Which is why it is so troubling that the despicable moral turd Andrew Hamilton is allowed to be an active and valued participant on “movement” forums.  Well, I’m sure it’s convenient to plagiarize, and I’m sure it’s expedient to have a popular writer on staff despite continued questionable behavior.  But it’s not the right thing to do, it’s not an existential issue of racial survival – footnoting articles is an issue of personal moral character, not of racial extinction – and there’s simply no excuse for it.  And this is all relevant to “ethnic genetic interests” and racial nationalism, because it is this culture of convenience, the attitude of corner-cutting expediency, which has contributed to the failure and dysfunctional nature of the “movement” and has put our EGI in jeopardy.

Congress should Declare War

Immigration idea.

Congress has the constitutional right to declare war. If the GOP "conservatives" were really serious about fighting illegal immigration, they would have the moral courage to openly state that such "immigration" is tantamount to an invasion, analogous to a military invasion, and they should vote in Congress to declare war on the illegals (can Congress declare war on extra-territorial entities?).  If the President would then refuse to order the US military to enforce that declaration, then that would be reasonable grounds for impeachment. In other words, send the US military to the border.  If the invaders resist, shoot them, if they surrender, put them in POW camps (under minimal conditions) until the war is won and they are repatriated.

The other possibility would be to declare war on, say, Mexico, but that's getting into a more gray area of international law.  Is Mexico aiding and abetting the illegals' invasion of the USA? Can it be proven to the extent that would justify a military invasion of that country?

The more direct approach - that Congress has the right to declare war on extra-territorial entities and proceeds to do so - would be best.

Stimely Interview of H. Keith Thompson on Yockey

Interesting.

Read here.

Although, I don't personally believe that either TOQ or Counter Currents match the type of "fascist theoretical journal" that Stimely had in mind.  Maybe I'm wrong - perhaps I should rephrase: those current forums do not match my perception of what Stimely was talking about.

Admission of Plagiarism

Surprise, surprise.

Emphasis added:

Proofreader

Posted August 2, 2014 at 12:07 am | Permalink

I’m quite sure that the first three paragraphs are from William L. Pierce’s essay, “Why National Vanguard Books?,” which was in the old National Vanguard Books catalogue. Perhaps this should be made more clear.

 

Reply

Andrew Hamilton

Posted August 2, 2014 at 1:26 am | Permalink

Proofreader,

You are correct...[excuses commence]

Salter: Survival of the West

Some excerpts from OGI.

Read here.