For decades, Democrats have maligned Republicans for using “The Southern Strategy“, a sleazy charade where they exploit populist resentment of forced integration, cultural upheaval, and the “Civil Rights” movement altogether among White Southern voters. It’s sleazy because it’s dishonest, as the Republicans are as eagerly anti-White as Democrats.
In recent years, they’ve abandoned this effective ploy for fear that they might be accused of representing their constituents (as baseless as that accusation would be). They’ve abandoned it in favor of a new strategy: The Swarthy Strategy. Karl Rove was a huge supporter of this, chomping at the bit to pursue a genocidal displacement of his own people in a craven quest for power. But rather than relying on dog whistling or symbolism (stars and bars), the GOP got straight to the point with this less gullible demographic: Vote for us and we will facilitate your hostile invasion.
The scheme failed, and it failed hard, suffering a crushing defeat with the abortive McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Putsch of 2007. Within a couple weeks of that, Rove resigned in disgrace. McCain has never really gotten over the defeat of that bill and the overwhelming Hispanic support of Obama, suffering that special sting that comes with being a player who got played…
McCain’s message was obvious, the source continued: After bucking his party on immigration, he had no sympathy for Hispanics who are dissatisfied with President Obama’s pace on the issue. “He threw out [the words] ‘You people — you people made your choice. You made your choice during the election,’ ” the source said. “It was almost as if [he was saying] ‘You’re cut off!‘ We felt very uncomfortable when we walked away from the meeting because of that.”
This Swarthy Strategy appeared to work for the Democrats in 2008, sweeping Obama into power on a wave of record turnout among non-White voters. He managed to accomplish a hat trick of churning out record minority votes, wooing White independents, and earning the support of the Jewish bankster elites. He pulled this off by keeping his campaign above reality, relying on hypnotic mantras and charisma to keep him afloat while the popular rejection of Bush’s disastrous administration did the work for him.
But the euphoric outburst of Black support was only good for one election. The anti-Bush backlash was only good for one election. The optimistic “hope” and “change” rhetoric was also only good for one election, as his administration has failed to result in the anticipated Dawning of Aquarius. Obama’s still trying to rally his anti-White Cosmic Coalition…
…but the writing’s on the wall. Pat summarizes the crisis in his latest article, “Losing White America“, concluding: For the first time in our lifetimes, outside the South, [W]hite racial consciousness has visibly begun to rise. He’s all too correct, and the Obama who was a symbol of minority empowerment for them to celebrate has now become the symbol of White disinheritance that could destroy them.
While both the Democrats and Republicans have been on a quest for the pot of votes at the end of the diversity rainbow, the economic and cultural circumstances in White America have shifted dramatically. The open borders that the Democrats have championed the hardest have completely broken the labor unions, destroying both their Big Labor political machine and the last credible incentive for working class White males to vote Democratic. The Democratic coalition’s last White males who aren’t homosexuals or college professors are finally taking a hint.
The 2010 election won’t be remembered so much for the increased turnout of mobilized Tea Party mob, though they will certainly be out in force. The 2010 election will be remembered as the election in which the last of the White males who voted Democratic abandoned the party. Some will flip and some will stay home, allowing an epic blowout for the GOP. I predict it will be so decisive that they’ll be forced to completely reinvent their message for 2012. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that they’ll stop being anti-White; but electoral reality will force them to stop partying like it’s 2042.
For all the talk of minority voting blocs, the only voting bloc that really matters in national politics is the White vote. This isn’t an overstatement. The reason for this is that the non-White blocs have largely calcified and are no longer in play. The White voters are still an overwhelming majority of voters who actually vote and they’re more fluid in their decision-making than any other identity group. As such, even a seemingly subtle increase in White discomfort with Obama’s anti-White regime will rock the political establishment.
And what will a panicked attempt by the DNC to recoup blue-collar White voters look like? Two words: Jim Webb. Webb was in the news this week for writing an excellent editorial: Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege. In it, he disembowels the logic of the regime’s anti-White policies in its own terms: equality, diversity, and class warfare. Between this and Jared’s brief appearance in the mainstream, one can’t help but feel optimistic. But my optimism is tempered by a realization that the battle for the hearts and minds of White Americans has only just begun, and Jim Webb is firmly in the enemy corner.
