What is the use of Racialist or "White Nationalist" Politics?

8 posts

Bronze Age Pervert

I've thought for some time that the position of people on places like AltRight (not to speak of Phora, etc.) amounts to a lot of vanity-driven personal primadonna grandstanding: to take any position at all that is on the edge of political discourse in order to make themselves look unique in comparison to mainstream Republicans or even to Tea Partiers, who are then painted as "a bunch of pussies," etc. This isn't to say I disagree with the idea that race is politically important, or with the fact that most Repooplicans are in fact pussies, because I agree with both things; but I also think the conflict between democracy and aristocracy is important. And yet though I stand on the side of aristocracy I don't go around in public (including writing in public) calling for the overthrow of democracy and its replacement by an aristocratic system. I realize this is not going to happen, it's ridiculous in a modern state not to speak of modern America, and its only purpose would be to attract attention to myself and discredit every other position I take. Now, my argument is that the "racial" right is for the most part (not in every case) doing just this; because if they really cared about the particular issues they say they care about, they would try to find the arguments that would be most conventional, and argue those well.

Take for example immigration. I agree with the Sailer's case, including both his references to HBD and to the fact that America was conceived historically as an Anglo nation; I agree with Putnam's study about the social ills inherent in "diversity"; I agree with Gottfried and others that American Jews promote open borders and other similar things for noxious ethnic and pathological reasons; and so on. I wonder, though, what any of this adds...in other words if there are already vaguely mainstream or even "neocon" reasons to oppose third world immigration, arguments that are much more powerful in public, what is the point of adding these other things?

Here for example is Mark Krikorian

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/embed/zRgUL4Xz68Y

You can see at the beginning of this video that he takes a non-racial ahistorical view (and in my opinion a very wrong view) that "the immigrants of yesterday were just like the immigrants of today," and pays lip service to other such nonsense. He seems to have no reference in his mind either to racial realities, or to America historically conceived as an Anglo/Northwest European nation. So I was getting ready to hear a compromiser, and pettifogging weak-kneed attack on "illegal" immigration; but by the middle of the interview, I liked him, in fact he manages to support a very vigorous anti-immigration position. The question is then how would it have helped him at all to bring up any of the other things I mentioned...that would have just alarmed some people, and arguably played into the hands of the open-borders people. And his case against immigration would have been no stronger than it already is.

President Camacho
You seem to believe that the most important aspect of anti-immigration agitation is to connect with "mainstream" voters, but by definition in America this entails dropping any reactionary ideas from a program in favor of liberal ones. For a purported supporter of aristocratic detachment your concerns here seem misplaced-- why would you be interested in semantic bickering between liberal democratic ideologues?

There is no electoral solution to these kind of problems. Individual Americans living near the southern border, for example, need to take direct action as the "Minutemen" folks did. They need to go one step further though, and start ignoring the Federal judicial/bureaucratic edicts when they come down on vigilantism.
Bronze Age Pervert

Well there's a difference between action and ideology; you can take extreme action based on very moderate ideology for example. That aside, you don't answer my question...look at the interview and ask, "How could racialist/HBD/etc. arguments that you hear on AltRight and elsewhere in any way improve Krikorian's argument?" I don't see it. Even if Krikorian is a "liberal" according to your exacting standards, what exactly is lacking in his opposition to immigration, and what would be the use of WN or racialist or other fringe political ideas in making the case better...

You misrepresent what I said about my preference for aristocracy. The point was that if that's what I believe, my position is to keep out of politics altogether, at least on that issue...I don't go around agitating for it; just as if you believe that an Orthodox Byzantine theocracy, or some other system of the past, is the best form of government, it's rational to keep out of politics on that issue at least and not go around believing that you can force it to come about, electorally or otherwise.

By contrast, there certainly is an electoral solution to immigration, I don't see why not. And my bigger point is that political solutions to present political problems will by definition have to be "mainstream." The far right was mainstream in 1920's Germany. Right now it's at the level of New Dawner popularity (maybe less)...it's a non-issue.

By contrast if you believe, as I do, that the problem of America has no solution then the answer is to move to Manila and enjoy yourself...I think if you believe that then it's arguing in bad faith to start proposing "solutions" or calling conservatives "pussies" because they don't sound like some nobody from AltRight. Many are pussies, but many others are doing what's possible within the political system, which is here to stay. This guy in the interview seems to be one of them, another is Heather MacDonald from City Journal, etc.; these internet people by contrast just want to stake out some "edgy" position and show off it seems to me...

Bob Dylan Roof

Good poaste...just a few thoughts.

The conventional arguments antedated, and now co-exist with, the current egalitarian tendency, suggesting their inadequacy. The whole system of entitlements, quotas, redistribution, invade-the-world-invite-the-world, etc. is premised on the myth of equality, which in the end must be completely destroyed and not tolerated or tactfully circumvented for the purpose of achieving short-term goals. The abject failure of mainstream conservatives to adequately address the prevailing egalitarian mythos, e.g., the McCain campaign's reluctance to address Obama's obsession with racial politics, suggests that there is no longer any mainstream redoubt for genuine reactionaries.

