Mary Mitchell, a black columnist from the Chicago Sun Times, has the upteenth article about the really scary racism of the Tea Party protestors opposed to Obamacare. Hardly a day goes by now without fresh accusations of “racism” from the Left.
The myth continues to circulate that Rep. John Lewis and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver were verbally assaulted with racial slurs at the Tea Party rally last Saturday. The whole episode was videotaped and posted to YouTube. I heard a lot of booing and chants of “kill the bill,” but “nigger” wasn’t used a single time. We’ve reached the point where the mainstream media can impudently tell us bald-faced lies whenever the subject is whiteness and race.
The term “racist” is evolving again. Originally, a “racist” was an individual who subscribed to a vertical hierarchy of superior and inferior races. By the 1970s, “racism” had come to mean any act of racial discrimination. In the 1980s and 1990s, “racist” was redefined a third time as a White person who takes pride in his racial and cultural heritage. In the Obamanation, the term “racist” has become synonymous with “angry White man.” All you have to do to get labeled a “racist” these days is be a White male who is really angry about something.
I’ve taken the temperature of the conservatives behind the Tea Party movement. The vast majority of them are truly innocent of any charge of “racism.” They are not White Nationalists by any stretch of the imagination. I’ve met some of these people and my honest impression is that they really believe their own bullshit about limited government. It is not a code word for restricting the access of blacks and Hispanics to social services.
The White conservatives behind the Tea Parties crave black acceptance. There are few things they enjoy more than the company and affirmation of non-Whites who share their ideological views. If Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts was President of the United States, there wouldn’t be a Tea Party movement. They would be slobbering all over the black Ronald Reagan. Ideas are what matter to these people, not color.
I can’t stress enough how alien this type of mindset is to the folkish racialist. Most of us are opposed to Obamacare for a very simple reason: it means taking money out of our community and restributing it to aliens who are hostile to our ethnic interests. In a racially homogeneous society, many White Nationalists (myself included) would support government regulation of healthcare. In contrast, the Tea Party brigades loathe France and are horrified by Scandinavian socialism.
The Left’s attacks on the Tea Party movement reflect one of the most powerful arguments for White Nationalism: you might not be interested in race, but race-based groups are interested in you. White Americans live in a racially polarized society whether they like it or not. Non-Whites give lip service to the ideal of colorblindness, but they form countless race-based organizations to advance their racial interests in politics.
I hope the Tea Party folks wise up and realize they will be called “racists” no matter what they do. There will never be a colorblind multiracial utopian society. Barack Hussein Obama proves it. Only White people have been suckered into swallowing this fantasy. “Racism” is merely a moral battering ram that Jews and non-Whites cynically use to increase their wealth and power relative to White Americans. The term has no other meaning.
A colorblind society requires reciprocity. How can America move beyond race when racially conscious commentators like Mary Mitchell are allowed to foment racial hatred against Whites and nurse old racial grievances?
The question is how to get Whites to see the light without it taking economic collapse or a million negative racial examples right at their doorstep before they get it.
I’m a strong believer in relentlessly building up our own alternative media and organizations. The conservative movement is worthless.
In fairness to Mary Mitchell and his liberal comrades, the tea parties are about race regardless of the colorblindness of the individual tea party activists themselves. The movement is, fundamentally, a White backlash against the leftist agenda being advanced by our first Black president. And such a backlash is most certainly “racist”.
From a White Nationalist standpoint, what’s so agonizing about all this is that the conservative movement (tea party or otherwise) doesn’t understand its own political role as the defender of the White middle class. They insist on a fetishistic ideological tunnel vision because to do otherwise would mean leaving the reservation of manufactured acceptable discourse.
Lockeford- funny you asked:
1)Identify likely recruits.
2) Hammmer them, with race-reality, sans merci,
3) Sensitize them.
4) Bat your eyes at their masculine wonderfulness, and mightily encourage all truly Great Big Manly Activites. Like hunting. You know – shooting things. (Well – I seem to have success doing that)
5) Re-inforce every little thing they notice, about Race.
6) Send them forth, amongst their pals. Let ’em talk to each other.
Do these things, and you may have a conversation with some TP folks, you met, who, less than a year ago were babbling about “Those Who Bless Israel…”, and “Alan Keyes is a good guy”, and who now are talking about stocking up on ammo (and who already have lots of ammo and guns), and wanting to do really lively sorts of things, when “meeting up with” Government representatives, and who may just pass around the Tom Metzger cartoons, that you have turned them onto, at their workplaces. And you may just go target practice shooting with them, in their place in the woods, with all the other guys they know , who are just like them, on the 4th of July.
