Ride Hard and Put Away Wet: How White Nationalism Should Use Pat Buchanan: A Review of Where The Right Went Wrong (2004)
Part One: Placing Buchanan and (Professional) Conservatism in Context
By Alex Linder
March 21, 2014
First, my thumbnail from our "What are you reading" thread
Just finished Pat Buchanan's Where The Right Went Wrong. As with everything Buchanan writes, it's excellent as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Still, with the demise of Sam Francis, he's America's best right-wing, in-the-box thinker. I mean, he has been involved in Washington policy circles for over fifty years. He knows the people and the institutions. He knows the history and the Founders' intentions. He can show exactly where and why things went wrong - for those disposed to use the republican machinery of this country the way it was intended. But he's not deep or big enough to consider the racial-biological factors that form the larger context. In Pat Buchanan's mind, the West = christianity = the moral order = civilization itself. That isn't accurate, but he doesn't question it.
As I've said many times, the way racialists should deal with Buchanan is to attack him and to steal from him - as he advised the Republican Party to steal from David Duke: coopt his points and undermine him with his base. Buchanan and the conservatives don't have the solutions to what ails the white race - our white nationalism does. What they do have are honed talking points that resound with serious men. Take these and use them for yourself, for the points belong to anyone aware of them, not to any particular school.
Whatever Buchanan has that is good, we can use. This is mostly his selection and treatment of historical events, particularly policy decisions, which add up to a nice, clear, precise, concise depiction of how the left captured Washington and imposed a moral and social revolution on Normal America, primarily through the courts. Buchanan shows the essential gutlessness of Congress, unwilling to take a stand against anything because it might cost the member his job. So they leave the hard to stuff to the courts. They willingly give away their power to the courts and to the president. They accede in the destruction of the country in order to secure their private, personal interests.
When I started this book, I thought it was going to be a rehash of how the neocons came in and took over the Republican Party, but he mostly avoids that, which is good, because that story was already old in the 1990s. He describes it but doesn't go into it in depth, I guess feeling that job has already been done, which it has. But he does mention Garet Garett's 'revolution within the form,' which fits. Neocon jew revolutionaries kept the outward institutions, laws and indices of Americanism, but swapped out the contents. Like slapping a designer label on knockoff goods. Buchanan correctly observes that neocons are simply leftists pretending to be conservatives. He should emphasize they're jews, and their agenda and motives and attacks on America are racial in character more than political, but he wouldn't be an ineffectual religious conservative if he did. What Buchanan does not understand because he refuses to is that the only way to defeat the jews, for white men at least, is to come at them from a counter-racial basis. Even the late fat Canny Sammy began to understand this at the end of his life. You simply can't defeat the jews by restoring America, the way the individualist reactionaries like Buchanan would like to believe. There was something wrong with that nation that allowed the jews to come in and take over, so it does no good to pretend that the past was perfect, or that going to back to it will cure anything. If the past produced the present, why go back to it? or propose return to as a solution? We need, rather, to move forward with something better than what we had in the past, because that didn't work.
Two other things in this book are worth noting. Buchanan makes the case that the US came to greatness through economic nationalism. The feds funded the central government by a tariff on imports from other countries. He asserts that global free trade destroys any empire that practices it. America's empire will go the way of the British. His argument is unpersuasive, but it is undeniable our own citizens are forced to compete with other people playing by different rules. That may be good for consumers, but it's bad for people who want high-paying jobs. To me, this is a subsidiary question to: are we are a nation, or aren't we? If we're just a grabbag of people from anywhere around the globe, rather than a real blood-and-soil nation, then global free trade seems to go with that. If we are a discrete people, of one race, then economic nationalism makes some sense there. We can't look out for our own when there's no "we." Buchanan like the jews he implicitly criticizes is part of a global, universalist enterprise, the Catholic church, so he is part of the problem. Either you agree with the superelite trying to impose a raceless universal anti-nationalist New World Order, or you don't. Buchanan, like his church, supports race-free individualism and economic protectionism, but they don't really make sense together. Buchanan will complain about shifting demographics, but he won't come out and say that American = white. And if American doesn't equal white, then why maunder on about secondary economic points? You've already yielded the strong point. But arguing comparatively trivial matters, having yielded the main event, is what conservatives do, even the best ones, and Buchanan is their best.
Finally, Buchanan is very good on the neocons' warmongering, virtually all these jews care about. Even as they attack social conservatives, and tell them they've lost on 'gay' marriage and other issues, they're foaming with bloodlust to reorder the middle east. The sad thing is that Bush the younger said the right things before he took office. That we needed a humbler foreign policy, not to be the world's policeman. But the jew policy advisers soon got hold of the dry drunk and got his head right.
All in all, a very smooth, quick read. Buchanan is certainly the most intelligent conservative writing today; the one with the deepest experience and the sharpest historical-institutional sense of how and when and where America went off track. He's not, however, the one best fit to explain the extralegal biological battle that is what ultimately matters most, and this is because he was raised a Catholic, and, in his own words, never seriously questioned that worldview. Which is a shame, because it's wrong and destructive to white men. In the end, white nationalists should use the arguments and evidence Buchanan supplies, while treating him as the lifelong Republican Party member and open enemy that he is.
That's a good summary what needs to be said about Pat Buchanan and his arguments in relation to our cause, but it's worthing expanding into the details and pulling out the specific arguments and historical facts Buchanan uses to make his case, pretty much all of which can be used by white nationalists - and made stronger, because we anchor them in the true context: our racial interest and the ongoing racial war jews conduct against whites...globally.
