View Single Post
Old September 8th, 2009 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
I posted this as a reply to Alex's VNN article on Buchanan, but it never appeared, so I am posting it here.

I always love it when Alex writes an essay. I don’t have time to sift through the discussion forum looking for his little gems. That said, I strongly disagree with his attitude here.

Pat Buchanan will not save us. Nor will Ron Paul. Nor will any politician. Nor will we be saved by race realist policy wonkery. I see no salvation for our race short of creating a new political system, either by replacing the US system as a whole or by seceding from it.

But Buchanan the writer and commentator has his virtues and his uses.

1. Linder constructs his argument about strategy in terms of crafting a message that gets to dim ordinary people. I am not sure that is the right audience. Historically speaking, dim masses don’t count for much, because they are easily controlled by elites with access to political power and the power to shape attitudes through education, religion, and the press. How would Linder’s strategy change if white nationalists focused on changing white elite opinion?
False dichotomy. We can't reach the masses without controlling tv, so that is out of the question. We go after whoever we can get - elite or average or dummies. We put out the message in multiple forms, which VNN has always done. Most WN is, as Rockwell said, aimed exclusively at the upper middle class. There's a place for that, but in many ways those are the people who have the most to lose, even in a multicultural jew-owned system.

Quote:
2. The white elites in the US are not dim. If dim is the average, the elites are above dim. Some of them are fiendishly intelligent. The white elites in the US can, however, be characterized by high degrees of individualism, conformism (the two actually go hand in hand), materialism, and insecurity about their status. The richer they are, the more insecure they are, because the more they have to lose.

3. They can lose status, of course, because in the US, status depends more on achievement than birth. In more traditional societies, one has status through birth, whether one is a street sweeper or an aristocrat. Here, one’s status is “earned.”

4. Now, in both kinds of society, it is other people who “grant” one’s status. If nobody will treat an aristocrat like an aristocrat, then he has no status. But for whatever reason, in a country like England, an aristocrat like Sir Oswald Mosley might take very radical political positions, and even go to jail for them, but enough people still recognized him as an aristocrat that his social standing was never destroyed. In the US, we are much more individualistic. We grant or withhold status based on what each person does or says, not who his parents were.

5. At first glance, that seems like a great system. There are certainly fewer barriers to upward mobility. In the United States, money buys anything.

6. Unfortunately, money also guarantees nothing. Thus the people who fight hard for upward social mobility are also haunted by downward mobility. They know that the very individualism that allowed them to rise also allows them to fall back. For if their business partners, social contacts, and others turn their backs on them, they can easily be ruined, and whether this happens is merely a matter of individual choice, based upon nothing more stable than calculations of self-interest.

7. Tocqueville long ago observed that American individualism goes hand in hand with a high degree of social conformity. Why is this? Here is my theory: human beings are social animals, with a need for social approval and recognition. In individualist societies, however, the extension of social approval and recognition is highly conditional and constantly re-evaluated. Therefore, one has to be more attentive to gauging and conforming to public opinion in individualistic societies. Thus a high degree of individualism and social mobility promotes a high degree of social conformism, because people also value social approval and social stability. (The ambitious love upward mobility, but once they get theirs, they want to hold onto it.)

8. This is why social mobility in individualist societies is most available to people who combine intelligence and ambition with a shallow, extraverted, conformist personality type. Frat boys with MBAs.

9. Furthermore, the more ambitious one is, the more one needs social approval and recognition, because one needs to secure the cooperation of more people to do bigger things. Thus as one approaches the pinnacles of the white money and power elites, one finds individuals who have higher and higher levels of ambition, aggressiveness, narrow cunning intelligence, extroversion, social conformism, and a pathetic, childlike insecurity.
Good analysis, these are indeed the ones who get ahead, as anyone who has worked in the corporate world can see. But I don't think you're drawing the right conclusions. If the elite in the Kwa today are conformists driven by money and status concerns, they won't join us until we've won or are on the verge of winning. Then they'll lie to themselves that they were winter patriots. And if the nazis start losing, they'll be the first to jump ship. Making a direct appeal to the upper middle class or even the rich is rather beside the point. The tiny minority who agrees with us or is principled will find us anyway. The rest will just scoff because they are philistine: all that matters i what kind of car we're driving, how much money we have in the bank, how many others genuflect before us. "If you were right, you'd be running things." The masses are women and animals in their fundamental attitude toward authority.

Quote:
10. No sane society should be ruled by people like this. But we were far better off when we controlled our own “symbolic realm” — the realm of ideas, ideals, honors, and opinion that governs the granting and withholding of social status.

