The Phony Left & Phony Right Shadowbox at Occupy Wall Street"/>
Print this post Print this post

Radicals for the System:
The Phony Left & Phony Right Shadowbox at Occupy Wall Street

1,912 words

Portuguese translation here

For it’s the End of History
It’s caged and frozen still
There is no other pill to take
So swallow the one that made you ill.
– Rage Against the Machine, “Sleep Now in the Fire”

The great strength of the Left is that it constitutes both the system and the only permissible alternative. This country, and the West, is governed by the power of international finance and the unholy conglomerate of big business and big government controlled by those hostile to us.  Together they undermine national sovereignty, fund the destruction of traditional values, bankroll the hard Left, hollow out the conservative movement into a pointless defense of corruption and privilege, and push open borders and the dispossession of our people.  They are the enemy of any real conservatism and the small business owners and workers that make up any real right wing movement.  Yet incredibly, once again, we find ourselves in a situation where the Left has co-opted the call for change, even in a society where they hold all the levers of power.  Also, on cue, the American Right (such as it is) is rallying to defend the status quo, to argue in defense of the kleptocrats that are destroying them.

We’ve been here before.  During the Vietnam War, a group of construction workers (back when Americans used to be able to obtain such jobs) fought with a large group of anti-Vietnam War protesters on Wall Street.  The workers were wearing hard hats, and the construction helmet became a symbol of the New Right coalition that elected President Nixon, and later Reagan.  One of the signs among the workers said, “God bless the establishment,” communicating an entirely justified fury at privileged protesters who scorned their own country and spat on the values that made the nation great.  Of course, the “establishment” was hardly conservative.  Richard Nixon was far from the far right mad genius we see in popular culture.  He pushed through affirmative action, Section 8 housing, wage and price controls, the removal of the gold standard, and more lawsuits and regulation from the civil rights bureaucracy in the executive department.  Not only did he not oppose the far reaching agenda of cultural transformation from the extreme Left, he actually worked to solidify it.  However, because the “radicals” hated him, the silent majority rallied to him.  Even as radicals complained from their tenured positions in the universities about the country’s swing to the Right, the left wing radicals became the establishment and created the kind of society we have today.  Ultimately, the responsibility for this has to be laid at the feet of the American Right.

The same kind of thing is happening today.  Republicans are reacting with sneering contempt, calling them a bunch of scruffy mobs.  It’s an understandable reaction.  Protests are Fourth Generation Warfare in miniature, in that there is absolutely nothing police can do to avoid looking like fascists.  Therefore, all contemporary protests are an exercise in media driven slave morality.  At every protest, we see supposed militants try to instigate a confrontation, succeed, and then wail and flop around like the Italian soccer team trying for a red card.  Of course, this only works if you have a sympathetic media that has a narrative of idealism from the Left firmly established.  A bunch of old people holding signs and calling for tax cuts was treated like the march of the Sturmabteilungen, whereas calls for overthrowing the government are treated as simple idealism.  No wonder many conservatives want to send in the dragoons with swords drawn to clear this shaggy mob.

They’re wrong and while emotionally satisfying, this way of thinking is dangerous on two levels.  First, they are dramatically underestimating the potential of this movement.  Unlike conservatives, progressives have a huge network of professional activists, funded by large foundations, colleges and universities, unions, and government bodies.  Activists who are getting involved now will stay involved for the remainder of their lives.  This movement will not blow over.  It will continue to grow in the months ahead and create new institutions to fund itself.

Secondly, the Republicans are simply wrong on the main point.  Hermain Cain’s statement of “If you are not rich, blame yourself,” is beyond foolish.  Even though he styles himself as some kind of Tea Party outsider, it reeks of the kind of contempt for working Americans of the worst Beltway “conservative” corporate lobbyists. The essential point of the protests are correct – this country is governed by an economic oligarchy that is deeply hostile to the American people and that American workers are suffering while Wall Street is being protected.  Time and again, the American people are presented a choice between leftists who openly despise them and conservatives who are at best indifferent, but are mostly out to protect their corporate donors.  The latter is less evil, but hardly a real choice.  In electoral terms, the American Right looks like it will gain ground in Congress in the 2012 elections (if not capture the White House itself) but it’s not going to do anything with it.

That said, of course, what the protesters actually want not only won’t solve the problem, but are some of the very things that have gotten us in this mess (though keep in mind as of this writing there’s no “official” list of demands).  Spending a trillion dollars that we don’t have to do more “shovel ready” projects, or wiping out all debt (I presume taxes are exempted), or creating a “right” to a job (provided by whom?) aren’t going to do anything.  Calling for open borders may be a diversity commandment, but as Samuel Gompers and other past labor leaders would confirm, it obviously leads to a loose labor market and therefore lower wages.  In fact, the protesters are carrying the Chamber of Commerce’s water for them on this issue.  As other commentators have pointed out, the protests are directed at the inability for ordinary Americans to lead a middle class life under these circumstances but don’t consider the social, cultural, and governmental changes that caused these problems to take place.  The left wing lifestyle choices, political correctness, multiculturalism (including affirmative action and preferential loans and financial programs for minority groups), open borders, growth of government power, growth of welfare programs, and the debt driven finance required to pay for all of this are why the American middle class and the American nation are collapsing.  In fact, if we didn’t have this debt driven financial system we wouldn’t have the money to pay for the professors of “globalization studies” that I see on Democracy Now! every night telling me how they are helping organize these protests.