Before the details, let's get the full context. We're dealing with an intellectual, professional conservative. We remember Buchanan's dead buddy Joe Sobran, and what he said about professional conservatism: [it] was all a game; a way of making a living
. We can't ever assume anything any professional says comes from any place but self-interest. We know that Buchanan is first and last a Catholic and a Republican. He is loyal to those institutions. We know that Buchanan disparaged the most successful democratic-small-d politician of the post-war period, David Duke. He told the Republicans to steal such of Duke's points as they could in order to undercut his appeal (his opposition to affirmative action, for example). When he ran for president himself, Buchanan, history records, selected a female black running mate
. Buchanan knows the facts of demographic change in the U.S., yet Buchanan is not a racialist. Buchanan is a Catholic who believes, with the pope's backing, that racialism, that white nationalism, is immoral
. Buchanan, therefore, is our political enemy.
We should do to him precisely what he advised his Republican Party to do to David Duke: use him for Friday night fun: date rape him for his arguments, but never bring him home to meet the parents. He's too declasse for that. People without self-respect, like Pat Buchanan and professional conservatives and the sheep they cater to, only respect those who abuse them. That's why they fawn over jews. For those who treat them with respect, as white nationalists foolishly do, they have nothing but contempt. They are the weak, and they respect the strong. If you respect them, they lose respect for you. Because they know what they are, and they know that they aren't worthy of respect. They are natural-born grovelers, dupes and conformists. Don't give them respect they don't deserve. The jews don't, thus they are successfully able to mold and lead these white-skinned christian tools. White nationalists should take tips from winners, not losers. The conservatives are losers. The jews are winners.
To put it slightly differently, you get treated the way you allow yourself to be treated
. This is as true in politics as in personal life.
So long as you treat people who don't respect you with respect, as white nationalists tend to do toward professional conservatives like Buchanan, they will continue to treat you with disrespect.
There's an iron law of psychology at work here, it has nothing to do with politics, and it's not going to be any less powerful and effective because we don't observe it. It is sad that so few understand what I'm saying.
White nationalists have self-respect. They don't mix with conservatives. They don't fawn over them. They attack them, as despicable weaklings. They take their lunch money - which is any good points, arguments or terms the weaklings come up with. But never, even do they treat with respect a group that can't exercise power when it represents the large majority of the body politics. Religious conservatism and white racialism, white nationalism, are competitors. Not buddies. Not partners. Competitors - for manshare, for mindshare, for moneyshare. Do you understand that? If you don't, then don't read any further. Go away from your computer and think about what I'm saying until you grasp it. It's that important. The conservatives are not our friends. They are our enemies. We are in competition for the same set of people. You don't party with and placate your competition, you defeat it. Ours must be an intolerant and jealous cause, if we would take leadership of our race and do battle with the ruling jews. Get your head straight, white man. When you mix our cause with conservatism you destroy it.
The white cause must lift and separate itself from conservatism. Must elevate its profile until it is seen by ordinary people as the only vehicle that can save the kind of society most white men want to live in
. This cannot be done by mixing with conservatives, that only produces confusion. When conservatives are attractive and eloquent men, saying some of the same things we are - why then do we need white nationalism?
Can you not see how that confusion would be produced in the mind of Average Joe when some of our top WN thinkers and writers treat conservatives as movie stars rather than enemies and competitors?
White nationalists should be greedy for glory, hungry for leadership, for spotlight, for limelight, for dais space and face time.
(You can explore this argument at length in my Attack the Conservatives
Read that, white man. Take it to heart. Get less stupid. Get more aggressive. Get sharper. Get angrier. Get more sophisticated. Get more effective.
Our cause must be a jealous cause
. Our cause must polarize the public between the white solution and the jewish final solution for whites.
This cannot happen until the white cause is visible. Visible means clear and distinct from all other causes. The reason the white cause remains murky is we refuse to distinguish it sufficiently from religious and professional conservatism.
This, in turn, is due to our insufficient regard for ideas. We believe, like most Americans, that ideas don't really matter. If conservatives kinda sorta sound like us, that's good enough. They seem like ok people, so we can just act like they're on our side. Personalities and getting along matter, not ideas
, is the de facto assumption underlying white nationalist behavior to date. It is the assumption so strong it never rises to the level of conscious consideration - which is why I pulled it out and examined it in the essay above. We are proven wrong (in putting personalities ahead of principles) in this around the clock, but we never learn. Well, we should learn.
So now we know what Buchanan is, and we know in which relation he stands to ourself: he's a professional conservative looking to rob of us of any good arguments we have, but completely unwilling to show us public respect, let alone identify himself with us. Buchanan is precisely analogous, then, to a dirty cad who will use our beautiful white body (of arguments) but never bring us home to meet the parents. We are dirty girls. Party girls. Fun...but that's all. Certainly not for marriage. Why do we allow him and other conservative cads to treat us this way? For only one reason: we don't have enough self-respect
. The analogy to the party girl is perfect.
If we don't respect ourselves, our own cause and positions enough to reflect them in our advocacy and behavior, then we can't expect even cowardly little bogtrotters like Buchanan to respect us.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you? Do you see how important it is?