11. Unfortunately, that realm has now been captured by an alien, hostile elite, the Jews, who have rigged a new status system to reward whites who betray their own kind and promote and engage in race-destructive behavior. The segment of society most controlled by this hostile elite is the entertainment industry, which is thus on the cutting edge of race destructive white behavior. Whites in Hollywood attain status through anti-natalism, feminism, homosexuality, miscegenation, adopting non-white babies, and the like. Where Hollywood goes, there goes America, if the Jews who are scripting our dispossession and extinction have their way.
And they have been quite successful - the average person acts like a movie star. He never wants to criticize anybody or take a position on anything unless he's 100% confident everyone will agree. Until we control tv, this will be the default position of the average person, who watches 8 hours of tv a day.

Quote:
12. The strategic question of White Nationalism, therefore, is: How do White Nationalists change elite opinion when our plutocrats tend to be shallow, extroverted, and insecure about their status, which happens to be determined by our polar opposites, the Jews?
You've answered your own question by your description of these elites. They'll join us AFTER we win. Hence, they are insignificant save as a subset of the main problem, the jews. We don't change the minds of the existing elite, we form a new elite. That's how the German-nationalist winners did it. Fundamental lesson: don't look to losers (conservative like Buchanan, Francis, Brimelow) for clues, look to winners - Nazis and jews.

Quote:
13. The problem is compounded when White Nationalists themselves aspire to attain or hold onto elite status. Aside from the personal benefits of such status to White Nationalists, such status is also beneficial to the movement, since elite members have greater access to the elite.
I could cite dozens of examples that prove this isn't the case. Lindbergh would be the best. No one could have more public respect, fame or money, yet he got nowhere speaking against the jew. The challenge is not to join the existing elite but to form a new one. A new elite based on honor and blood, rather than status and money. That's how the Nazis did it. That's the true alternative to the System. NOT being a whore. What a kooky fresh idea. NOT selling out? Unthinkable - yet strangely attractive.

If we don't even respect our own, how are we ever going to change things? If you're trying to fit into an existing elite, you're going to have to adopt their ways and value. That will reflect in reaching out to respectable, responsible people, and tailoring your political critiques until you're salonfaehig. That's the very definition of selling out.

Quote:
14. I believe that this is the context in which one has to understand the strategies of such people as Samuel Francis, Patrick Buchanan, and Jared Taylor. If I wanted to (a) promote white nationalism to status-conscious, insecure elites, and (b) maintain my own status and thus access to these elites, I would give a wide berth to the Jewish Question, since the Jews now control the status system in our society, and if they felt sufficiently threatened by people like Francis, Buchanan, et al., they would shut them down and destroy any access they might have to their preferred audience.
How has it worked?

It has failed.

My strategy could work. But it would threaten TOO's and Vdare's income, so you'll keep doing the same old thing: encouraging young rising WNs like James Edwards to take the 'jew' out of his post and replace it with 'liberal.' That's the wise move...if your consideration is your personal interests. Politically it's the wrong move.

As I say, ours is a quest, a cause, it is not a career. You should see that Sam Francis tried to have it both ways - that is exactly why I advocate forcing people like him to come down on one side or the other. Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan are and were career girls, and that's what they will always be. The type of change we seek does not come from career girls, it come from essentially religious crusaders.

As Eric Thomson says, "principles protect people." The principle that protects WN is excluding jews and publicly declaring ourselves pro-White. Not conservatives, and praising clowns like Gottfried and career-girl Catholics like Buchanan.

Quote:
15. If I were Francis, Buchanan, etc., I imagine I would play the following dangerous game with the Jews. Because they would work to shut down and marginalize anyone who was openly impervious to the Jews, one would have to signal a certain porousness to them, specifically by cooperating with whatever marginal Jews will associate with White Nationalism, e.g., Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Marcus Epstein, Paul Gottfried, etc. These Jews obviously think they are getting something by cooperating with White Nationalists, if only the chance to spy on our gatherings.
Come on, Greg. Where has this cleverness ever gotten us? Where did it ever get fat boy? He got EXACTLY what he would have gotten if he had openly declared for White Nationalism. Except he sacrificed all manliness, pride and integrity by trying to play both sides down the middle. How can you give any respect to the sowy old queer when there were people like William Pierce in the world?

Where has Buchanan or Francis ever cited Pierce?