What the educationally credentialed but very uneducated protesters seem to want is a nation that resembles a typical college campus.  It will have lots of amenities, you are protected from viewpoints that might challenge your liberal assumptions, you don’t really have to do very much, and you don’t think very much about who pays for all this.  For a lot of the liberal arts majors out there, the reason they don’t have a job is because a liberal arts education doesn’t even teach you the liberal arts, never mind something that will help you contribute to society.  Unemployment is the least damaging thing we can hope for from these guys.  Does anyone truly believe that what our society really needs are more guys who want their 200K in student loans paid off so they can have their “right” to be a minister for “LGBT youth?”

It is fashionable, especially at protests like these, to talk about being beyond Left and Right.  Publications like the American Conservative and conservative blogs occasionally speak about an alliance between the Left and the Right against the banks, the government, and the “Establishment” in order to create a more humane system.  The problem is that this only goes one way.  The demonstrators are making sure that no one who believes in say, gender differences, immigration laws, or even “discrimination based on ability” (!), meaning that anyone who even remotely fits on the right is not welcome.  As a result, while this movement will grow in strength, it will remain solely a movement of the Left and, as such, never actually challenge the system.  In fact, it will be a movement of the left wing establishment.

However, even that somewhat misses the point.  Much like the May 1968 protests in Paris that almost toppled de Gaulle, the action in the streets is as much driven for a search for meaning as it is a search for economic justice.  In a world of consumerism and shattered community, taking to the streets is a way of showing that you still matter, that you have an identity, and that there is still some semblance of democracy in this country.  It will fail.  Our economic masters have long since mastered the art of selling left wing rebellion right back to the consumers.  Even Adbusters realizes that.  Ultimately, the world of deracinated, autonomous, atomistic individuals babbling about the “rights” they learned in college serves both the corporate world and the left wing establishment.  In fact, they’re one and the same.  After all, the main figure of May ’68, the dashing revolutionary Danny the Red, is now European Parliament member Daniel Cohn-Bendit, striving to bring you the antiseptic, soul-crushing policies of the European Union that will tell you what light bulbs you are allowed to use.

The biggest obstacle to McWorld isn’t some nonsense theory about institutional racism – it’s real existing communities built on Tradition and Identity.  Real change, real rebellion, has to come from the unapologetic and explicit Right that recognizes and defends hierarchy, excellence, and the right of peoples to determine their own destiny.  It will come from a real Right that puts the nation above the bankers, that puts free enterprise above corporatism, and that doesn’t sneer at workers that are part of the national community.  The closest example would have been the movement behind Pat Buchanan that would have stopped mass immigration, outsourcing, and the deindustrialization of America.  Rather than looking for meaning in existentialist rebellion that has tried and failed before, what is needed is National Revolution that can create a superior version of an actually existing community built on nationality, culture, and tradition.  As far as youth are concerned, we should be marching against the college administrators that put us 200K in debt for useless degrees.  We should actively seek to pop the education bubble, campaigning against the federal subsidies towards colleges that allow them to keep jacking up tuition and demanding cuts for useless disciplines that serve as an excuse for leftists to rent seek off the public teat.  It needs to be said that the leftists are protesting the world that they created.  Agitating for more of the same won’t do anything for us.

We’ve seen this kind of movement before both on campuses and on the streets in Europe and in America in ’68.  I saw something of it on a smaller scale in Iceland in 2009.  The Left has the problem but has no solution – the phony Right seems to pretend there is not a problem to begin with.  We’ve been here before and this is nothing new.  Both the Left and the phony Right had their shot and both failed.  It’s time to build a real Right that is opposed to the current system to seize this moment before it gets away.

Source: http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/radicals-for-the-system/

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

27 Comments

  1. daniel sienkiewicz
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 3:30 am | Permalink

    No, it is time for the real Left – the one that does not allow for Jewish perversion of the term, does not include Jews and non-Whites into its class, the one that encompasses all of European descent; acknowledges free enterprise, industry, individualism, private property, national and regional sovereignty, all with accountability to and not to transgress the well being of the full class of European peoples and their lands in Europe and throughout the world.

    • Mothergoose
      Posted October 10, 2011 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      Daniel, dream on! A non-Jewish left is an oxymoron

  2. Denys Picard
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 4:10 am | Permalink

    Very interesting.

    And is it not surprising to see that as much as the media helped make and recuperate the Tea Party as a Republican initiative only, the Media is now trying to distance the Republicans from the current unrest by showing comments by Kantor and Cain, and concluding that all this protest is a grassroots democrat movement, that in fact most of these protesters will vote Obama.
    In its perpetual absurdity, ABCNews last night had a reporter “in studio” (that means its important, that means “we really need to explain things to you, it is almost as if it was “in camera”); anyway, the journalist, a Mrs. Vega, explained that while there appears to be many issues among the protesters, one common issue is starting to emerge, it is : the economy.