I will pound this into the ground until every last cretin in white nationalism gets it. It's that important. It truly is fundamental. We must distinguish and elevate our cause from conservatism, and I'm showing you how we can do that. Learn the lesson. In short, we must be a jealous cause, not a friendly, tolerant, doormat/doorknob cause. Rising movements, Pat Buchanan himself has observed many times, are intolerant
. Not tolerant. They believe their own bullshit. And act on it. See the left. See queers! Would that white nationalists had the brains and gumption and fanaticism of organized sex deviants!
White man, know this: Conservatism has nothing for our race.
It's fine to be conservative in your ordinary personal life; I am, and most of us are. But politically - conservatism is simply cowardice, organized...and made useful to jews. Who do have self-respect. And do aggressively stick to their agenda. And never yield or give in, or apologize or make excuses. And consequently enjoy power, while we, the vast majority, get nothing and like it. Figure it out, white man. Conservatives are losers. Wouldn't you like to win? Just for sheer variety? Then quit fawning after losers and start emulating winners. Jews can and have been defeated. But not by men who thought or acted like conservatives.
White nationalism alone, acting in the way I describe, can lead worthwhile whites where we want and need and must go. White nationalism that is nothing but a racial veneer on conservative cowardice and religious anti-intellectualism will lead where it always has: nowhere
. You know...where we are now
Now that we understand the man, and his relation to us, let's get down to the book.
Nope. Still not done yet. One last thing to notice. Who is the first person Buchanan mentions in his Acknowledgements
"This book and its author owe a debt of gratitude to quite a few people. First, to Fredi Friedman, may agent and the editor of four of my previous books, who read some loose chapters in the late spring of 2004, suggested they be titled Where The Right Went Wrong..."
Buchanan's agent is a jew out of New York City. Do you think this has any influence on whether he tells the whole and full truth about jews? Do you think he, like his boss Richard Nixon, says to himself, in his private mind, that there are things you can know (about jews) but mustn't ever say publicly?
Of course, that's how it is. But Roman Catholics don't rock the boat, they are trained from diapers up to be obedient to authority. Who in the USA is a greater authority than jews?
Billy Graham said that the jews have a strangehold
over the media that must be broken or the country's going down the drain
. President Richard Nixon, hirer and employer of Patrick Buchanan, agreed.
Yet none of these men would ever mention this jewish stranglehold, or the need to break it, publicly - where it matters. That's the level of character we're dealing with here - little men. All conservatives are men of small soul - little men. Content to live inside the jewish box, and tell themselves nothing more was possible. They are good little puppies. Content to live in their kennel. On whatever scraps the jews allows them.
We need heroes, our cause, not men afraid to speak about what really matters in public. . . .
It really ought to grate in our gut, or at least rasp our brains into observation, that jews, our enemy, always go after their opponents by name
. Yet our side fears to call them jews
. Always preferring, as Buchanan does, to call them neocons
or whatever mask they're under, which hardly matters becaus they have ten more in their stage trunk. As Goebbels knew, the only name they fear is jew
. Well then why aren't we calling them what they are? We should and must -- and at VNN, we always have. Euphemism is a despicable effeminancy beloved of political eunuchs. Hence, conservatives' near-sexual attraction to it.
* * *
This book is ten years old. But that doesn't really matter, the material Buchanan deals with is evergreen, at least so long as the neocon kikes are running things. The book is a nice 250-page jog, with your standard 25-page chapters, ten of them, divided into three general subject areas.
- Foreign policy
occupies half the book; the rest is split between a discussion of
- economic policy/history
- specifically, the rise of the executive and judicial branches, and the social revolution the courts have imposed; also and related to, the quailing retreat and "abdication" of Congress.
Let's start at the end. That's often the best place to start. See how realistic the author is in his suggestions for fixing things. Most authors aren't realistic at all, and their recommendations are fruity pipe dreams and the weakest part of their books.
Buchanan calls his solutions chapter "The Way Back Home." Typical of the reactionary mindset, that figure. Speaking generally, rightists see current times as a decline from an earlier golden age, while leftists see the golden age ahead of us in the future
. The fact of the matter is things are always bad and getting worse due to entropy, yet clearances can be made, both in understanding and in physical space.
Buchanan bemoans our American Empire. He can cite Founders about the dangers that lie abroad. He's right and useful in that regard. We all know the quotes. Conservatives have been citing Adams' and Washington's warnings for decades now. Nothing new here.
Same on the home front: culture wars, etc. "[N]eocons captured the foundations, think tanks and opinion journals of the Right and were allowed to redefine conservatism. Their agenda -- open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, free trade, an orderly retreat in the culture wars, "Big Government Conservatism," and Wilsonian interventions to reshape the world in America's image -- was embraced by Republican leaders as the new conservative agenda."
Accurate and elegant. You will think it's great stuff if you've never come across a serious White Nationalist argument, say from William Pierce. If you have, then you can see Buchanan's stuff for what it is: eloquent but racially-neutered feckless remonstrating. Look at that passive "were allowed." Jews don't need to be allowed. They just take over. They know who they are: a racing team. They know what they're doing - pushing their racial agenda.