The real problem here is that too many of the high-end WN are WN only intellectually. In their soul, they are cringing, hat-doffing, money-and-property-respecting conservatives. They write good stuff, I enjoy reading it, it probably serves some purpose...but it cannot produce the change we need. I urge you to read the NS stuff. You can learn an awful lot reading about the NS movement and the decisions it made, the different paths it could have taken. Do you not think that Hitler couldn't have sold out and taken a leading position with an established party? Of course he could have. Why didn't he? Because he wasn't a career girl. He actually meant it. And meaning it meant devoting his life to replacing a system he knew was bent on Germany's downfall. One thing the Nazis said that really struck me, I think Goebbels said it, was that the masses may be stupid, but they are acute in perceiving whether someone really means it. I like to put it, they know when someone believes his own bullshit. And if the person does not, they won't follow him. They might listen and laugh, but they won't follow him. And that's where all the Canny cleverness you seem to be advising comes a-cropper. Sam didn't mean it. Nor do any of his copycats. He was willing to call himself a White in public. He always kept the cause at arm's length. We might damage his career if he were seen with us in public.

Sam didn't mean it. And that's why I say that no one who takes his failed tack will succeed. You can't sneak up on the jews. Attracting conformist, status-and-money-driven whites is a mug's game. They will come when we win, until then they have nothing to offer. We need religious crusaders. We need people with nothing to lose. We need people with actual ability.

The question you should ask yourself, Greg, is whether you want to encourage more people to be like Sam Francis or like William Pierce. All the pretty writing in the world won't change anything. You have to speak out in public under your real name, and more than that you have to believe, and have the audience believe that you believe, the vital change you say is needed.

Our thing is a cause and a quest - it is not a career. When you praise cowards like Buchanan, who removed Hadden's Holo-refutation from his site, you're subsidizing cowardice. You're going to get more punch pullers. More Edwards worrying first about the effects on his career of naming the jew, and less about the truth, and what his people need to hear. Isn't it self-evident that cowardice is a bad thing?

Quote:
16. But we have to give White Nationalists some credit too, for they might think they are using these Jews to advance White Nationalism. Maybe they are foolish or naive to think this, but that is probably what they think.
Does Sam Francis seem clever enough to use jews? One laughs to type it. There's no way to beat jews except to stand up to them. Attack them. Laugh at them. Name them. Beat them down. Those are the proven ways to defeat them - not to act all cagey and sneaky and pretend you're outwitting them.

Quote:
17. If Francis et al. were merely working as fronts for the Jews, in order to mislead and sabotage White Nationalism, then why would they have any public affiliation with Jews? Wouldn’t that blow their cover? Wouldn’t that make their task more difficult?
Hold on. I have never accused Francis of being a front for the jews. Francis was simply a coward - a career girl trying to have it both ways. Francis, I believe, truly was a WN, he was just too cowardly to write what he knew, felt and believed openly. He can be dismissed as as gutless whiner. He wouldn't stand up for WN cause publicly, but he lambasted WN for not defending him when he was fired by the neocon Washington Times. That shows you his character.

Quote:
18. The mere fact that at people like Buchanan, Francis, and Taylor interact in a collegial fashion with certain marginal Jews does not constitute evidence that they are working for the Jews. It does not follow simply as a matter of logic. In fact, it would make more sense for them not to associate with Jews.
P.T. Taylor, yes. He is a front for the jews. He refused to take a PAID ad for The Line in the Sand. He takes the anti-White pro-jew position that jews can NEVER be mentioned as the cause of the laws he seeks changed - the laws ending free association and opening our borders. Jared Taylor's claimed position and his actual actions are irreconcilable and indefensible. He is not a WN, he is the jew's attempt to set up a storefront to attract whites disenchanted with Republicanism and drown them in the whirlpool of endless whining about nigger crime.

Buchanan is not a front for the jews, he is an anti-racist Catholic who believes white nationalism is immoral. He functions, with his knowledge, as a safety outlet for a corrupt and genocidal System. Buchanan justifies this because he holds to the fifties Catholic doctrine that a man's duty is to earn as much as he possibly can, and anything else is immoral. Even though Buchanan has no family and has millions in the bank. What Buchanan does, as a professional technique, is take the best arguments of the WN, geld them, and serve them to the masses, as a way to slay their hunger for real politics. But nothing ever comes from it. Praising him only means you'll get more people acting like him.

Quote:
19. It is certainly reasonable and prudent to be suspicious of the judgment of White Nationalists who think they can manipulate Jewish opinion to advance our cause. It is certainly reasonable to be cautious in dealing with such people. But suspicion is not proof, and using such people cautiously does not mean that they cannot be used at all.
You're not using them, they're using you. The right policy is to attack clowns like Gottfried, not suck up to them.

