Category: Buchanan

Irish Readers and Other Items

Several items.

Over the past few days, we’ve had here (Note: this refers to the Blogger version of the blog, not the WordPress one here) quite a few page views from the Emerald Isle, and I welcome our Irish readers.  I hope you derive utility from this blog.

Racial nationalism in Ireland seems at an earlier stage of development compared to most other Western European nations, as well as in the USA, and in the long run, that is a good thing, as that allows Irish activists to get things on a correct footing at the beginning, and avoid pitfalls, such as that which has impeded the American “movement” (including in America, ironically enough, hostility toward the Irish and Irish-Americans).

I would suggest taking a close look at the work of Dr. Frank Salter on ethnic genetic interests, and to carefully consider the basic tenets described here.

Koreans, contra the heavy-breathing HBDers, are not quite along the road the self-destruction as has been described by those frosty individuals who value East Asians over Europeans.  Speaking of Asia-fanatics, the top photo accompanying the article is as good a visual description for the real derivation of Silk Road White nationalism as any other.  Got to get the Korean girls, as well as the Chinese ones, as border guards for the West, eh?

Buchanan, possibly getting mentally feeble in his old age, confuses the multiculturalist Putin with an ethnonationalist.  Hey, Patrick, there’s a difference between “Russian speakers” and “Russians.”  It’s the difference between civic nationalist multiculturalism and authentic ethnonationalism.

The Nazi Next Time

After Trump, the deluge?

The hysterical angst of the Republican Establishment concerning the rise of Trump is glorious to observe.  Of course, the interesting thing is their complete lack of self-awareness, their lack of understanding that they themselves are responsible for the predicament they find themselves in.
One reason is that the GOP has been complicit in the demographic changes that have put them “in between a rock and a hard place,” politically speaking. On the one hand, Republicans look at America’s growing colored population and see the need to appeal to that demographic. On the other hand, the GOP base of support is conservative White Americans, particularly right-of-center White men.  To pander to minorities runs the risk of alienating the base; to secure the base runs the risk of alienating the coloreds. Up to this point, the GOP strategy has been to pander to the colored minorities, while throwing “bones” to the base in the form of phony “implicit Whiteness” and “dog whistling” rhetoric with no real-life political consequences. Heretofore, the GOP has mastered feinting right during the primaries, running centrist in the general election, and, in the rare cases of GOP Presidential victories (since Ronnie Raygun, we have had only the two failed Bush men being elected), governing from the left. Base anger has been silenced by “they have nowhere else to go” “lesser of two evils” electoral considerations.
But now, the rise of Trump is an ill wind blowing in the direction of the GOP elites: the base is starting to awaken and will not be forever willing to “vote for lesser of two evils” and support anti-White leftist Republican candidates.
But there is something else. The problem with Trump is seemingly not only his ideology of right-wing populism (real or fake), it is also because the Republican Establishment – with some justification – see Trump as an ill-informed, vulgar, obnoxious, childish buffoon, with no self-control and an embarrassing lack of gravitas.  Very well, but in response to those concerns I have two words: Pat Buchanan.
Like Trump, Buchanan ran for President as a right-wing populist Republican. In fact, there is considerable overlap in overt ideology between the two men’s campaigns. While lacking Trump’s “alpha jerk-boy” charisma, Buchanan has certain advantages that you would think would endear him to the GOP elites: Buchanan is a well-informed, articulate, religious man, with strong Establishment connections, and prior political experience in previous Republican administrations. Buchanan has always been an “inside-the-Beltway” man, and is not an obnoxious buffoon.
And how did the GOP elites deal with the more polished and political Buchanan?  With the same disdain and hysteria that they now reserve for “Der Trumpening.”  The Elite made it clear that they would never accept Buchanan as the nominee, they panicked over his early successes, they sabotaged his campaign (as I recall, they even prevented him from being on the ballot in some states), etc.  So, the case of Buchanan proves that the problem with Trump is not so much his repellent personal aspects, but his core of right-wing populism. Anything that appeals to Whites is anathema to the GOP, which is of course self-destructive given the nature of the GOP base (it is not for nothing that Sam Francis labeled the GOP “the Stupid Party”).
The point is that the GOP lost anyway with Bush and Dole in 1992 and 1996. While it is understandable that the incumbent would be favored in 1992, there was no excuse for favoring the “living mummy” “civil rights Republican” Dole over Buchanan in 1996. Favoring Buchanan would have solidified the GOP base and could have put the party in the direction of a right-wing populist track that could have genuinely benefited White Americans.
But, no. The elites sabotaged Buchanan and they suppressed right-wing populism for several electoral cycles. Now it has erupted in a more “virulent” form with Donald Trump. Instead of learning their lesson and understanding that the base cannot be taken for granted, instead of understanding that they need candidates that appeal to the base, the GOP elites are hell-bent on sabotaging Trump and suppressing right-wing populism for another couple of electoral cycles.
They may succeed but they are playing with fire. Who will come after Trump?  Who will be the next right-wing populist?  As even worthless and weak Whites become more aggressive out of sheer desperation, who will they turn to next?  Someone more extreme and firebrand-populist compared to Trump to the same degree Trump is compared to Buchanan? 
It won’t be “the fire next time,” but it may well be “the Nazi next time.”  The GOP elites had better hope that their country clubs are well fortified indeed.