    WOW! Thank you Mrs. 90 IQ, nobody had figured this out yet.

    For me, I cannot see things in right or left anymore. Any of those protesters that would vote Obama has obviously suffered severe head trauma. This does not mean I believe they should vote Republican.

    The only real thing that should emerge from this protest is not support for Obama’s “Stink” job bill; but the re-instating of Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall is the only thing that can re-ignite this economy on a sound basis, on tangible grounds. So if one issue comes out over the other, if one voice units it should scream: GLASS-STEAGALL, GLASS-STEAGALL, GLASS-STEAGALL!

    It is the only proposition that is not tied to any specific parties, the only solution, and this is why main stream media has banned the expression from its vocabulary.

    • Posted October 10, 2011 at 7:22 am | Permalink

      “The only real thing that should emerge from this protest is not support for Obama’s “Stink” job bill; but the re-instating of Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall is the only thing that can re-ignite this economy on a sound basis, on tangible grounds. So if one issue comes out over the other, if one voice units it should scream: GLASS-STEAGALL, GLASS-STEAGALL, GLASS-STEAGALL!”

      Indeed. While I agree with the author on the big picture, and the need to be build a real, National Right, the current economic crisis is such that there’s something to be said for finding some common ground on re-stablizing the economy.

      Contrary to the “catastrophism” favored by nihilist of the Left [campus Marxists who want to "bring the motherfucker down, man"] and Right [ the Tea Party "default and shut the government down and then win in 2012"], people don’t want ‘change’ when they’re broke, bankrupt, starving, or fearful of becoming such. This makes people ‘conservative’ with a small ‘c’: fearful of change, wanting to bring back the ‘way things were,’ willing to follow ‘a leader’. Changing society, or even building a movement to do it, is very risky and scary.

      That’s why calls for collapse come from tenured professors, and multi-millionaires flirt with Neo-nazism and corporate fascism; you need a lot of money to take risks.

      Of course, this leads me to wonder why ‘celebrities’ always desperately apologizing for ‘gaffes’ no matter how wealthy they are. I suppose there’s something inherently cowardly about ‘performers’, perhaps the need for public approval. I ask myself, what’s the point of being as rich as Mel Gibson if you can’t speak you mind? Just retire to an island and be yourself — shades of The Prisoner!

      • Denys Picard
        Posted October 10, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        I hope you do not believe that restabilizing the economy implies the Banana Job Bill! It sounds more like another “stealing the economy” project.

        I am kind of flatered of drawing attention from a “star” writer of CC. The only “stars” I respect are from this little underground I recently found in Counter-Currrents, TOO, etc..

        On the serious side, I take a moment to express that I really enjoy what you write James. Thank you.

    • Ian J. MacAllister
      Posted October 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

      Reinstate Glass-Steagall? Are you serious? You think that the amendment (NOT repeal) of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 caused the financial meltdown in 2008?

      The portion of that act that allowed commercial banks to affiliate with bank holding companies that underwrite and trade in securities was repealed. So while the amendment allowed commercial banks to affiliate with bank holding companies that underwrite and trade in securities, the provisions that forbid commercial banks from themselves underwriting and trading in securities remain in effect. The only underwriting they can do, as before, involves the safest securities, including government-sponsored entities such as FeddieMac and FannieMae. Thus the banks’ activities vis-a-vis mortgage-backed securities could have (and undoubtedly would have) gone on regardless of what was done with Glass-Steagall.

      Moreover, commercial banks can acquire securities because they believe they are good investments to hold, not for the purpose of trading. The “repeal” of Glass-Steagall did not transform commercial banks into investment banks.

      Forget Glass-Steagall; look at the Federal Reserve and the regulations foisted upon the financial industry to extend home loans to uncreditworthy minorities.

  3. daniel sienkiewicz
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    Glass-Steagall doesn’t matter in a Jewish and other non-White occupied country. “Neither Right nor Left” is an inarticulate half way point prior to sorting out Jewish perversion of the Left. Jewish perversion of the Left is really extreme, obsequious liberalism, defining those outside the White Class as “marginals”. Whites (indigenous Europeans) and no others are the Class. That is the true Left for us – The White Class.

  4. Jay
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    “The left wing lifestyle choices, political correctness, multiculturalism (including affirmative action and preferential loans and financial programs for minority groups)…”

    Multiculturalism is really an ideology of multi-racialism now, not just multiculturalism which was bad enough, and it may be time to push the idea that, just as pluralism led to multiculturalism, multiculturalism led to multi-racialism. That concept needs to be unpacked because it’s an ugly one, and because it leads to multi-nationalism. Some readers might even like that as it would feed into WN.

    =======================

    Regarding the current round of diverse white kids conducting show-piece demonstrations downtown these day, those gatherings may have something to offer us. The demonstrations are, for all practical purposes, implicitly white….with media having to search for a black, brown, or yellow face. And just as the sixties demonstrations led to a variety of outcomes ranging from new Christians, new Buddhists, hard core revolutionaries, etc., some will break our way at least on an implicit basis at first. If you examine them closely, they are 99% us, just ignorant us. Say howdy to them.