Retrospectively it may seem ridiculous that Marxism could be openly advocated and accepted in the putatively robust social system described by classical liberal natural right, and yet socialism was able to take root in spite of its heterodox and outlandish demands.

I agree with this assessment because I've fallen into the same narcissistic, masturbatory theorizing and posturing in blatantly inappropriate milieus. Altright is a sterile intermediary species in the evolution of the new right that occupies an untenable position between practical analysis and hifalutin critique; it is destined to close down. Sailer is different, though. His "citizenism" manages to be quite practical while also addressing the egalitarian fallacies that undergird the social services/managerial/democratic entitlement industrial complex from a practical scientific perspective.

The theoretical discussions belong in some sort of academic environment...
White Nationalism doesn't really exist anymore. Its a Cold War relic that had currency during the post-colonial era into the 1980s, as there was a convergence of interests between displaced native white workers and traditional elites who were (rightly) alarmed by the global incitement of a 'colored revolt' against white world supremacy, buttressed by Soviet communism. The 'White Nationalist' view was very much heard on foreign policy questions as well as domestic security issues relating to how to manage non-whites in revolt. It no longer has a context because the colored revolt has been placated and a World War at present isn't remotely likely, and even if it were, it wouldn't reflect the White/West vs. Colored/Eastern dyad that characterized the Cold War conflict.

There is no present 'use' for White Nationalist politics. There is a present use for revisionism and critiques of how whites view themselves at present and in history. This doesn't really have anything to do with what Republican senators are saying or what obscure academics on the internet are saying. Its simply a mode of thought that intelligent whites will arrive at when they consider political problems critically. Not everything is a 'political party' or a 'movement'. That's backwards thinking.
President Camacho
Well, you're phrasing your argument in democratic terms, ie, "What can we do to get people to vote for anti-immigration candidates?" That fight is already lost IMO; people need to start seceding from the official political process, not lend it legitimacy by playing an active role.
The immigration issue will be solved in time, after one or two more generations of kids grow up surrounded by third worlders and begin to form a common white American identity again. This century will see the state gradually lose power in favor of racial/cultural/religious loyalties, and whites will be no exception. Only when organic communities based on kinship and trust regenerate in America (they are currently illegal) will political change become a possibility.

It's not something that can be effected now by appealing to government to take action. The DNC-GOP duopoly have vested interests in maintaining the status quo, and even if you somehow managed to elect a fanatical nativist pres he'd be a lame duck whose political decisions would be ruled "illegal" by SCOTUS and not enforced by the INS anyway. The closest Republicans ever came to "taking a stand on immigration" was McCain's bill-- "draconian" by the estimation of some faggot Dems and Hispanics -- which would have essentially legalized all the illegals currently here and put up some toothless restrictions on future immigration.

The entire political culture and state machinery in America is hostile to anything traditional or reactionary, this is what you fail to acknowledge. The solution therefore is to strip the state of its legitimacy by ignoring and circumventing it whenever possible. The grand irony is that negroes and lumpenprole immigrants who are supposed beneficiaries of the welfare state already do this. They generally don't pay taxes, trade heavily in the black market, have gang/religious/extra-national loyalties in lieu of "Americanism".... by importing incompatible third worlders with dubious primary loyalties the elites are only hastening the de-legitimization of the State, creating a happy hunting ground for insurgents of all stripes.
1. You don't see why not? You must be missing the core argument of the WNs or more moderate nationalists: because the democratic system doesn't work, when the will of the people doesn't coincide with the will of the transnational corporations. The overwhelming amount of people don't have any strong opinion on any subject beyond their district - hence, they can be coerced via manipulation of mass media. And here we reach the point of how accessible the conflicting points of view on the subject of immigration: the powers that be promote their side of the story since school textbooks and through every mass media outlet, while the guys on the other side have to dig up some book of some Kevorkian to hear the second opinion, i.e they have to be intellectually curious, which already cuts down the electorate to, I don't know, 10%? Maybe less?

2. And here's point two: large business and large influence groups aren't indifferent to the issue. They bankroll those, who promote their position, and democracy is just that, the more coverage in mass media, the more event-making = the bigger chances to win 'public opinion' and public votes.

Hence when you try to honestly fight for public coverage to make yourself heard, you'll lose most of the time, since the game itself is rigged in favor of the big spenders: charisma and intellect don't buy you TV commercials and coverage.

3. The far right was mainstream in Germany, because their interests coincided with large oligarchy/bourgeoisie. Right now, they are opposite. The usual argument about Germany is lacking for evident reasons.
Four major differences:

a) There was a whole cohort of intellectual elite, that sympathized with romantic goals of socialism, despite the harsher reality.

b) There was a country, one of the richest countries in the world, that served as an 'inspiration'.

c) The host country was willing to bankroll socialist and communist parties around the world.

d) Transnationalist bourgeoisie didn't exist back then. Corporations couldn't pressure whole governments to take their stand for them.

In my opinion, there's simply no exit out of the existing system (for those, who want to change it, that is), other than through a revolt and subversive activities, on par with what the Europe has witnessed recently.