He’s providing a voice for the increasing frustration among White Americans for their disinheritance, and he’s perhaps the single most credible White American voice of our times. He’s a distinguished military veteran and a true badass. He’s the author of a book, Born Fighting, that portrays the White American conquest of the frontier with historical knowledge and poetic aplomb atypical of a politician. He’s thoroughly Scots-Irish, with the fiery hair and ruddy complexion to prove it. By every measure of implicit Whiteness, he sets the standard – handily trumping Sarah Palin’s grating and amateurish shtick.
At the moment, conservatives and racialists are celebrating his stand in defense of White Americans while liberals and minorities are huffing and puffing. But he’s really better understood as an enemy staking out an anti-White positions on the front-line of a battle few even recognize is taking shape. When the smoke clears after the 2010 election, Webb could well emerge from the ruins as the de facto leader of an otherwise discredited party and be ideally positioned to accept the Democratic nomination for a presidency Obama will be forced to vacate.
This is all highly speculative, and I could be totally off-base. I certainly hope I am. But if White Anxiety in America reaches a fever pitch, as it seems increasingly likely to do, there is no better man than Jim Webb to harness it, speak for it, and completely redirect it away from our pursuit of self-determination. For all of Webb’s implicit Whiteness, his basic vision is one of integration, of drinking green beer with our yellow wives and Black friends in a brown America controlled by the Cultural Marxist rainbow coalition.
Webb’s apparent pro-White advocacy is only a clever new update on the same old Southern Strategy game we’ve been snookered by for generations: mesmerizing us with implicit Whiteness, dog whistling, and symbolism while screwing us in every way that actually matters. It will take a mountain of effort to establish ourselves as the true voices in defense of White Americans. Accomplishing this will require years of thankless sacrifice and will assuredly feature both painful setbacks and times when it all seems hopeless. Time will tell which men truly deserve the support of our people and which men lack the resolve and spirit of stewardship to see our people through to victory.
Trainspotter said…
Moving beyond mere guesswork and the questioning of Webb’s motives, the main point is that white racial consciousness is rising. Webb’s article is both a symptom of that rising tide, and an indicator of how the System plans to manage it. Again, it’s our job to get a different result this time. That’s the take away.
I’m also inclined to think his motives are honest. Nothing about this episode is inconsistent with his record.
It definitely is our job to get a different result this time, and I think the only way to do that is to firmly establish ourselves as their most credible and effective voice. We have a lot of work to do!
As an aside…
I wish anti-Whites hatemongers would make a decision as to whether Whites are struggling because they suck and fail, or whether we’re demigods with a paternal obligation to support and uplift the entire world. If we suck as hard as Original Man asserts, then I’m sure nobody will mind if we quietly slip off to an ethnostate where we won’t risk screwing everything up for everybody.
The argument against Jewish inclusion based on tribe, identity, and nationality is simple and persuasive. The argument against Jewish inclusion based on biological non-Whiteness is awkward.
NS Germany didn’t have any problem with declaring Jews genetically foreign.
It’s a simple argument when you’re talking about Jews who declare they are separate themselves, nothing further needs to be discussed.
Racialism itself is awkward for a lot of people, they don’t have the guts, they’re too sympathetic and don’t want to be viewed as immoral. Such is the crux of our situation and why the vast majority of Whites refuse to do what it takes.
Mark,
It’s not for a failure of courage or will that I draw the line in a different place and prioritize differently. I define Whiteness in the American context as inclusive of people with fractional Jewish ancestry, people with fractional Amerindian ancestry, and people of Mediterranean ancestry. I don’t believe these pose a real threat to our racial integrity.
I don’t believe “guts” are needed in staking out hard-line positions on minor anthropological questions. They’re needed in building a political machine capable of taking it back. You’re correct that there’s no point in building a machine to defend us if the “circle of us” is drawn too wide. We don’t agree on where to draw that circle. We probably won’t.