  5. Tabu LaRaza
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    A real revolution will educate about “banking” monopolies (the moneyopoly) and loans-out-of- nothing.

    This is the only real problem the world has.

    Are there any government schools that tell the kids about fractional reserve? Why not- I infer that the wanker banker may control what is taught in these thought control centers.

    Any “revolution” that doesn’t focus on money-from-nothing is fake opposition, or is misguided.

    • Andrew
      Posted October 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      I agree. Illusory money issued in the form of interest-bearing debt and imposed by force of arms is the Jewish supremacists’ single most lethal instrument of racial tyranny, macroeconomic engineering, political machination, and cultural suppression. Any movement that ignores this reality is controlled opposition.

      I also ponder whether the Jews’ astonishing success in this regard could have occurred without certain indolent, superficial, or naive proclivities in our ancestors and ourselves which our adversaries easily identified as weakness and to which they cunningly pandered.

      • Catiline
        Posted October 11, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        “I also ponder whether the Jews’ astonishing success in this regard could have occurred without certain indolent, superficial, or naive proclivities in our ancestors and ourselves which our adversaries easily identified as weakness and to which they cunningly pandered.”

        Andrew, Mr. O’Meara has recently put forward this very argument, and in reaction a hive of WASPs has been driven mad with fury. Cyberspace is still vibrating with their buzzing.

        (Notwithstanding the fact that, Revilo Oliver, a bona fide WASP, essentially made the same argument and is posthumously honored by The Hive.)

  6. Jim Stark
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    That’s an excellent article.

    The phony left and phony right are part of a dying system. Both are Marxist in nature and don’t even deserve the name “left” or “right.” So, no positive change will happen until the whole system collapses, unfortunately. The whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel has to go. Americans aren’t ready for it and I question if they ever will be. Paying attention to what’s going on politically at this point is an exercise in futility.

    Nothing of significance will happen until a lot more pain is injected into people’s lives. The American body politic is as much of a rotted out mess as any other American institution. It would be nice to think that you could place some kind of breakers in the system to allow for a smoother transition, but Americans are too attached to their Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    The American public is neither sophisticated enough or organized enough to come up with any real mainstream alternatives at this point. So the whole thing just becomes a waiting game. Timber……

  7. daniel sienkiewicz
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    Mothergoose

    You say:

    “Daniel, dream on! A non-Jewish left is an oxymoron.”

    It is an oxymoron according to the definition of the Left that people (I hope not you, ultimately) have been maneuvered into by Jewish academics and political planners. Jews want us to be defined as Rightist [ anti-social, psuedo-objective individualists ], because it is weak and a-moral; as opposed to Leftists who organize on the basis of the White Class as a full social group, with relative, relational accountability to and from those on top to those in more fundamental stages of evolutionary (beyond the lifetime), developmental (within the life time) process.

    • Chip Farley
      Posted October 11, 2011 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      ‘It is an oxymoron according to the definition of the Left that people (I hope not you, ultimately) have been maneuvered into by Jewish academics and political planners.’

      No the simple fact of the matter is that from FDR on the Left in this Country has been a thoroughly Jewish production. Just find a list online sometime of the number of Jews who served just in the FDR administration.

  8. Greg Paulson
    Posted October 10, 2011 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    This article is pretty good considering where it’s from. I agree with other comments made about rejecting the “left and right” paradigm. Also the idea that all “big government” is bad, or that the gold standard is somehow a good thing, but I understand he has to throw his more “conservative” audience some bones.

    What really made me wince, though, is his misuse of the term “corporatism.” Even though he is far from the first person to misuse this term, a simple overview of the wikipedia page on corporatism (provided below) clearly shows the definition is nothing like what DeAnna meant by it in this article. I know this is a pet peeve and that most people would understand exactly what he was trying to say, never knowing there is an actual definition far different than the way it’s used, but it bothers me because the actual “corporatism” gets associated with something bad, when it is actually one of the only real solutions or alternatives to the problems inherent in capitalism and socialism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

  9. daniel sienkiewicz
    Posted October 11, 2011 at 2:42 am | Permalink

    Greg Paulson,

    Definition is where we are at, true.

    Since you are a stickler for definitions:

    The kind of corporatism that you want to endorse is fine and good but it is Leftist guildsmanship:

    Wikipeida – “Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves division of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.”

    It can avoid potential corruption and manipulation with accountability under the service of the broader rubric of the the European Class as a socially interested whole, which is a Leftist Classification of Whites as a whole – these guilds would serve as fine subdivisions, as would the states, regions and native European ethnicities; while sub and full classification would encompass all stages of developmental processes – exclusive of Jews and other non-Whites.

    • Greg Paulson
      Posted October 12, 2011 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      Daniel,

      Firstly, you didn’t define anything. All you did was label corporatism as “leftist,” as if that term even has validity.

      Secondly, corporatism doesn’t work for or against racialism, but it is inherently nationalistic, which for all practical purposes makes it pro-racial within the context of what we’re talking about.