That could happen.
Hunter – Tea Partiers seem to like alternative Media – especially if the graphics, as well as the content, are excellent! (And not too overt)
Notuswind – some of the TP’ers do understand. I gets 2 – 2 gets 4, etc.
“All you have to do to get labeled a “racist” these days is be a White male who is really angry about something.”
Um, a minor correction here — since this sentance would more accurately lread ike this …
“All you have to do to get labeled a “racist” these days is be a White male… ”
Period. Full stop.
…I gets 2 – 2 gets 4, etc.
Mmm, just like we use to call this in the military —
THE FORCE MULTIPLIER EFFECT!
And may ‘the force be with you’ 🙂
“The White conservatives behind the Tea Parties crave black acceptance. There are few things they enjoy more than the company and affirmation of non-Whites who share their ideological views.”
Look no further than Lloyd Marcus, the black Tea Party champion. This guy makes them feel really good inside. This one black man in a sea of White confirms to them that black people are “just like them.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/Lloyd%20Marcus%20onstage.JPG
I’m 200% down with White ethnocentrism but I’m still very uncomfortable with Socialism. It seems to me that European Socialism in traditionally ethnocentric European nations has been every bit as genocidal anti-White as our mis-guided democracy ever was.
So help me understand, why, with the evidence of Europe, should I welcome American Socialism?
I’ve noticed a growing contingency of conservative activists who are willing to concede the broad failure of their movement and are now working on a strategy for the states to be able to express their tenth amendment rights. This would be a radical new direction for the conservative movement because it tacitly acknowledges that it’s time to give up on the United States writ large (something that we White Nationalists have known all along).
Even if we were a homogeneous White ethnostate I would still oppose socialist policies because they create an atmosphere of dependence that would weaken the spiritual character of our people.
There are valid arguments to be made against socialism.
1.) The dysgenic argument that subsidizing the unfit leads to racial deterioration.
2.) The communitarian argument that government undermines institutions like the family, church, neighborhood, and kinship networks. In some cases, the government has replaced the husband.
These are the most persuasive that come to mind.
I’ve always been in favor of reducing income inequality. Within a homogeneous White ethnostate, I think the government should have an active role in restraining capitalism. Class based animosity should be discouraged and grievances addressed.
There are valid arguments to be made against socialism.
We need Roberto Lindsay here to debate on this thread.
The comments would go through the proverbial roof…
“Racism” is the new heresy. Any deviation from the diversity/pro-non-white orthodoxy is met with derision and scorn. Many people are so well-trained, like a Pavlovian dog, they correct themselves. They’re terrified to speak the truth or hear it, even amongst a trusted private group. Now that’s mind control.
What about the argument of, “If you want socialism go back to Europe!” You could also go to Canada. 🙂
The best thing about socialism, is that people get a lot more racist when they have to pay for all sorts of benefits for the brown immigrants, than if you have rules where immigrants needs to support themselves like in the USA.
Socialism was also used as the reason we needed to sterilize undesirables, since they would become a drain on future generations potential happiness, and my guess is that the same argument will come back, once the racism hysteria has died down.
@The Man,
Most probably would agree with you that socialism is a big piece of crap, if I may be so eloquent. Redistribution of wealth is thievery, its against the traditions of our founders, it creates European Union-type governments, it kills the birth rate, I could go on.
@Hunter,
Lets not get into socialism, once an ethnostate is created, the population will certainly come up with reasonable laws and policies. Socialism is a poisonous issue at this point.
@notuswind,
I think you are on to something here. The alternative to attempting to create a separate ethnostate is to gain autonomy for states. Many protectorates of the US, such as Samoa, have full control over their immigration. If US states could gain this, as well as 10th Amendment separation from certain Federal laws, we would basically have ethnostates without a secession struggle. This might be a more practical goal than a full secession (or at least a stage in the process of secession).
I think that the National Socialism model, that was established under the Third Reich, was reflective of the drastic situation of the times.
It would have ben interesting to see how things evolved, had not Germany been so tragically defeated.