Quote:
20. As an introvert, I have little patience for extroverts, and highly extroverted, status-insecure elite members like George W. Bush strike me as especially soulless and contemptible. Frankly, I wish we could save our race without dealing with such people. In my darker moods, I wonder if a race that allows itself to be led by people who put trivial issues of personal status ahead of collective survival can be saved, or even if it deserves to be saved. There is something disgusting about people who have all the money in the world and permit themselves less freedom to speak their minds than a truck driver or short order cook. As N. B. Forrest once asked on VNN about Mel Gibson: How much money does one need to give the Jews the finger? I wish I could shame these people, but I cannot, for their sense of shame is held captive by our enemies. Thus I have little patience for efforts to soft sell these people on their own race’s survival. What kind of people need to be soft-sold their own survival?
The only one who could be shamed was Paul Craig Roberts. I cannot prove it, but I know that it was my shaming him for years that radicalized him. That's why I advocate the same treatment for the others. Even though it won't work in their cases, it will keep them and - more important - youngsters looking on in mind of the right politics and the right way to act. The fact is the urge to conform and obey authority is built in humans like dogs. Not much can be done about it. We simply have to form a new racial head, and attach it to the body of the people. But the body won't follow a head that doesn't believe it's own bullshit. The idea of Fat Sam slicking his way to success is about as plausible as him going down the chimney to deliver presents on Christmas eve.

If we want change, we have to get our hands wet.

Quote:
21. That said, Pat Buchanan has his uses. I recommend his books to skittish, insecure, status-conscious mainstream conservatives to nudge them in the right direction. If they like Buchanan and become comfortable advocating his take on the world, then perhaps they can be brought further still, by reading Sam Francis’ Essential Writings on Race, then American Renaissance, then maybe Kevin MacDonald.
But you can get all that without praising and sucking up to Buchanan.

What do you think is likelier to radicalize Buchanan? Praising him or mocking him as a coward? The answer ought to be obvious. The bolder we are, the wimpier he appears. If we WN don't do the pushing, no one does. We should be shouting to the world that we are not those worthless pathetic gutless cringing remonstrating eternal-loser conservatives. Not praising them and recommending them.

Quote:
22. Even if Alex’s worst suspicions about Buchanan are true
It's not a suspicion. I'm saying he's part of a System that is anti-White. I'm saying he is well aware of the fact that the System is anti-White. I'm saying he fully appreciates his own value to the anti-White system as a safety valve. I'm saying as a good little Catholic, he knows that the amount of money he can earn by filling his role in the anti-White media/political System outweighs all other considerations. Race is an abstraction - Pat Buchanan's, Peter Brimelow's bank account is a reality! $PLC - pathetic. How 'bout Vdonate? Peter Brimelow isn't concerned with saving the White race, he's concerned with ahering to ZOG's 501c guidelines.

Quote:
, that would in no way lessen the value of his books. Even if the Jews are using him to mislead, we can still use him to wean people away from mainstream Republicanism in the direction of White Nationalism. To think that such attempts would be doomed to failure is to underestimate our own power and to ascribe to the Jews some sort of occult force of invincibility that they simply do not have. That is how losers think.
Yeah, but they don't lead people our way. Buchanan does the same thing conservatives always do. He starts with a seemingly radical proposition and then works his way back to the party line. Yawn.

Quote:
23. I do not think Pat Buchanan is our competitor. I do not think he is our enemy. And even if he were, we are strong and clever enough to use him for our own ends.
If your idea of using him involves praising him then you don't get it. The minute you praise Pat Buchanan, who always pulls punches, you undermine our cause and shit on men who went the whole way in far more compelling prose than Patsy Decline ever put to paper. If you praise Pat Buchanan, he is using you.

Quote:
An afterthought: The depressing truth I am struggling to come to grips with is that our race must be saved IN SPITE OF ITSELF, and AGAINST ITS WILL. No healthy organism needs to be provided with a moral justification for its survival. But white people do. From a biological point of view, this is morbid and decadent. But since we are not in a position to simply remove this weakness, we have to deal with it. That is the most important strategic question.
No, not against its will. The people show in many ways they believe what we do. But being conformist animals, as we all are to good degree, they will not follow those who will not lead. You're angry at people who won't follow when you won't lead. That's precisely the Sam Francis position. You expect the ditch diggers to be better men than you are. That's not how Hitler and Goebbels operated. That's not how the jews operate. They are winners. Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis are losers. Stop looking to losers for tips. Otherwise you're fundamentally the same as the money- and status-driven conformists you began by deriding, because those are the only advantages the Buchanans and Francises have over the Pierces and VNNers.

The fundamental question is whether we believe our own bullshit - and give proof of it by our actions. There's no getting around that question. The people we seek will never follow anyone who talks life-and-death but won't use his real name in public, won't defend our race in explict terms, won't name the jew our main enemy.