      If you were suggesting that corporatism is “leftist” because it is collectivist in many aspects, then I would agree with you, despite your poor label. Indeed, by that definition, white nationalism would be “leftist” since it rejects libertarian hyper-individualism for a community of blood.

      Many people are confused about Fascism, National Socialism, and other “third positions” because the “left” and “right” paradigm causes people to misidentify them. Just because a system is “collectivist” in some aspects does not mean it supports egalitarianism or rejects hierarchy. In fact, the opposite is true when it comes to Fascism and National Socialism.

  10. Walter Rauff
    Posted October 12, 2011 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Whenever I go to these protests to educate these kids, I usually do pretty well. You have your hard-left/liberal anti-white leaders, many who are white themselves, that you will gain no ground with. But the majority of people, whether college kids or not, can be brought over. The Right has ceased to be a viable force – it is purely reactionary party now of old people who are afraid to shake anything up – it is ironic that they only path to a TRUE RIGHT today has to come through the Left. The main point I tell these protesters are is that they have it wrong when they call our society “Fascist” – true fascism is having corporations subdued and under the power of the government for nationalist purposes – we have the opposite – the government under the power of the corporations, both of which are anti-nationalist. Whether its the greed-driven allegiance to nothing but profits paradigm, or the ZOG system of anti-white Federalism.

  11. daniel sienkiewicz
    Posted October 12, 2011 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Greg Paulson,

    I have been proposing, anyway, a (re) defining of Leftism in several posts: “labeling” and fitting things under that classification; in order to sort out confusion of the term.

    A race is a classification. The left generally deals with classifications, their relative and relational interests in full developmental and contributory process. The Right tends to support pseudo objective and individual elitism.

    “Secondly, corporatism doesn’t work for or against racialism”

    I didn’t say that it did, I said that it can.

    “If you were suggesting that corporatism is “leftist” because it is collectivist in many aspects, then I would agree with you”

    Yes, that is one aspect which fits under the “label” so there is nothing off about it; it is not my “poor label” , as you say, but a crucial redefinition in order to disentangle the Left as a function of social classification from Jewish abuse of the term.

    “Indeed, by that definition, white nationalism would be “leftist” since it rejects libertarian hyper-individualism for a community of blood.”

    Yes, nationalism would be Leftist by this definition.

    “Many people are confused about Fascism, National Socialism, and other “third positions” because the “left” and “right” paradigm causes people to misidentify them.”

    The perversion and improper definition of left and right causes them to be confused. If not created by Jews, this confusion and mis-definition has certainly been exploited and perverted by them (and by disingenuous White elites)- for example, calling those outside the class as ‘marginals’.

    The left is a social classifying function – for our purposes, not so much economic as about race, the European class; perhaps leaning more toward free enterprise than socialism, but providing that safety net; acknowledging the relativity and relationality of that group

    The Right would be individualistic, whether sheer individuals, small groups of elite individuals, or the “corporate” individual of U.S. law – It would be pseudo objectivist, pseudo detached from the social and unaccountable as such – “that’s just the way it is”, or seeking account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

    “Many people are confused about Fascism, National Socialism, and other “third positions” because the “left” and “right” paradigm causes people to misidentify them.”

    The definition of leftism that I am proposing does not propose “egalitarianism’ or “equalitarianism”. Rather, a crucial distinction is made, that inequality is not the issue, as if we, each individual and each race function according to the same criteria and are necessarily competing over the same things. Rather the difference that makes the difference is that we are not the same – the races (what I call classes) function on incommensuarate paradigms – our cultural patterns have a different form as the logics of our meaning and action do not mesh in a complementary way with others. That is why we separate, not so much because we are not equal but because we are not the same. The same holds true for individuals within the class – that they are not equal is relatively trivial. That they are not the same but fit into different, complementary and cooperative, ecological niches is the point.

    I have been and will be discussing this more on VOR: non-equality narcisistically instigates competition (and enmity) between individuals and groups. Difference and non-sameness of form and function provides an outlook, a means for cooperation in and between groups.

    A race is a classification. The left generally deals with classifications, their relative and relational interests in full developmental and contributory process. The Right tends to support pseudo objective and individual elitism.

  12. Armor
    Posted October 13, 2011 at 2:29 am | Permalink

    “the movement behind Pat Buchanan that would have stopped mass immigration, outsourcing, and the deindustrialization of America”

    What’s wrong is the idea that deindustrialization and third-worldization serve the interests of the corporate world.

    “the world of deracinated, autonomous, atomistic individuals babbling about the “rights” they learned in college serves both the corporate world and the left wing establishment”

    No, is doesn’t serve the corporate world. The Jewish anti-white ideology that dominates big business is actually hurting the financial interests of big business, in the same way that the Jewish anti-white ideology that now dominates White nations is hurting White nations.

    The idea that big business gets richer as America loses its industrial base doesn’t make sense. It may be profitable for a particular group of investors to move a business to China, or to sell out to a foreign competitor, but big business will go downhill if everyone else does the same.