The current US system of state sponsored dysgenics, that funds and supports the artificial Negro middle class, as well as the entire Negro and non-White underclass, is predicated upon fleecing and displacing the White civilization that makes it all possible. This irrational cargo cult operation is rapidly cannibalizing the assets and White life force that makes this atavistic, devolutionary lunacy even remotely possible. When the depredations of the parasites at the top of the wealth spectrum are factored in, including the costly burden of the Golem empire, one has to wonder how the White milk herd can possibly continue to sustain such a self-destructive aberration. In fact, as most regulars here well know, the bubble economy is melting down, the White middle is asset stripped and crumbling, and the make-believe system is coming unglued. The somnolent White American enablers of this fiasco are just beginning to sense the danger, but won’t react until they suffer O.D. poster Discard’s experience. Personal materialistic dispossession is going to be the key motivating force that politicizes them. In other words, some form of White populism is going to have the best possibilities and appeal. If you’ll recall, that’s why they iced the ‘Kingfish’, Huey Long in 1935. Our opponents know all this, that’s probably why Webb is trying to steal our thunder.
Matt, I know that we don’t always see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but I fully agree with your warning. I too was excited when I first read Jim Webb’s op-ed, but then knew what his real agenda was when he wrote that race is an artificial construct and that racial harmony will result when whites cease being discriminated against. In other words, be nice to whites, and they’ll willingly embrace extinction.
Still, I am willing to give Webb the benefit of the doubt. He may very well be sincere in his attempt to protest anti-white policies; many conservatives who are true believers in MLK-fantasies don’t have white extinction on their mind. At the very least, Webb had courage to defy left-liberal orthodoxy. I’m willing to give credit where credit’s due.
John,
I definitely give credit where it’s due. I would go so far as to say that Jim Webb is the single most honorable man in national politics (for what that’s worth). I kind of hate that this recent event forced my hand, as I was actually planning on writing this article about Webb for months. I could have looked downright prophetic, instead of coming off perhaps as hysterically scolding a man who pushed the national discourse firmly in our direction.
His ideological opposition to White American self-determination is an Achille’s Heel for a man who would otherwise be a dream candidate for Middle American Radicals. This is why I consider him the single most dangerous weapon in their arsenal. He’s capable of completely defusing White Anxiety and embracing positive White American identity in mainstream discourse while stifling the very goal that the political energy must be directed toward.
Very true Matt, and this begs the question: should we support him, and hope that some day he will see the light, or have nothing to do with him, as his path will lead only towards doom? It’s the same problem I have with people like Geert Wilders, the man is fighting a good fight, and yet he does not oppose Islamic immigration out of any love for the Dutch people or a desire to preserve their identity, but rather to protect Western liberal ideals. Same for Ron Paul. I can’t stomach that, and I fear that any attempt to ally with white-friendly civic nationalists will dilute our ethnonationalist message. My discussions with civic nationalists haven’t been that fruitful, and often boil down to civic nationalists telling me to shut up about identity and fight for what really matters: the United States, the Constitution, and other trivial matters. I don’t see how we can ever work with these people, since our goals are entirely different.
At the same time, American whites are largely indifferent or hostile to racial matters, and only become interested in the subject when it directly affects them, such as AA or illegal immigration. And this is the advantage that civic nationalists have, since they can present a safety vest for whites afraid of racial activism: object to these things on egalitarian/legal grounds. This is what makes the civic nationalist Right successful, Arizona’s recent initiatives being their crown accomplishment. This gives credence to the idea that we American white ethnonationalists should become auxiliary allies; we may not get what we want (an ethnonationalist movement), but we can help obtain victories for our side and, as you said earlier, build momentum in our direction. Even though civic nationalism was the driving force behind Arizona’s coup against illegal immigration, right now Arizona is looking like a model American white ethnostate.