How can they possibly be opposed -- successfully -- except by a racing team just as racially conscious and racially driven? The answer is, they can't
. And this has happened one place and time in history, and that was Nazi Germany. Do you think Pat Buchanan, like his boss Richard Nixon, doesn't know this? Of course he does. But he won't say it. Because he accepts in his heart that racial resistance to jews is immoral
. After all, that's what his papenfuhrer tells him. Pope Meatball says racism and discrimination are wrong and immoral, so who is little bogtrotter Buchanan to say otherwise. Jews come in an take take over, and all Buchanan has is this wimpy "were allowed." Who allowed them, Pat? Christians allowed them. Christians
Why can't non-jews form a team that doesn't allow jews to take over?
Because they refuse to organize on the basis of race
- since jews won't allow that?
There's a reason jews do everything in their power to prevent whites from organizing on a racial basis. They know this is the only way their Team Jew can be defeated.
Yet we good little moral christian white conservatives sit passively by and allow our politics to be dictated to us by jews, just as if they were kings. Hell, half our people literally believe that jews were chosen by God! If so, how can it possibly be moral to resist them? Even if what they're doing seems so wrong? We resolve this by severing the intellectual connection between jews-chosen-by-god and jews-spreading-nasty-social-revolution-in-America. Because...you know...ideas don't matter. We can worship jews as the apple of God's eye while denouncing the social manifestations of their liberalism. Contradictions? What are those? They're so much spinach to the adult mental children called conservatives.
No one's allowed to do anything except what jews permit?
What kind of men stand for this?
That kind of man.
This is political fact number one. Fact number two doesn't matter.
Remember - we are not dealing with the low end here. Pat Buchanan is the best mind the professional right has to offer. The best mind it can produce, we must assume.
Yet this mind willingly grovels before the jews. It's not in what he says, of course. It's in what he doesn't
say. What he fears to say. What he doesn't dare to say. What his boss, Dick Nixon, would only whisper behind closed doors.
Is this good enough?
Of course it isn't.
But if we don't demand better, fellow white men, we won't get better.
The (jewish) neocon policies Pat Buchanan describes are murdering our nation. We are supposed to stand by and offer this wimpy, neutered, race-nonspecific description of what's going on, and come up with a wimpy, neutered, race-free cure?
That's ridiculous. As well as impossible. Buchanan knows this. He is responsible for what he's putting out. If he were naming the jews, and calling out this neocon foreign and
domestic revolutionary activity for what it is -- the jewish neocommunist takeover and remaking-amounting-to-murder of the US of A, I would be praising him in the highest terms, and raising his banner, and filling his coffers. He won't do that, so I'm sure as heck not going to sit here like a gelded gerbil and scritch-scritch about how elegant and intelligent his carefully race-syncopated, personally-profitable arguments are, the way most WN do. They don't get it. They don't grasp what's at stake when they do something like praise Buchanan.
Pat Buchanan...isn't good enough
That's the bottom line with him.
If you, as a white man, are satisfied with what Pat Buchanan offers, then politics is nothing more than a form of entertainment to you, whether you realize it or not. A stylized form of whining. It never leads anywhere, nor is it intended to. Rather, it's intended to extract money and applause from people who know something's wrong, but aren't shrewd enough to get to the root of the problem or strong enough to raise ax on that root if they do find it. Well, Buchanan has been in the system for more than fifty -- FIFTY
-- years. He knows the root of the problem in the USA is that our politics and journalism and academy are completely dominated by white-hostile jews
. But he will no more speak that truth in public than his boss Nixon would.
Is that good enough for you? It shouldn't be.
If you think it's immoral to name and resist the jew, then you belong in church, bleating hosannas and eating Jesus, just like all the squat brown monsters in South America. You're not worthy of calling yourself a white man, because you're not a man, you're a christian. By your own decision.
What use has a white man for Buchanan? As a political leader, none. His entire use, to the white cause, is as a data miner
. He comes up with quotes, historical facts, and occasionally arguments which can be repurposed -- re-chassis-ed, might be a better way of putting it -- by white nationalism - a political cause that, unlike professional conservatism, has the potential
Steal anything good Buchanan unearths, but pay him no public respect - rather attack him. That is what is good for Whites
, and what is good for Whites
should be every white nationalist's first and last concern. When Buchanan starts defending the white race, by name, in public, and starts attacking its #1 enemy, by name, in public - then and only then we'll reclassify him. Then and only then is he worthy of public respect. I shouldn't have to tell you that day will never come. Buchanan's gelded timidity has made him millions; he has no issue to worry about; he's too old and set, in any case, to do what's right. So let's not worry about him coming around, which he won't, let's focus on what we can accomplish using our enemy Catholic Republican Respectable Pat, proud member of the Establishment/loyal opposition sector: gleaning his words for quotes, data, even sometimes arguments, we can use for our winning cause.
Pat does us, for our money? No. We do Pat, for his data.
Hey, Patsy Decline. How do you like being rode hard and put up wet? Not so fun, is it? But it's what you deserve.
You're done using us, Pattycakes. We use you
Pat Buchanan makes cogent arguments in his final chapter - namely, that jews he calls neocons have taken over the right and redefined conservative to mean endless global warmongering abroad in the name of democracy, in order to impose the same kind of cultural revolution around the world these jews have been effecting here at home in America since the '60s. The jews follow a two-prong campaign: they ceaselessly hector and instruct the public in the need to change their evil old traditional racist ways, even as they open the borders to make over the American people genetically through race replacement. It's a racial war on whites, it is, using weapons of immigration policy and media control to remake us racially and remake what we think about ourselves. That's Occam's way of summing it up - that it's a race war fought by jews against passive whites. But Buchanan won't say that because, per his Catholic moral training, that would be immoral
, to single jews out like that. You can't treat men as a group, only as individuals. Even if they're working as a team. Catholicism is in fact a suicide pact for white men, if they embrace its raceless individualist universalism and accept the moral teachings promulgated by its doctrines and preached publicly by its popes.