“The White conservatives behind the Tea Parties crave black acceptance.” In 1920, the White so-called conservatives of today would be thought of as race-mixing socialist crackpots by most White Americans. The White Christian conservatives are the target audience for White survivalists. For the typical conservative, Christianity means peace on Earth and good will to all races, ethnic groups, religions, and creeds. Conservatives need to believe in Christianity with its promises of supernatural help and an afterlife with joy and family reunion. Denise @ post 4 has the correct idea … talk to them about White survival and non-white crime. “And you may just go target shooting with them …”
Europe is not suffering from socialism; it is declining because it has too many seniors.
People here turn a good phrase, but seem to avoid numbers and syllogisms. It reminds me of the Heisenberg intellectual indeterminacy that I first observed in highschool, in which females excelled in english at the expense of mathematics and males excelled at mathematics at the expense of english.
Society is like a combustion engine that uses people as fuel. During the baby boom, the engine ran rich, and in the current baby bust, it is running lean. The government is attempting to tune the engine with immigrants, but is using diesel fuel instead of gasoline and is fouling the engine. The engine is now sputtering and threatening to stall.
What we need is a society with controlled birthrates. Birthrates that are directly controlled via government fiat or indirectly through taxation. I am not so idealistic that I fail to appreciate how difficult this will be in the West, but modern society will not survive without it. The Chinese are doing it. If we do not, we will be replaced; plain and simple.
There is nothing wrong with “socialism,” by which I mean government-run insurance schemes. The military is government-run and few conservatives complain about it. With good, representative government, and stable population dynamics, government-run insurance cooperatives could be robust and sustainable.
What we need is the equivalent of electrical circuit diagrams for social structures in which all variables could be explicitly described and balanced. If engineers only relied on words to discuss computer architectues, we would still be using abacuses.
Europe is not suffering from socialism; it is declining because it has too many seniors.
Not too many seniors — too few young people. And the reason for the dearth of young people is socialism.
Gov’t’s purpose is to provide those general, collective things that are needed for the general public which no one person is able to provide for himself. Examples: national defense, roads, giant construction projects like dams for water, and securing eminent domain.
When gov’t gets away from merely providing impersonal, general-public infrastructure like raising an army and building roads, but begins providing personal, direct payments to specific people to meet the specific needs/wants of those specific people, it causes a-motivational syndrome in those specific people.
Welfare and “free healthcare” are specific wants/needs for specific people. Thousands upon thousands of people can use a roadway before money for repairs is needed. Costs can be contained and can be offset by the economic growth that roads enable. Same for dams. Same for armies in the sense that preventing enemies from invading allows its citizens to conduct business.
But with thousands upon thousands on welfare, the cost goes up for each and every single person on the dole. Costs cannot be contained — and meanwhile, those getting their own personal stuff without exerting their own effort are learning NOT to work. Therefore welfare payments/ “free” healthcare cause economic (and social) decline.
An excellent argument can be made that the decline of White birthrates is due to Social Security and Medicare. If you can be secure in your old age without the bother of having kids to care for you in your dotage, why have them? Why suffer the aggravations? So, people didn’t.
What we need is a society with controlled birthrates. Birthrates that are directly controlled via government fiat or indirectly through taxation. I am not so idealistic that I fail to appreciate how difficult this will be in the West, but modern society will not survive without it. The Chinese are doing it. If we do not, we will be replaced; plain and simple.
In fewer words: Demographics is destiny; a people that would control its destiny must manage its demographics.
Regarding the birthrate: If there is any form of intervention and socialism, it should be in favor of whites in their child bearing years (20s & 30s). Most young whites today put off getting married and having children because they can’t afford to. For most of them, it’s not an issue of ‘rather having a big screen TV and a sports car instead of children’, it’s they don’t want to have kids while living in Mom’s basement, or some mud infested ghetto.
Instead we have the reverse, all the wealth being stripped out of the country to pay for medicare, social security, propping up the housing prices (so boomers can sell their house for 10 times what they bought it for and retire to Florida), and bailing out the banks.
Demographics is destiny; a people that would control its destiny must manage its demographics. – Silver
And have coherence as a people, something which whites currently lack.
Dave Matthews – thanks. I’m all about practical application.
I enjoy the “theorizin'” and intellectual “strategerizin'” – but it’s all wind and gas, and mastubatory ouroboros, without boots, walking around, on the ground.
Barb, the idea that social security caused the declining birth rates is ridiculous. The legalization of abortion and birth control had a far greater impact on birth rates than anything else. Until the 1960s you couldn’t find condoms in a pharmacy or grocery store. You had to buy them out of machines at a gas station. And even then, the condoms were officially “for the prevention of sexually transmitted disease” NOT for birth control. Griswold v. Connecticut cut down any law that limited birth control, and Roe v. Wade reversed the United States position on abortion.
You’ve been reading too many Jewish “libertarians.”
OK – this is kinda sorta obliquely salinet to the topic at hand – but fellas – I have just wasted several hours trying to glean quotes from the Nazis they-selves, from the Net, regarding their thoughts n’ feelings on the treatemt of animals.
I found the laws for animal protection, that Hitler enacted. I remember reading a lovely paragraph, though, about how animals are eautiful and wonderful and have souls, and we should love them and care for them, etc.
I can’t find this quote, and I cannot remember who wrote [it]. I want to send the quote to an animal lover. Was the author Himmler, or Goring, or some other Big Evil Nazi Hater guy?
Apparently, the Net has been scrubbed of anything postive. The only sites I’ve found are sites entitled “Those Nasty Things That the Big Evil Hater Nazi-ish German Nazis Said about Poor Innocent Devout Kind Hearted Generous, Smart, and Really Cuddly Jews, Who Just Want to Worship G-d, and Go to Schul, Because Nazis and Every-one Else are JEALOUS”.
Can any of you fellas lend a hand?
Thanks!
Gosh. One day, I’ll get through an entire post, without a typo.
In France they started having Socialism for Mothers under Francois Mitterrand, and the results have been wonderful:
http://statsaholic.blogspot.com/2010/03/actual-source-of-european-fertility-at.html
It’s staggering that a Country so much less religious than America could have a White Fertility Rate that’s higher than ours, and the credit goes to the State.
In contrast, after the fall of Communism the evil-hearted animal Boris Yeltsin shredded the Pro-Mother Social Safety Net in Russia, and the result was a catastrophic collapse in the White Birthrate.
In a racially homogeneous society, many White Nationalists (myself included) would support government regulation of healthcare.
No, no, no! Government involvement in healthcare is just a disaster! I can tell you I’ve had first-hand experience having lived in both the UK and Scandinavia. What you get is health care personnel who don’t care (’cause they barely risk losing their jobs if they screw up and they can’t ever be sued); you CAN’T get an independent second-opinion ’cause you’re trapped in a single system — if they’ve decided you don’t have such-and-such a condition, then you DON’T have it; the system is just inefficient because it is government run — think a 5 month wait for an EKG (that’s a really basic test that most U.S. doctors can do in their office); innovation slows down to a snail’s pace; and so on and so on.
Trust me. We do NOT want any sort-of nationalized health-care! Ever.
I’ve always been in favor of reducing income inequality. Within a homogeneous White ethnostate, I think the government should have an active role in restraining capitalism.
Within limits, I think. The restraints should be relatively mild. The runaway corporatism/crony capitalism that we see in the financial world today — that shouldn’t be allowed, clearly. But some people are simply smarter/more hard-working than others and they should be able to reap the benefits of their natural state. Such people (especially White people with a good moral grounding) really DO produce jobs for others, etc., etc.
What should be fought are the forces of globalism. Exporting jobs overseas — everybody buying crap made in China at Walmart — that’s not getting us anywhere we want to be.
Having a moderately socialist state for Whites will work just fine as long as attention is paid to eugenics. The improvement in intelligence and creativity for the next generation will naturally pay off even if there is a fairly high level of social support.
the idea that social security caused the declining birth rates is ridiculous. The legalization of abortion and birth control had a far greater impact on birth rates than anything else.
People are only using birth control because they don’t want kids or feel they can’t afford them or take care of them properly, so to blame access to birth control is ridiculous.
The problem is people not wanting, or thinking they don’t need, families. Social security is part of this, because people can rely on a government rather than families, thereby there is less incentive to have a family. Since most of the functions that used to be served by extended families are now served by the government, having children has become to be seen as an economic burden.
The latest hit piece:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/25/threats_democrats_healthcare/
H. Rock White, post 26, hear! hear!
“Barb, the idea that social security caused the declining birth rates is ridiculous”
Not at all. Paying the Social Security to the old farts requires the young people to pay more in taxes. It’s a wealth transference from young to old. Some taxes are taken directly, like your FICA deducted out of your check, but mostly social programs are paid through the hidden tax of inflation.
White blue-collar men’s pay in purchasing-power terms has been dropping since 1973. So to be able to live in safe neighborhoods, the women have had to go to work. What she’s essentially doing is paying her husband’s inflation tax.
Feminist cant notwithstanding, pregnancy, birth and mothering babies and toddlers are NOT compatible with full-time employment. Dumping a helpless baby in daycare is just too painful. So if she doesn’t have her mother to do the substitute-mothering, (remember, Grandma gets SS so she’s living in Florida, not in the young woman’s home) she forgoes entirely having the kids she’d like to have but can’t bear to abandon in paid daycare.
Because she can’t afford them — that is to say, she can’t afford to stay home with them — she doesn’t have them at all. Instead, she collects pets, who CAN tolerate long hours away from her.
Society has changed, but babies’ needs and mothers’ feelings have not.
There are wack-jobs to be found in all areas of the political spectrum, and presumably Joe Scarborough did get some weird voicemails while in Congress. But the reason that he’s only hearing about Democrats receiving a wave of scary threats isn’t because they whine about them, and Republicans don’t. It’s because an extremist ideology — essentially, a refusal to abide by uncongenial election results — has purchase on a much greater part of the right than anything like it does on the left.
We know that’s a complete lie. AmRen can’t even host a conference without death threats and other vulgar behavior from the left.
Eileen;
You are sooooo right about the consequences of socialized medical care! As the son of a lifetime soldier in the US military (my father is long since deceased and I am 56 years old myself now) , I well remember what medical care was like for the dependants of Army soldiers at Army hospitals back in the 1960’s. Long waits to see a doctor, 2nd opinions weren’t even dreamed of back then, uncaring personell with attitudes of complacency and indifference, and of course, active duty soldiers were the first to be seen for any problem-which is understandable from the military’s viewpoint, but transpose this situation to society at large under Obamacare and I wonder: will Whites be standing at the end of the line for medical treatment, having to defer to the more “deserving” minorities? It may sound like a stretch, but…..will there be an “order of preference” for treatment for patients? After all, we are seeing this same type of racially based preferential treatment in other areas such as education (quotas for admission to Ivy League and other colleges) as well as in employment.
Barb, I have to take exception to your assessment of the Social Security situation, i.e.: ” Grandma gets SS so she’s living in Florida”. As one of those “old farts” who has paid that same SS tax that you are (and I have paid it for over 30 years), Social Security isn’t a free gift from your generation to ours, granted it does constitute a “transfer of wealth from the young to the old”, but your generation is supposed to receive the same benefits when YOU retire as well. As for “retiring to Florida”, lol if you collect $1200. a month in SS benefits you are doing extremely well, most people do not receive that much-it was always intended only as an adjunct to lifetime personal savings, not to completely support a person in his/her old age, and the recipient pays tax on that meager SS income as well! You might like to know that SS was instituted because there was a large population of old people before Social Security who were truly poverty stricken. This was a time when there were no “safety nets” in place at all. “Pension plans” for blue collar workers were unheard of, unionized workplaces had not been around for very long at that time. Life under a “purely capitalistic” government regime is hard.
If you want to lay the blame for the high cost of Social Security at someone’s doorstep, then I suggest laying it squarely at the feet of the congressmen and congresswomen and Presidents who have appropriated the funds in SS to pay the costs of their foreign adventurism in the name of Israel and for the benefit of the military/industrial complex which feeds off the destruction of countries like Iraq (and then, also feeds off rebuilding them!). One such President was that disgusting pig Lyndon Baines Johnson who secretly had money transferred from the SS fund to the General fund in order to pay for the war in Vietnam.Quite coincidentally, Johnson owned large amounts of stock in (I believe it was) GM, which was building military vehicles for the military to use in the “war effort”. Up to this point, SS had been generously funded and in the black. Some Socialism is not a bad thing, though like anything else, in measure amounts.
H. Rock White,
Thank you for your intelligent comment #26.
“your generation is supposed to receive the same benefits when YOU retire as wel”
Well, I’m the tail-end of the Boomers when the birth-rate collapse, combined with old farts living longer, means there won’t be enough young, productive people to take their wealth and transferr it to me, so the system will collapse.For all the $ I paid to your generation, I’ll get…nada.