I suppose the path we pick depends on whether or not Pat Buchanan’s observation of a new tribe rising is accurate. I tend to be rather pessimistic, and see no hope in Iowa, a state full of whites who are largely indifferent to racial matters and seem accepting of immigration and miscegenation. But maybe there’s truth Pat’s observation. I understand that you are building up the Indiana chapter of the CoCC, and I’m curious to see what happens in that state.
Most ethnonationalists were civic nationalists at one point. The message is pretty much the same, except that ethnonationalism recognizes IQ and behavioral differences between races, whereas civic nationalists try to pretend it doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter. Civic nationalists can often become ethnonationalists once exposed to HBD type stuff. At any rate, good to be political allies with these people, to amplify our message, since it is so similar and they draw a far larger audience.
H. Rock White, I am an example of your point on ethnonationalists being ex-civic nationalists. But I think the difference is fundamentally larger than just IQ/behavioral differences. It’s a strong philosophical difference: what constitutes a nation? An ethnonationalist will say their people, their tribe, their genetic kin. Whereas civic nationalists will say a physical country with borders, a flag, a State, and shared propositional values/ideals. Language and culture are usually important for rightist civic nationalists, but even then, they treat culture like it’s clothing, something that can be worn by anyone.
I think that the challenge in breaking civic nationalism is two-fold: the first is breaking one’s faith in the religion of assimilation. Many civic nationalists in both the US and Europe cite early 20th Century America as an example of how assimilated succeeded, while ignoring the obvious fact that the immigrants were all of the same racial background and were from cultures that were related to American culture. This made assimilation easier, but civic nationalists keep insisting that any day now, the large number of Third Worlders will assimilate. They desperately look for proof, like blacks speaking with a British accent, as an example of assimilation. And once in a blue moon they will find a rare specimen: a truly assimilated foreigner. The WSJ was trumpeting the case of a Lebanese immigrant proudly waving a giant German flag and defending it from native Marxists. Besides the fact that this Lebanese man is probably closer in appearance to Europeans than Pakistanis (and may have Crusader heritage), immigrants like him are the exception to the rule. The challenge will be in trying to get civic nationalists to understand this. But this is something hard to present with objective evidence, since deciding who is “assimilated” is subjective in nature. And even if you can get the civic nationalists to agree that such model immigrants are rare, they will still challenge us by asking if we accept them into our ethno-nation. This is a sticky subject, and it’s something I don’t have an easy answer for. I lean on the side of making exceptions, but that risks making me sound like a civic nationalist, granting them a victory, which further emboldens them.
The second challenge is getting civic nationalists to truly feel a love for their people and have that be their main motivation. I fear that new converts would be driven by motives based on a desire to preserve things like culture, language, safe neighborhoods, or fighting Islam. I see this problem with the BNP; some new people don’t really get ethnonationalism, and when the BNP made the decision to accept non-white members, many newer members praised the decision. They would say things like race doesn’t matter, it’s about values, stopping Islam, blahblahblah. And it made me wonder why these people came to the BNP rather than UKIP, but perhaps its because they saw the BNP as a more stalwart defender of their beloved Western Civilization, which is certainly the case. So civic nationalists might come to us, seeing us as more likely to resist illegal immigration or other such leftist programs that they don’t care for. And they may even claim to be ethnonationalists. And yet if they don’t really feel for our people, just our culture, then they won’t be of use and may even be a detriment. Of course, we can’t ever “convince” converts to feel this way, the best thing we can do is promote in pride in Euro-American culture and history. As an example, say the CofCC or some other organization hosted a Euro-American cultural festival that celebrated our heritage. This might help new people feel a connection to their ancestors; I know that medieval/renaissance festivals helped me in developing a racial consciousness.
Matt,
Obama has been able to narrowly pass key pieces of legislation in the Senate with the support of Jim Webb. Many of these votes were so close that if Webb we’re to go the other way (and show some real courage) they wouldn’t have passed.
John McNeil: Experience will teach the civic nationalists that the Darks do not subscribe to our American ethos. That is, if the civic nationalists have got any real knowledge of our culture to begin with. If they think that Lincoln, FDR, and MLK are the heroes that built a nation, as taught in the schools, they might not understand much.