Buchanan: Us vs. Them

Buchanan telling it like it is.


Note the part about Turkey. Culture matters. The problem with Turkey is not only due to whatever genetic and phenotypic difference exist with Europeans.  Is the combination of those biological differences with the enormous gulf in culture and history – Europe and Turkey belong to different civilizations that have been in opposition for most of their respective histories.

The biological and the cultural affect each other and cannot be separated.

Missing the Meaning of Trump

Even Buchanan does not get it.
The major issue is not whether he wins, but why is he getting so much support.  Putting aside all the girlish shrieking about “the Trumpening,” the reality is the Trump is a fairly lousy candidate: an obnoxious buffoon, a realty show star, ill informed, whose views on legal immigration are questionable, whose daughter is married to a Jew, etc.
But he is by far the best of the bunch, and the only one who can be called a “right-wing populist,” despite his pro-fatcat economic views.
Thus, the real meaning of Trump is that the GOP White voting base is beginning to stray off the reservation; the natives are getting restless.
Sure, the base is still stupid and feckless: see the support for Carson, and note that most of the base will rally to whoever the GOP nominee will be, even if Jeb or Marco.  But, still, the enthusiasm for Trump, which puzzles the Establishment, is a clear sign that the base is at least beginning to wake up, although this process may take altogether too long (and could become channeled in counter-productive directions).
Nevertheless, it is NOT business as usual in American politics. One wonders – if Duke was running this year, how much support would he get?  
And all the talking heads who assert that “the GOP could win the national election in 2016 by shifting left on immigration” still don’t get it. Yes, most of the stupid base may still come out to support that, but enough may stay home to ensure a Democrat victory.
At some point, even dumb Whites can’t continue to be fooled all of the time.

Another Two Conservative Fails, 4/4/15

Buchanan doesn’t get it.

Stand up for Indiana.  That’s great. Pat.  But as you no doubt know by today, Indiana is unwilling to stand up for itself.  Let’s be honest. The law was passed to protect private individuals and businesses, etc. who do not want to serve potential clients whose lifestyles conflict with the beliefs of those providing those services.  Essentially, the law was to allow religious Christians to discriminate against those practicing alternative sexual lifestyles – the paradigm being refusing to provide a wedding cake to a “gay marriage.”  Now, why such a law is necessary to begin with is baffling to me, since I had thought that private individuals and businesses had freedom of association.  Well, that’s not strictly true, since businesses over a certain size are forced to practice “non discrimination” in hiring, but I had foolishly thought that businesses could choose whether or not they want to provide a service.  My naivete about the New America is therefore exposed – mea culpa.  So, it seems the law is necessary.  So, very well, that was the law and that was its intent, so much is obvious to everyone.

But, conservatives are defensive cowards with no backbone, no staying power, who “cave” under the slightest, the lightest, of pressure.  So, after the hysterical squeals from the SJWs, Indiana’s resistance collapsed, and now the law will be “amended” to prevent religious-based discrimination against gays. But that was the entire point of the law!  It’s like if a polity decides to pass a law allowing “right turns on red” for drivers, but they then amend the law to say that any turning on red is prohibited.  Can we then agree that the law is now meaningless, and that the proponents of the law have been defeated?