We who retain our heads can see this racial war on whites by jews clearly enough, and if we retain our guts and our bearings, we can speak about it publicly as well as see it.
Buchanan laments the GOP becoming a Big Government party, chasing the votes of invading brown-squatty hordes and abandoning its conservative white base. I think he should have at least paused to observe that white men are the only race among which even a subset favors small government. Every other race wants the welfare state, as it can't provide for itself. If it could, it wouldn't come here.
It has been clear since the first aliens began pouring in after the 1965 immigration-policy reversal (to let in third worlders rather than Europeans) and Buchanan's boss Nixon's institutionalization of the anti-white discrimination euphemized as affirmative action
that in a very short time, the GOP must choose between being a white man's party or a me-too brown-man's big-government party - a second Democratic Party
, albeit with a preference for guns over butter. Hell, I wrote about this in 1997 in Blackout
. The leaders of the GOP chose...both. They hinted and winked at white racial sentiment with their Southern strategy, even as they happily hopped on board the coming of the Great Multicultural (Anti-White) Empire. This began under Nixon. We see how it has evolved in 2014: the US military has bases in nearly every country in the world, and a 'defense' budget as big as the rest of the world combined. The GOP happily supports anti-white discrimination, while making racial appeals to every single group out there except the one most of its customers belong to. Theoretically, this cannot be explained without some X factor. We know what that X factor is: jews. They control the media. They defame anyone who attempts to speak up for whites. The GOP cravenly accepts this.
White Nationalists do not.
There simply isn't any way out of the box the jews have put us in except going after the jews by name
and as a racial team
Whites need to form a racial team, with a racial party; - a racial vehicle that defends their interest and speaks in the name of their race. Not in codes, but openly, deliberately, and unflinchingly.
Buchanan's words are pretty, but in the end, one simply says "No kidding, Pat." We've known all this for decades. Yet nothing ever changes. Why? Partly because the enemy is good at smashing genuine resistance. But also, and this is the part we control
, because we are satisfied with the tepid resistance mock-defenders like Buchanan put out
We shouldn't be.
The Pat Buchanans and Richard Nixons of the world have proved repeatedly they do not have what it takes to defend/recreate all these wonderful conservative visions of original America/America restored that exist in their pages.
I maintain as ever, to twist the detergent commercial: only race gets out race
. You don't show up at a gunfight with a really sword dagger your great-great grandpa carried in the Civil War. Only Team White can defeat Team Jew. Is that not simple? Obvious? True? Of course it is.
-- our race
-- is the only potentially successful basis we have for opposing jews. Not our region, our cultural practices, our religion - our race
. Jews attack none of those things, they just mock them. Whereas they do everything to prevent by law or by illegal action our identifying and organizing on the basis of our race. Racial nationalists jews destroy. Christians - they give tax credits to. Think about that. Why it is. Think until you get it, you who thinks that jews really hate and fear christianity. Think until you figure out that jews see christianity as despicable but useful, whereas they see nationalism like NS or Golden Dawn or white nationalism in the US as threatening.
Jews know better than anyone else on earth that racial identification among whites is the one and only place that successful opposition to their (genocidal) plans can hatch. Absurd, reactionary, passive religious quietists don't threaten them - active, happy, grinning, singing, roisterouts, boisterous white men organizing to defeat them as whites
is where the danger lies. Not in some sad slob on his knees blowing jesus and drinking his juice. Those are losers, and jews have been dominating them for 2,000 years and counting. Hell, they've perfected it.
We whites should and must organize racially if we are to have a racial future. Not deny race, pretend it doesn't exist or matter, as cowardly christian conservatives do. And do in part because they're trained by men like Buchanan and their christian preachers that racial identification is immoral
So be it. More beer for us.
That's the attitude we take toward little men who can be talked out of using their eyes and brains in the name of morality and nonexistent higher powers. They are unworthy of our race; then let them mix out of existence per their disgusting doctrines.
Our watchword and guiding star will be this:
the man who liberates white men from jews will go down as the greatest man in history.
There is glory to be won, my fellow white men.
I interrupt my repetitions with refrains, but you will pardon me because you know it's necessary. Everything I say reinforces, providing intellectual coherence, backing and stability. This is because I don't just want you to see, but to see, taste, hear, smell, sense and relish this stuff - really feel its essential nature, like you're rubbing it in your fingers or molesting it with your tongue or pronging it with your people-producer. . . .
The rest of Buchanan's solutions amount to jack squat. Just stay the course, in that ungrammatical Reagan-era expression. Don't ever name the opposing team and try to form one of your own to take it on. Just find the right candidate for the next election, just whine to the nearest powerful liberal media source about unfairness, just appoint the right lawyer to the Supreme Court. It's just silliness. Just keep on being the same dopey, religious anti-intellectual Americans you have been, and somehow things will work out this time. For the current situation is unsustainable
(leitmotiv of solutions chapter) on every front: immigration! trade deficit! global warmongering! social spending!