    It is a matter of private versus collective interest. It is in my interest to steal other people, but I’ll be worse off in the end if every one else is allowed to do likewise. That’s why we need rules. The collective interest of big business needs to be protected against the particular interests of particular businesses.

    Unfortunately, the government has not been doing its job. I don’t think the problem comes from the corporate world itself. If the government decided no longer to enforce the law among people, it would also create problems. In that case, the blame would fall on the government, not on individual people.

    • Chip Farley
      Posted October 15, 2011 at 12:36 am | Permalink

      ‘The idea that big business gets richer as America loses its industrial base doesn’t make sense. It may be profitable for a particular group of investors to move a business to China, or to sell out to a foreign competitor, but big business will go downhill if everyone else does the same.’

      Sadly the hyper-capitalists hopped up on Jewish Ayn Rand-juice do not look to the long run, but only care about the next financial quarterly statement, so they don’t see the long term ramifications of their hollowing out the economy.

  13. Armor
    Posted October 14, 2011 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    In fact, there is no such thing as the Right and the Left. Or at least, the population isn’t naturally split in half between the Right and the Left. The real separation lies between on the one hand, the anti-white, far-left, jewish-led, loony minority in charge of the media and public institutions, and on the other hand, the mass of normal, decent, mainly non-politicized people, whether they vote for the Right or for the Left. Among the normals, there is also a more or less active small minority that keeps denouncing jewish subversion and the race-replacement policy. Unfortunately, most of the normals are politically inactive.

    Because the jews control the media and dominate the political life, they are able to define the terms and labels, and everyone else on the left-right continuum gets defined relative to them. What we usually call “the left” is the half of the population which is the most stupid and the least hostile to the jewish-led anti-white ideology. As we move from the left to the right, the resistance to the leftist nonsense gets stronger, and we find fewer brainwashed lemmings. But even on the left, most people disagree with the current immigration policy, and even on the right, most people will vote for the Republican traitors instead of supporting the A3P. Most people who vote for Labour (UK), for the Democrats (USA), or for the Socialists (France), are politically closer to ordinary right-wing voters than to the anti-white far-left. In fact, if words have any meaning, the far-left doesn’t belong to the left. We know that the left is supposed to be kind, compassionate, and equalitarian, while the right is supposed to be pragmatic. But the “far-left” that controls the media isn’t compassionate and doesn’t care for the lower classes. They don’t care about equality and diversity. Their real motivation is racial and anti-white. Unlike the “left-wing” media, most left-wing voters are not anti-white. The main reason they refrain from speaking up against immigration is because they are afraid to be called racist. Also, they may be afraid to be unfair to non-whites.

    Kevin DeAnna mentions the “unapologetic and explicit Right that recognizes and defends hierarchy, excellence, and the right of peoples to determine their own destiny”. I don’t think it is a good idea to emphasize the need for a hierarchy. The priority is to get rid of the anti-white, crazy activists. As for Daniel Sienkiewicz, he seems to think that left-wing ideals are a good thing.

    At least, both DeAnna and Sienkiewicz try to explain what they mean by right-wing or left-wing. By contrast, the jewish media who defines who is right-wing and left-wing never coherently defines anything.

    On a Voice of Reason radio show, I heard this comment by Robert Stark : “All these terms like ‘racist’, ‘antisemite’, ‘nativist’, ‘xenophobe’…, don’t really have any meaning. I think it’s best to come up with a sentence to describe an attitude or action. All these terms are BS, and we should try to drop them from our vocabulary and from the English language.”

    I think it is also true of words like right and left.

    Instead of discussing ideas, as white people like to do, jewish activists like to play on words. For example, ‘racism’ used to refer to the mistreatment of people of other races. But you will now be called a racist if you say you want the white race to continue to exist, and they will try to tar you with the infamy attached to definition #1 of racism.

    If you call yourself an antisemite in that you oppose jewish subversion, they will say that you have just admitted that you want to kill 6 million jews.

    The jews also like to play with the notion of right and left. Because they own the media and control the far-left movements, they can decide who gets labeled left-wing or right-wing. The anti-race-replacement movement is always classified by them as far-right. It goes further than that: thanks to their control of public speech, they have been able to change how we perceive ourselves.

    For example, as Mark Weber said in a speech: “For more than a century, America’s political, cultural and intellectual life has been systematically skewed to benefit alien interests. In our motion pictures and television, in classrooms, in textbooks and in government, powerful interests have imposed a false and harmful version of the past, distorting the historical record for self-serving reasons. and as a result of all of this, our nation can neither understand itself, nor direct its sight clearly toward the future.”

    The jews have also been able to manipulate our political identity and how many people see themselves as members of the right or the left. It works somewhat like advertising. The left-wing label is like a commercial brand, an empty label managed by the media owners.

    The Wikipedia entry about “commercial brands” :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand

    “Brand is the personality that identifies a product, service or company (name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them) and how it relates to key constituencies: customers, staff, partners, investors etc.”

    “Some people distinguish the psychological aspect, brand associations like thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and so on that become linked to the brand, of a brand from the experiential aspect.”