Doesn’t Buchanan understand the nature of conservatism by now, after a lifetime in politics and political commentating?  Conservatism is the ideology of surrender, it is the ideology of always ceding ground to the Left, it is the ideology of re-inventing the liberal status quo as the new thing to conserve. And the Left continues to push forward.  The new status quo is non-discrimination against gays, and that religious Christians must tolerate gays. This is now the new “line in the sand” conservatives will defend, when the Left comes up with their next demand (*): all heterosexual religious conservatives must themselves engage in homosexual acts at least once per week.  Mandatory homosexuality!  And we’ll see the conservatives pass laws prohibiting that, and strongly defending the “traditionalist” view that everyone can do as they please, and we certainly can’t discriminate, and we all should “celebrate our differences,” but that it is unreasonable to force people to be gay.  But, no worries, after being accused of homophobia, the Christian conservatives will be the first to pull down their pants and bend over, while proclaiming that enforced homosexuality is the new conservatism to defend.  After all, next they’ll have to fight against mandatory sex change operations…

*Tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but then we shouldn’t be surprised by anything.

Defending Asians.  Here we see a HBD-style Buchanan, agonizing over the possibility that precious high-IQ Asians may be discriminated against. Heaven forbid!  Blasphemy!  Horror and Terror! Terror and Horror!  But, don’t worry Pat – those Asians with their relentless ethnic nepotism and hate-filled anti-White discrimination will do alright for themselves.  It’s the atomized Whites, beset on all sides, who’ll really suffer – but who cares about them, when a “model minority” is made to feel uncomfortable for a microsecond. Conservatism is ultimately aracial, and Buchanan apparently doesn’t consider these Asians to be enemies, which would be right and proper.

The Bunker Syndrome

Lack of political maturity.
I was recently reading in the news about a group of English soccer fans who, while chanting “we’re racist,” refused to allow a Negro to board a train in Paris. This was, as one can imagine, inflated into an international incident, plastered across newspapers and websites, certainly more important to the System than those mild shenanigans in Rotherham (completely forgotten about by now).  Let us for a moment forget that a Negro has no business being in Paris to begin with, and consider the deeper meaning of this incident.
When such things occur, I wonder about the perpetrators.  Of course, we do not know who they are, but I very much doubt that these are any sort of real racial nationalists or ethnonationalists. I wonder who they vote for back in England, who they support. Maybe the Conservatives. Maybe even Labour (do you doubt it?). Maybe – “at best” – some support the UKIP.  If Nick Griffin was running for office how many of those “racist” soccer fans would vote for him, as opposed to the mainstream conservatives?  Most likely, not a single one. The “bigotry” of these soccer fans is personal, not political. There may well have been alcohol involved. Typical of the juvenile and feckless creatures Whites have become, displeasure over race replacement does not manifest in practical political action, but in carefully hidden disquiet that will rarely erupt in a silly display of (drunken?) hooliganism.
There used to be a TV show popular in 1970s America, All in the Family, with one of the most famous characters in television history: the blue-collar White bigot Archie Bunker.  This being a Jewish-created show, Bunker was of course shown as ignorant and buffoonish, no surprises there. But, that said, he did – and still does – represent something about Whites that remains a serious problem for nationalist progress.
Despite all of Bunker’s anger and frustrations toward minorities (and also White ethnic Catholics), he was – what?  A neo-Nazi? No, not by a longshot.  Bunker was a supporter of Richard Nixon, the Republican President who promoted affirmative action and busing. Bunker gave his ardent support to a politician who enacted policies that were complete anathema to Bunker’s fundamental racial beliefs.  Thus, the problem: Bunker’s racialism never expressed itself in practical politics, it never manifested in a manner that could influence public policy or in any way modify the historical currents to which he objected.  Like White “bigots” the world over, Bunker’s racialism was private, manifested in “venting,” and bluff displays of “politically incorrect” verbal bravado (and even that is forbidden today), not in any sort of useful activism, not even in making the right choice on election day.  
White “bigotry” is childish, useless, sterile.  It accomplishes nothing but to energize the anti-White Left, and give more ammunition to the forces of White dispossession.  I’ve had Bunkers in my family; I’ve known their behavior well.  You the reader may have had the same experiences in your family. Folks who sputter with venom about “the niggers and the spics,” and yet go on to vote for Nixon or Bob Dole or George “Open Borders” Bush or John McAmnesty or any of the others.  These are folks who are deeply upset about illegal immigration and who will rail against “dem wetbacks crossin’ the border” but then they’ll flock to the polls and eagerly vote for a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio. Their bigotry is all “hot air,” it is “sound and fury signifying nothing.”  And as their world crumbles around them, they begin to find that even this harmless venting, this juvenile name-calling, even that is no longer allowed. it is “hate speech,” and they has better learn to just “shut up” and vote for whatever White-hating, immigrant-loving, far-Left GOP candidate is being championed by FOX news.
There are some who would make excuses for the Bunkers. Why, they say, there’s no choice on the ballot!  Better Nixon than McGovern!  Putting aside the issue of why the Bunkers allowed their nation to be stolen from them, so they are constantly presented with such non-choices, the fact remains that, even why a small level of choice is in fact presented to them, they don’t take advantage of it.  David Duke ran for President several times. He did very poorly. What fraction of “White bigotry” supported Duke?   A small fraction indeed.  Pat Buchanan is a moderate paleoconservative and no racialist, and it is true he was part of the Nixon administration. But compared to other Republicans, Buchanan at least represents a sliver of difference compared to the neoconservative juggernaut.  How did Buchanan’s Presidential aspirations fair?  Also poorly.  Republican primary voters, far more “conservative” than the general White population, favored the likes of Bush Sr. and “civil rights Republican” Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan.  If even someone like Sessions, a System Republican who takes a hard line against immigration, were to run for President, do you doubt that the Archie Bunkers would still vote for Jeb and Marco, all the time muttering under their breath about the “illegals stealing our country?”  
Europeans are not much better.  Significant fractions of Europeans express strong opposition to mass immigration in opinion polls, and then these same people cheerfully go to the ballot box to vote for a Merkel, a Sarkozy, a Cameron, or worse. I have no doubt that in, say, Greece, the fraction of the population vehemently against immigration is significantly larger than the fraction who vote for Golden Dawn.  But these “bigots” will instead vote for pro-immigration conservatives or even for Syriza. 
The problem is not just that we need to “wake more White people us,” it is that those who are at least partially awakened refuse to act upon their beliefs and upon their “awakened” status.  Like Archie Bunker, they’ll mutter and complain, shout racial slurs at soccer games, prevent Negroes from boarding trains, leave comments on Internet blog threads, but they won’t even vote the right way in the complete privacy of the ballot.
This “Bunker Syndrome” represents a major impediment to progress: even when Whites know,  they do not act.  Even when they know, they will not vote for the far-Right.  Even when they know, they remain complicit in their own dispossession.  So, the “movement” had better be aware that it is not enough to educate and “awaken,” one must somehow instill political maturity and seriousness into a population that behaves like a bunch of semi-retarded children. That will not be an easy task.