Well, Pat, that's what we hear, from conservatives and libertarians alike. And you do make plausible arguments. But remember, this book was written in 2004. I'm writing this review in 2014. Everything you said a decade ago today, would be just as accurate, and just as plausible, just as true, if you'd wrote it today. Yet somehow the jews keep the circus running. Somehow they kick the can down the road. Time appears to be on their side, not ours, and if that's true, we need more aggressive action than your solutions suggest.
Ultimately empires do fall apart; that is historically undeniable. But what remains of the white race when America turns its hooknose to the heavens? That's my question. We'd best get on with building a racial team and not worry overly about when precisely the Big Jew Machine running the AmeriKwan Empire will seize up for lack of quality blood and money and excess of troublemakers and fleas.
Buchanan is pretty much out of ideas - since he eschews open racial warfare in favor of the usual religious-conservative pabulum. We need to go back to bein' a god-fearin' folk. A limited government folk. Back to a time when a man could stand with hat in hand, sandwich in pocket, speaking plain words to noddin' neighbors. These don't help, as the mass public never left these positions, rather a new elite called jews moved in and redefined everything. If you won't name this team, how can you possibly fight it? You just maunder on lugubriously about the floor getting wet while the tap is still running. Christianity does seem to be a white suicide pact. Christian whiteskins are committed to worrying about the morality and justice of their treatment of a race that is trying to wipe their kind out! It is astonishing. Or would be astonishing, if we weren't aware of parallels in the animal world. Jews are like an insect that has learned to dominate others by taking over their sense organs, or spraying false chemical signals. They get us to do their bidding, and we can't even see it. Even though we're humans, and supposedly able to think rationally and communicate.
Christianity is a blinkered way of looking at the world, and it's an extremely dangerous one for white men. It gives people of limited intellectual ability the false idea they can understand the world with its simpleton principles. It encourages the dullest among us to think they are good
because they refuse to use their brains to make indicated and necessary generalizations - say, about the propensity of blacks for violence. "Evil has no color" these priest-trained idiots like to say, thinking it reflects both love and wisdom. These christians often complain about this or that manifestations of jew-illiberalism (pornography or abortion) but refuse to identify the villain responsible for spreading the poison in the first place.Christians thereby show themselves men of weak minds and weak character. Jews, of course, are hugely contemptuous of christians, and looking at things from their perspective, it makes sense. They abuse these christian curs around the clock in their media, yet the curs always coming cringing back to them, licking and mewling like all little dogs who must placate a superior force. No one respects christians because they aren't worthy of respect. They feel this way about themselves, in fact. If you treat them with respect, it will cause them to disrespect you. Many people don't realize that because they don't perceive the psychology at work.
Christianity is a very great social danger to any white nation in an age of instant communications and quick travel. Even intelligent white men have been confused about the nature of christianity because historically it doesn't seem to be at odds with functional white societies. But the truth about the inherently anti-white nature of the jesus superstition was revealed in the 20th century: the only reason the cult hadn't until then proved racially pernicious to our people was that the enemy lacked the communications and transportation technology to exploit the dangers in its moral universalism
. The anti-white dangers inseparable from christian doctrine were latent until the 20th-century's technological advances allowed them to be activated by hostiles (jews and coloreds). Today, the enemy has the necessary techology, and it uses them to fill our lands with colored defectives and, just as important, to justify this to our people/suppress all resistance. Our churches, the only places our people have that address the big questions, can't resist the jew onslaught because christianity is, as it was on day one, a universalist doctrine. Every single human flea has an immortal and Hugely Precious Soul. We can never ever lump god's hominids into different camps, they are glorious and valuable beings in His eyes, and so must be to us, too. We are our discolored brothers' zookeepers!
Christianity recognizes only two classes of men: followers of Jesus and those who need conversion. There are no races-doing-battle in christianity; it's all about the soul of the individual, no matter his physical makeup. He could be an olinguito, it's all the same to the pope and pilgrims. Race is a matter of no significance, according to christian doctrine. If you disagree, prepare to be called evil and immoral by the pope
- God's vicar on earth, to the believers. Christian doctrine amounts to God forbidding the white man from defending himself, to put it in plain English. After all, his own son allowed them to kill Him; so how can we mere mortals not copy that, and allow the evil jews to do us in too?
That's the psychology at work.
That's why mixing white nationalism and christianity doesn't work. They're two radically opposed worldviews. If you don't think so, you're not thinking at all. You haven't bothered to think because you don't think thinking is important. Contradictions don't matter.
But they do. That's what I'm telling you. Consistency and contradictions do matter, and you'd best sit down and puzzle your way through things, and figure out where you stand.
White nationalists have figured it out: we're for our race, and christianity is our people's enemy - because it prevents us from defending ourselves by insisting that we are immoral for wanting to do so.
Ironically, in light of these arguments, it's not just the US the jews have remade. Their agents pulled off Garett's revolution-within-the-form in Vatican II, back in 1964. Not even the top catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones can see that his cohort's failure to identify the jew as a hostile biological agent has perhaps fatally undermined his institution. He just insists, purely dogmatically, that a jew is simply a christian who hasn't been dunked in a bottle of holy water yet. None are so pathetic as those who cut out their eyes and will not see. That is the only verdict we can have for the Joneses of this world.
Getting back to America and racial politics, I'll tell you what Pat Buchanan won't: what made America great was two things: white men + absence of central government. The root cause of everything that Pat Buchanan and conservatives generally wish to preserve is racial
. There's no getting around that. But even if they can understand that intellectually, they won't speak it, because their religion tells them it's immoral
, and their highest temporal value, prudence
, (a third-rate virtue trumpeted to the stars by every conservative intellectual from Kirk to Burke on down), tells them it would be bad for their career
. Where self-interest and cowardice collude, very few men indeed can resist the blandishments. Physical safety! Financial security!
What matter truth and honesty -- simple accuracy -- next to these? Very little...unless one has pride. And what do religious guppies denounce as the worst sin of all? Yep. Exactly. Pride.
Christianity is indeed a slave religion for the cowardly masses. Sharpers like Buchanan are there to mulct them. That's all that's going on.
What's left then, if we accept these conservatives as leaders? Complaining-as-entertainment, for us, and self-interested careerism for our thought-leaders. You can't get fired for demanding low taxes! You won't get them, you'll just get hated for being a racist - since the left considers white man and racist the same thing - but it's safe. No one gets fired from his job for yelping for lower taxes. Being safe is what matters to the individual American conservative more than anything else. If you team up with little fish and swim around in a great big ball, most of you won't be eaten by the terrifying Jewwacuda.
Isn't that pathetic and unmanly?
Yes, it is. It's also why these knucklers under are so little-dog yappy about flags and eagles and freedom. It helps hide their guilty conscience. "Do you know what you are? You do, don't you?" -- Jim Rockford's line applies. Even someone as unself-aware as Sarah Palin knows deep in her heart that by putting Israel ahead of the US she is doing a shameful thing. Nevertheless, like a good christian girl, she does it. That's how that type is.
Our race is capable of better.
Yeah verily I say unto you:
Christianity is not good enough for white people. It isn't worthy of us. Our highest and best men, our racial potential, is denied and thwarted by it.
We should demand better. We must demand better. In both politics and in the area religion covers - questions of ultimate context. You know how I feel about context.
We white men require a world in which we can live among our own kind, without any interloping jews or the non-whites they bring in to destroy our societies. We're sick of and reject their jewish lies, starting with the universalist lies in the christian bible, and ending with their genocidal lies about multiculturalism and diversity.
We white men reject the jesus cult and the jewish mindset that produced it.
There is never, ever anything respectable about ignoring what our sense organs report to us about the existing world, or refusing to modify our thinking and behavior based on the patterns our brains identify. Any school that says there is -- as christianity does -- is unWhite and anti-White, and we reject it.
Racism is a dirty term for a clean thing. Educated white men know it was deliberately coined to destroy white society by the communist jew Trotsky, back in the 1920s. Today, even the pope promotes the malicious cause behind the most successful slur in human history. Read here
. White nationalists vehemently reject the jesus cult and the jews who use it, as they use everything they can get their hands on, to murder our people.
A mongrelized world in which there are no whites is not a problem for Catholics. Not theoretically, not practically. Catholicism and christianity are majority-nonwhite already
- a point most white christian apologist fail to realize or remember. You'll often hear the jackass reactionaries cite Hilaire Belloc's "Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe," but the 20th century proved this was a lie. The white race existed before the church, and god willing, unwilling or chilling, it will exist after the church - at least, after the church has relocated entirely to the third-world, which is exactly what's been happening the last few decades.
Limits to Imagination Often Affect Smart Men the Way IQ Limits Hamper Dummies
Now I'm going to explain something to you that few realize. Buchanan...and Joe Sobran...and Sam Francis...weren't very smart. They were intellectually limited. Not for the usual reason - stupidity (i.e., a genetic ceiling). But for the other reasons: fear
, lack of imagination
, social conformity
. They were professionally deformed
by their decades of working within the system, as well as deformed by their professional training - Buchanan's in journalism school, and Sobran's and Francis' in their Ph.D. programs. These deformations prevented them from even considerings ideas they needed to entertain in order to make intellectual progress.
(I may say parenthetically that Greg Johnson is the only Ph.D. I've ever come across who is comparatively free of this professional deformation; but only comparatively, as he is still a Sunday school teacher in fact and at heart.) These limitations kept these notable minds at a level. A high level, undeniably, but not as high as they could have achieved had they been more, uh, robust in their characters and inquisitiveness.
To be specific:
- Only at the very end of his career/life did it begin to dawn on Sam Francis, that, yeah, if you're serious about this stuff, the Nazi political solution is pretty much where you have to head. If you actually want to take on and defeat jews. If you want to wink and talk in codes and play games and make money, then yeah, Anglo-American conservatism will serve just fine. It took him his entire life to figure this out, and in fact he never fully got there. Yet he still got farther than the other two. Raised up in the American academy, studying matters American, Francis shared the usual clownish American bias against things German in favor of things British-American. These clowns think they're looking down when actually they're looking up when they contrast things German with things Anglo-American. Only at the very end of his life, as I say, did an inkling arise in the kopf
of the rotund asexual. Think of the Grinch realizing that Christmas isn't something you buy in a store. But that was a genuine epiphany, and I don't think even Sam Francis's dawning awareness rose to that level; more that he experienced a growing awakening to a pulsing suspicion that what...no...hm...really
...as these things can often be in us, because our pride is involved. No one likes being wrong for a long time. Most very intelligent people, realizing they are wrong, will attempt to shade into their new position, and make it appear as an organic evolution where they know it is flat reversal. Smart people have their dirty ways and coverups too, imperceptible to the lower elevations.