Uh…my dad got in his SS check exactly the $ deducted from my husband’s and my check. Straight-up transfer. He didn’t live in Fl., but he lived very well in a big house, drove a decent car and spent money on nice trips — and ate a subsidized-cost nice lunch and dinner, prepared and served to him, every day at the Sr. Center until the day he died. He made your argument, “I paid in, I’m entitled!” — while my baby cried all night because she hated daycare and missed her mother.
When SS was put in by FDR, the reality was, oldsters died around age 70. The living to 80 wasn’t factored in. Also, there were many (12 is it?) workers for each one SS recipient. By the time I retire it’ll be 2 workers per SS recipient. The young people won’t be able to carry that burden.
No. My responsibility is to raise my kids to be able to support themselves well so that when I get old, I can move in with them and look after the grandkids if my daughter wants (big IF) to work. Or else use my savings to help my kids buy food so the combination of our resources means we can get economies of scale.
And I’m all for knocking off fighting wars for Israel.
But the seniors aren’t entitled to a free ride from young people they’re not related to.
Reigning Liberal Orthodoxy Psyops.
We must help whites drop the defensive posture. “Who cares if you call me a racist, I am not a member of your church, so your screaming means nothing.” Sticks and Stones….
SPOCK (to mind-melded Kirk) Unreal. Appearances only. They are shadows. Illusions. Nothing but ghosts of reality. They are lies. Falsehoods. Spectres without body. They are to be ignored.
The Jews would love to get their claws on the Social Security Trust Fund.
Social security is fully funded, even under the most adverse economic conditions until 2039! By “adverse” we are talking decades of negative growth slower than during the Great Depression.
The only way Social Security goes is if the Jews steal it.
“One such President was that disgusting pig Lyndon Baines Johnson who secretly had money transferred from the SS fund to the General fund in order to pay for the war in Vietnam”
Another argument why socialism is bad. Gov’t takes taxes from you, ostensibly for social programs, and diverts it to evil ends to benefit the elites who are doing the taxing. No. Best to not have the gov’t-run social programs and leave the $ in the people’s hands so they can contribute to well-run, accountable charities to look after the poor. (Because in a charity, the people running it will personally know the recipients and shame/refuse aid to layabouts.)
Guys, even in an ethnostate, even though we’re all White and the vast majority of Whites are honest and hard-working, human nature being what it is, there will always be some White people who are corrupt. And they will try to get in power. That’s why socialism, even without Negroes around with their hands out, won’t work.
“Social security is fully funded, even under the most adverse economic conditions until 2039.”
Hm. Social Security Trust Fund is filled with gov’t IOUs. So when we start dipping in it, since there’s no money there in reality, bookkeeping tricks notwithstanding, the only way srs. will get their money is by moneyprinting — which is what inflation is.
Yeah, srs. might get a check — but it won’t buy anything.
My opinion of socialism:
Multiracial/universalistic socialism = bad and entirely unworkable
Pro-White/White specific ethnosocialism = good and hopefully ‘the wave of the future’
Eileen:”Trust me. We do NOT want any sort-of nationalized health-care! Ever.”
The healthcare system in the USA is already mostly nationalized…the vast majority of American hospitals are ‘public’ in that they receive huge amounts of funds, which makes the healthcare workers who work there semi-government employees. Also, with the Boomers retiring soon that’s going to swell the rolls of those on Medicare, making the American system even more socialistic…plus all of the vets who get gub’mint healthcare too as well as the poor under Medicaid. The American medical system is likely already around 75% socialized.
The best reason for socialistic or at least semi-socialistic medical care is that it’ll put the parasitic/Jewed mega-insurance conglomerates oughta business — I’m all for that. The only thing the system now in place does is employ huge numbers of do-nothing/paper-pushing mega-insurance company employees, the people who stand between the patients and healthcare workers — it truly makes no sense.
How about we just avoid this argument altogether by saying that healthcare ought not be ‘socialized,’ but rather ‘nationalized’…White nationalized.
Another main argument for pro-White ethnosocialism is that Whites worldwide are currently being overcome by much more collective ethnic/racial groups (organized Jewry, the Han Chinese, etc) who are using their own kind of ethnosocialism against us. Thus the only way to continue to compete fairly with those types of groups is to use pro-White ethnosocialism against them to level the playing field. A loose collection of atomized White individuals has no chance in the long run against tight-knit groups of collectivist Jews, Chinese, etc.
In terms of birthrates and general community cohesion and so on Whites are even being out-collectivized these days by freaking Hispanics…what a joke!