On Paul and Putin

The pathetic “movement.”
One of the most pathetic aspects of the travesty known as the (American) “racial nationalist movement” (aka “White nationalism”) is the fanboy “man on the white horse” syndrome that exists with so many “activists.”
On the one hand, we have the Paul family, that gets many folks all hard-breathing and starry-eyed come election time.  Ron Paul, that decrepit old fraud, was bad enough, but his son – named after a particularly obnoxious Jewess – is infinitely worse.  Rand Paul is firmly established among the hardcore anti-White far-left, and there really can be no doubt about that.  Come 2016, we’ll see how many breathless and fawning racialists flock to the Rand Paul banner.
And then there’s the king of the schoolgirl crushes – Trad Vlad himself.  Now, I agree with Strom on many things, likely on most things.  But two things I disagree with him most strongly are his high opinions of William “Who We Are” Pierce and Vlad “Let’s turn Russia Central Asian” Putin.  Putting aside the issue of Pierce for now, I have to ask – how many times do we need to discredit Trad Vlad before some folks understand?
Let’s try again.
This is what Putin cares about: he wants to be the powerful leader of a “strong Russia,” a Russia that has risen again to the level of a major world power.  Now, Putin will crack down on anyone within Russia who he believes opposes that agenda, and he will not hesitate to act against those like the Ukrainians who threaten from the outside.  What does this mean?  It means that if Jewish oligarchs threaten that agenda by looting the Russian state, then Putin will oppose them.  It also means that if Russian racial nationalists and other “extremists” threaten that agenda by valuing racial and cultural integrity over some sort of “Russian” Eurasian hegemony, then Putin will “crack down on extremism” as well.  If making comments on the “White birthrate” fits the agenda, then you’ll hear those comments.  If flooding Russia with Central Asians, and silencing anti-immigration Russian nationalists, suits that agenda, then that’s what will happen – and it has.
As much as I have sympathy for Ukrainian nationalists who have been exploited by the Jewish/US forces, the reality is that in this Russian-Ukrainian conflict, real racial nationalists do not have a “dog in the fight.” Certainly, Putin is no more pro-White than is Rand Paul.  And this sort of hero-worshipping “man on horse” fetishism is a sign of mental weakness – an inability to face up to harsh reality as it is, with a need to manufacture false hopes. “He’s really one of us,” they always cry – from Reagan to Paul Sr. and Jr., to Buchanan, to Putin.  No, he is NOT one of us.  Get over it and deal with reality as it is.