- Joe Sobran had a tone and mindset similar to Peanuts' Linus; he saw the church as pulchritudinous, first and last, rather than sepulchral, as it actually is. Once a man enters the mindset of a pervert like Belloc or Chesterton, two of his favorites, there seems no escape. They are to their cult as many are to nature: they simply disregard the parts their rational mind rejects as ugly or irrational and define their institution as the parts they do like. If they like something or find it beautiful, then its flaws disappear, their minds shutter, and they will hear no logic, admit no evidence. Sobran was fired for applying conservative principles to America's relationship with Israel while working at National Review
. His analysis in this direction threatened the late Bill Buckley's social standing among the jews he catered to, fawned over and flat feared, so Billfer fired him - after publicly abusing his character in magazine and book. Resulting in one of the greatest pieces ever composed by human brain: "How I Was Fired by Bill Buckley." Read it here
. His firing from National Review
put him on the downward path, financially and I believe physically, after reading the hardships he endured in this article by Patrick Casey
. Yet like a good christian -- indeed, explicitly for that reason -- he refused to hate the neocon jews who hated him
, who brought him down, who damaged his very family.
So if you wonder why I hate and denounce christianity - it's because of what it does to men like Joe Sobran: it damages their otherwise highly functional minds. If you can't hate your own enemies, there is something wrong with you. The idea that you shouldn't hate your enemies is the radically dangerous contribution of guess who? The jews who created the fictional character Jesus.
Not surprisingly, this concept redounds to their benefit. Hate
is too good for the common goy - just like racism/national socialism, borders, sexual continence and the rest. It's just right for jews, though.
White men should
hate their enemies. Sobran was wrong and, worse than wrong, pathetic and weak, in crying over the death of Irving Kristol, the creator of the neocons. My opinion of Joe Sobran was lowered when I read that article, and that alone makes me near-sick, because Sobran was one of my favorites. He was one of the few Ph.D.s who could actually turn a phrase on a level with me. Christianity disfigured Joe Sobran mentally, and so it has disfigured our race's character and very genetic future. Not to hate, whatz?
We are not all brothers. We are not one with blacks and browns. We are our own people. We will crush any who get in our way. We demand absolutely sovereignty, and we will mock and insult and destroy any who get between us and the conditions we require to flourish. We will regain our independence, first mentally, then physically. No christian or jew will stop us.
It took Joe Sobran by his own admission over twenty years for it to occur to him to apply conservative principles to America's relationship with Israel. When he did, being honest, he wrote what he found. And got fired for it. My point is that intelligence is not everything - imagination is much. Flexibility is much. Not having blinders on is much. One of the reasons jews are able to dominate whites is they have a trained and perhaps ingrained or natural ability to look at things from all angles - a middleman's sensibility turned to politics. They don't have the ego-blindness most Aryans do; they are raised up to split hairs and see things from different perspectives, which serves them as well in politics as in handel
Even as Sobran's life spiraled thanks to jews he refused to place them at the center of his writing, even though he was foremost a political analyst. Nor had he ever any particular interest in race. He will have seen this as being principled. To me, it just looks weak. In the last few years of his career, Sobran came to realize that men can't be bound by paper - the very idea of limiting government is defective. I believe, but could be wrong, he got this from Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy, The God That Failed
. In any case, it was an interesting evolution
of his views. That it took him so long is testament to his having matured before the internet, and undergone formal academic training, which may sharpen the mind but tends to channel it away from certain types of observations. Scholars hate wit. They fear and despise anything they can't categorize; anything they can't see coming from a mile away. Sobran was a very rare type: a linemaker. There are many good analysts, but there are comparatively few who can regularly come up with insights and phrase them memorably enough they could become epigrams if we lived in a reading age.
As his words were clearly unmotivated by personal malice, they were that much stronger, perhaps, than your normal attempted lacerations might be. Sobran's achieved the ends of snark, without needing or using the today-ubiquitous means (a cheap snarling tone); his always seemed an observational, disinterested analysis, a response to something someone else brought up - which only amplified the power of his observations, as his jew targets well knew. He didn't care enough about the jews to put them center stage, even though they destroyed his life; and you know that boiled their oil. Actually, he did, but he was as artist genius enough to make it look like he wasn't trying - which in this case means he gave the appearance he wasn't focusing on them when he was.
But still, I wish he had formally and openly gone after the jews who went after him, and I think he owed it to his own race -- his own family, literally -- to have done so; to have tried to destroy them for trying to destroy him. But the only duties he observed were to his church and its peculiar and anti-white morality. Nevertheless, he left us with more valid and crystalline observations of jewish power and behavior than any other conservative - and for that, we owe him if not precisely respect, then heartfelt intellectual appreciation. He was wrong, but he wasn't a punk. He was led into pathetic and self- and racially-destructive behavior by his goofy cult. Just because a man is smart, and can avoid intellectual pitfalls, doesn't mean he's not susceptible to emotional or aesthetic traps. Thus it was noble Joe fell into the christian quicksand.
- as for Patsy Decline, as I like to call him, he has said, although I haven't the link to hand, that he was raised up in the Roman Catholic, and never doubted it. I see no reason to doubt what he says; his entire history and all his writings confirm. He's intelligent. He's astute. He is not particularly imaginative or, contrary to his reputation, pugnacious. He's, more than anything, loyal. Just not to his race. Blame it on his father and his father's religion, that's where it comes from.
END PART ONE OF TWO