    “The experiential aspect consists of the sum of all points of contact with the brand and is known as the brand experience. The brand experience is a brand’s action perceived by a person. The psychological aspect, sometimes referred to as the brand image, is a symbolic construct created within the minds of people, consisting of all the information and expectations associated with a product, service or the company(ies) providing them.”

    I think it is somewhat similar to what has been done by the media with the left. The left has become a kind of brand name managed by the jews. Under that name, they have patched together an artificial coalition that includes:
    - environmentalists
    - working class trade unionists
    - NGOs and charities that work for the third-world
    - Youth organizations
    - and so on.

    Within those groups, the jewish media will only give space and airtime to those who display their allegiance to “the left”. The result is that many white people who are naturally drawn to defend Nature, justice, and many idealist causes, are led to believe that they are part of “the left”, and they end up as members of the jewish-led race-replacing coalition of “the left”. Actually, there is no reason why those different groups would be more left-wing than right-wing, and they certainly shouldn’t be anti-white. But no one really knows what the left/right paradigm is supposed to mean.

    The meaning of words like left and right is hopelessly confused and can antagonize people who should side with us. So, instead of calling oneself left-wing or right-wing, I think it would be best to come up with a description of what we believe in. In my case, it’s more about expelling the non-whites, defending normalcy, and getting rid of the so-called “far left”, than about right-wing ideals.

    • Chip Farley
      Posted October 15, 2011 at 1:08 am | Permalink

      ‘In fact, there is no such thing as the Right and the Left.’

      If memory serves it was Eduard Limonov (can’t find the exact quote) who stated something along the lines of ‘there is no left or right, there is only system and anti-system’. That may be a more useful paradigm to be explored.

      ‘“All these terms like ‘racist’, ‘antisemite’, ‘nativist’, ‘xenophobe’…, don’t really have any meaning.’

      Let us go back and study the etymology of these terms. Most of them are very new, just introduced into the language so that right there should give one pause.

      ‘Racist’ was first coined in the early 1930s by a Jew named Magnus Hirshfeld. That it is so new and originates from a degenerate Jewish homosexual should set off some alarm bells (Sam Francis wrote and entire article about this by the way.

      ‘anti-semite’ was first used by Wilhem Marr in about the 1850s. The word is so new, that perhaps it should just be dropped from usage, that is a reasonable arguement. Also it is German in origin. Hey maybe we don’t want English to become contaminated with these German words, much like how the French argue to keep the French language pure. Those are two good reasons to reject this term if one feels the need.

      ‘In my case, it’s more about expelling the non-whites, defending normalcy, and getting rid of the so-called “far left”, than about right-wing ideals.’

      Have often thought that just ‘White Normalism’ could itself constitute a coherent ideology. Why not? Just go onto any contemporary University campus and look at all the loony-left stuff that gets promoted there and is supposedly to be taken super seriously, ( at the University where I am employed we have had topless lesbian frisbee day and are currently debating adding ‘queer identified’, not queer but ‘queer identified’ to the LGBT student union… in such a crazed environment ‘White Normalism’ seems quite reasonable. )

  14. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted October 14, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

    Armor in blockquote, cites in italics:

    On a Voice of Reason radio show, I heard this comment by Robert Stark : “All these terms like ‘racist’, ‘antisemite’, ‘nativist’, ‘xenophobe’…, don’t really have any meaning. I think it’s best to come up with a sentence to describe an attitude or action. All these terms are BS, and we should try to drop them from our vocabulary and from the English language.”

    I don’t want to get into board wars.

    That having been said, Stark’s comments display a breathtaking ignorance of the most basic facts of political life, which I would submit as Exhibit “A” as to why the terms “White nationalism” and “ineffectiveness” go so well together.

    If anyone honestly believes the terms “‘racist’, ‘antisemite’, ‘nativist’, ‘xenophobe’…, don’t really have any meaning,” I would strongly suggest you review the power they have for their users, power that is effectively enforced under Federal legislation, Federal litigation, and Federal, State, and local practices. I will present Professor Faurisson as my first witness.

    Stark’s breathtaking ignorance shows why we are not taken seriously, and rightfully so.

    For those of you who missed the basic courses in political philosophy, I will simply cite one of my favorite authors, Thomas Hobbes. In “Leviathan,” Hobbes describes the very essence of political power as the power to define, and the power to ENFORCE those definitions.

    We will not be allowed to “drop them from our vocabulary and from the English language,” as they are too effective, too powerful, and too powerfully effective, for those who define, and enforce THEIR definitions.

    We DO have choices. Stark’s choices seem to be little more than wishful thinking, which is not a substitute for making effective choices.

    The meaning of words like left and right is hopelessly confused and can antagonize people who should side with us. So, instead of calling oneself left-wing or right-wing, I think it would be best to come up with a description of what we believe in. In my case, it’s more about expelling the non-whites, defending normalcy, and getting rid of the so-called “far left”, than about right-wing ideals.

    You will not be allowed to expel the non-whites, who have more political power than you do – see “Affirmative Action” – and you will not “get rid of the left.” They were here before we were, and they will be after, in one form or another. “Defending normalcy” is a good idea – Pat Buchanan tried it, as the Adversary defined a “New Normal,” particularly in the Southwest, and the blasted urban heaths. Such “normalcy” loses elections, and we are dispossessed by the New Normal.

    Here’s something really radical, and much more effective. Don’t be “normal,” in the New Normal.

    Be Better. Become part of a true Elite, a true Vanguard, part of Ludovic’s Foundational Aristocracy, an Aristocracy of Merit.

    Why don’t you see all of your actions as forming your life as part of the Living Foundation of a New Nation, bettering yourself, and becoming part of the Northwest Republic, the best hope for a Racial Homeland?

    A final comment: Charlie Brown, the people you are arguing with are planning your destruction, and that of your Family, and the America you think you remember. They’ve pretty much finished the third, and are working heartily on the first and the second. Don’t make the mistake of being rational with the irrational. It’s fatal.

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  15. Armor
    Posted October 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    “If anyone honestly believes the terms “‘racist’, ‘antisemite’, ‘nativist’, ‘xenophobe’…, don’t really have any meaning”

    In the radio show, I think he explained that the word racism used to be associated, for example, with the idea of mistreating other races. And now it is used to stigmatize people who simply criticize the immigration policy. So, there are several ways to put it. You could say that the word means nothing, that it means several different things, that it means only one thing but is used disingenuously to say something else…

    I quoted Robert Stark’s opinion that it’s best to come up with a sentence instead of using an ambiguous word because it is something that I had been thinking myself. Focusing on ambiguous words is especially a problem with Jews. They love to create phony debates centered on ambiguous words. For example, when they call someone a Nazi or an antisemite, it is impossible to make them say what they mean by that.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted October 15, 2011 at 12:31 am | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Armor:

      Respectfully, allowing someone else, using words he can’t define, to define things he can’t understand, to do your thinking for you, places you at a disadvantage. Students of semantics know this all too well, and students of issues surrounding the Race have suffered from not knowing it well enough.

      Armor in blockquote:

      In the radio show, I think he explained that the word racism used to be associated, for example, with the idea of mistreating other races.

      I think someone is conflating “racialism,” a good, solid terms used by Madison Grant, among others, with Trotsky’s perversion of it into “racism.” I believe THAT is where the term came from. Again, I want to avoid board wars, and simply suggest you reason this through for your self, rather than quote someone else’s misunderstanding. If you must have a misunderstanding, make it your own!

      And now it is used to stigmatize people who simply criticize the immigration policy. So, there are several ways to put it. You could say that the word means nothing, that it means several different things, that it means only one thing but is used disingenuously to say something else…

      Everyone that uses the word uses it with one clear Intention, and that is to use it as a weapon against us. The definition that matters is the one that has the strongest degree of social proof behind it, and the strongest social proof of all is arrest, incarceration, and being stripped of all your worldly possessions and resources. “Thoughtcrime,” indeed.

      I quoted Robert Stark’s opinion that it’s best to come up with a sentence instead of using an ambiguous word because it is something that I had been thinking myself. Focusing on ambiguous words is especially a problem with Jews. They love to create phony debates centered on ambiguous words. For example, when they call someone a Nazi or an antisemite, it is impossible to make them say what they mean by that.

      The sentence simply serves to frame the word in one context, in one place, at one time. It’s no substitute for a better word, one that we choose, one that takes the war to the Enemy, and brings a gun to a gunfight. (HT: Alex Linder) It’s much more effective to try out the memes developed by Bob Whitaker, Horus the avenger, and their associates; examples are on Bob’s website, http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/

      Remember, they will never limit their power to define by defining precisely, as that limits them. At best, they will define it precisely enough to destroy you. Their real focus is to keep you on the defensive, while placing you in a double-bind state of Consciousness. In effect, when you try to be rational with the irrational, engaging in debate with people whose sole plan for you is the genocide I repeat GENOCIDE of your Race, why bother?

      Move forward with your Agenda, in the fulfillment of your Purpose on Earth.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  16. Armor
    Posted October 16, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    DeAnna: “explicit Right that recognizes and defends hierarchy, excellence, and the right of peoples to determine their own destiny”.

    A people’s right to self-determination includes the right to reverse today’s immigration policy. But I don’t see race-replacement as a left-wing ideology. It looks more like a Jewish ideology that has infected left-wing organizations, before it began infecting right-wing organizations. As I see it, left-wing activists who push for race-replacement are no longer part of the European(-American) left.

    I see two elements in what’s called the left :

    L1: The European left: defense of the lower classes

    L2: The Jewish left: big government, manipulation of people’s minds, rejection of European tradition, replacement of White people, destroying people that you say you want to help, …

    I see two elements in what we call the right :

    R1: The White man’s traditional outlook: defense of one’s nation, of decency, common sense, moderation, avoiding class warfare…

    R2: The rich people’s outlook: defense of rich people’s interests whether they earned their fortune through hard work, by inheritance, or by parasitic activity.


    We need to break the coalition between L1 and L2 and start a new coalition between L1 and R1. What is more relevant than the left/right paradigm is the Jewish/European paradigm.

2 Trackbacks

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance