Posts Tagged ‘american politics’

American politics is repulsive.

If you were to look at social issues in America, one side is accidentally-on-purpose directed to direct protests onto ludicrous grounds. Look at the way anti-gun campaigners make a fuss over the legality or availability of extreme firearms that aren’t used in crime. Or think how irrelevant partial birth abortion and stem cell research are to the real abortion debate.

If leftists thought about it properly abortion (and its husband, immigration which goes hand in hand with it) is anti-socialist because its used against less affluent communities for the good of big business. Likewise imagine if gun owners were actively deployed against the ‘one percent’, instead of OWS being composed as it was of the smelly hippies, attention seeking queers and 20th century has-beens who hijacked the movement.

Want worker’s rights? Think right wing, become a socialist.

A national socialist…


Read Full Post »

I don’t know whether I’m banned from AltRight or not because I can’t post there anymore, however someone named ‘ConantheContrarian’ has personally asked me a question so here’s my response in case they want a reply from me. I’ve also replied to someone else named ‘stormrung e’ who raised dome interesting points as a reply to me. Incidentally I have an anonymous mailbox if you have any questions to ask that you think might deserve my time replying, I won’t mind.

“Skadhi, if I read your comments correctly, you are not an American. Whatever the case, who would be your ideal candidate for president of the USA? Just curious.”

I’m British and I don’t follow American politics all that closely in the first place, besides all that I oppose electoral democracy on principle. However none of the big four American parties – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green – actually appeal to me that much. Economically I’m a leftist because I support socially minded economic policies such as restrictions on banks and corporations, as well as state support for the most vulnerable in society. But on several social issues I’m closer to conservatives, especially as regards the family and reproduction. Out of the four I’m maybe closest to the Greens, but I still doubt I’m that close to them.

My perception of the UK and America is that lassez faire social liberalism has undermined the procreative and humanistic basis of our society whilst lassez faire ‘conservatives’ have undermined its economic basis simultaneously through their own parallel ideologies. Furthermore I see the social conservatism of Republicans/Tories and the social justice of the Democrats/Labour to be obviously insincere judging from their past records of empty promises. You could just say I’m not gullible.

Someone else named ‘stormrung e’ also replied to me about my ‘participating in what has become a line of thought dominated by agenda-driven unreality’. So I had a think about that.

stormrung e:
“First, refer to what Roman Bernard has written above.

But let me answer your question: Because by joining in a critique of European colonialism, you are participating in what has become a line of thought dominated by agenda-driven unreality.

For European civilization, the Age of Empire was a golden age.The United States realized this and when they became strong enough and defeated the weakening Spanish, embarked upon influencing Asian countries for their national good. This decision by a majority white U.S. had long-lasting influence on the region, and may be the primary reason why many Asian countries are booming today. (Source: The Hungry World-America’s Cold War Battle Against Hunger in Asia.)

So, if you join in the shallow leftist critique of European colonialism you deny, like leftists, the many good things it brought to the colonized peoples. You also miss the fact that the Bolivarian Revolution, like its Soviet father, is an imperialist project itself.

And you completely miss the fact, which nationalists should intimately understand, that the Bolivarian Revolution and International Socialism funds, supports, and invigorates its brother movements for indigenous rights and anti-white ethnic nationalism in the guise as anti-colonialism. (Source: Frenchness and the African Diaspora and From Toussaint To Tupac-The Black International Since the Age of Revolution.)

This is a plague of vision, as there are even some pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin nationalists who hate Jews to the point they will defend Stalin’s empire even though it enslaved the white countries surrounding Russia. White countries who were more than happy to be rid of the Soviet mess.

But this is endemic in left-wing thinking, which white nationalism seems to be dominated by today. I am wondering if Greg Johnson will be defending the ANC next. He should, because Chavez is a protege of Castro and old Fidel (along with the KGB) threw a lot of support to the ANC and their intellectual and strategic vanguard, the South African Communist Party (SACP). I don’t think any of these left-wing nationalists want to make the argument that the ANC and the South Africa they have created is worthy of our alliance and sympathies, do they?

They may! But if they do, let me end with a quote by Joe Slovo, the head of the SACP, whose name is on a lot of buildings and housing projects in South Africa today.

From a 1986 interview with the BBC:

BBC: But, can I ask what is a legitimate target?

Slovo – I think a legitimate target is the enemy and enemy is basically in uniform, but not all in Uniform. For example in the rural areas, our judgement is that virtually the whole farming community is part of the South African Defence Force.

White – Is it the white farming community?

Slovo – The white farming community… They live with their wives, they live with their children, but I believe in that case it is not acting (against) civilian targets when one acts against those people who are part of the enemy’s military machine in the countryside.”

Besides the fact my ancestors were subject to European colonialism (against other white Europeans), and our liberation was supported by the Axis and also by Mosley, I don’t agree that the age of the European empires was a Golden Age for the peoples that supposedly benefited. In Victorian Britain, this was the age of child chimney sweeps, the Highland Clearances, and various other kinds of one-sided exploitation that hardly constitute a golden age for whites in my mind.

I don’t think that anyone fair would wish to deny that colonialism helped the colonised in many ways, or that the native people in vast parts of the world (especially Africa) were better off under imperialism than they have been under dictatorship since. Nonetheless, those same societies are now being contaminated by ideas from the west that arrived thanks to the introduction into their lands of a western culture that was becoming debased – the Age of Empires was an age of capitalism and the time of Marx and Engels. Clearly Devi’s observation that ‘their fight is also our fight’ if foreigners share our ideals has never been more true, precisely because of the political effects of globalism upon formerly unconnected societies.

In the white homelands and even in the former ‘white dominions’, ethnic conflicts and disputes with indigenous minorities are naturally very rare and, when they actually do occur, are about ‘whites vs. whites’ rather than of ‘us vs. them’. For example in Sweden, a fuss is made over the rights of Sami reindeer herders as a means to stir up the dog-whistle kind of ethnocentrism, creating a red herring to detract public anger from the more deserving target of race replacement and rape by far more recent arrivals than themselves.

I do however agree with ‘stormrung e’ mind you about the kneejerk anti-Semitic Stalinists and I concur that anyone who supports someone like Slovo is not someone who shares our fight in the way Savitri Devi would have approved of.

Incidentally, if anyone is curious, what Roman Bernard wrote and that ‘stormrung e’ refers to (and that I pretty much approve of) was that we shouldn’t dwell on victimhood and that any non-western ethnies who see our people as racial enemies of kind are not worth supporting.

Read Full Post »

I don’t really follow American White Nationalism, but this piece from CounterCurrents (a site where I’m a persona non grata BTW) documents how what were once mainstream conservative positions became marginalised into ‘political extremism’ and the cowardice and sentimental moralism of Conservatives is outright complicit. In fact the whole piece of Hood’s demonstrates this so perfectly that there seems little point in selecting paragraphs or sentences from it to highlight his points.

And I don’t know what to think about Rockwell, as he was obviously a genius in his understanding of America’s cowardly ‘conservatism’ and in the nature of the Jewish Question as arising from secularised rather than religious Jews (the last part is confirmed as true by reading Kevin MacDonald), but made stupid mistakes. His use of Nazi imagery as a kind of ‘crazy wisdom’ was an ingenious way to get attention, but the association of a hated and recently defeated enemy with authentic American patriotism, merely made him an easier target for the cowards than were subversives like the Black Panthers.

Hood castigates Rockwell for thinking that the majority of Americans were secretly supportive of his own positions. Now I’m not an American and nor was I there at the time (I’m 21), but surely more Americans then were supportive of opposition to integration than were supportive of it. Sure most people are politically apathetic until a social issue comes and hits ’em in the face, but still, there are more nonelite whites than there are white elitists, and Rockwell’s intuition about public opinion was therefore broadly correct. However I suspect Hood was referring to Conservative pundit opinion. And on this he’s right, the great distinction between then as now was between elite and nonelite whites not people’s professed political parties. Metropolitan conservatives feel closer to liberals than they do to the interests of working class whites who have lost out the most from multiculturalism – besides that, they’re safe in their own ivory towers.

And yet despite the fact his support was grassroots, and despite his support for programs such as medicare, Rockwell – who associated fascism with state monopoly of the economy – never pushed for a socialistic policy as did the National Socialists in Germany, who successfully poached support from the ‘Mosaic German’ Communists this way. Even though most Americans at that time and now are averse to the word socialism, intelligent people will realise this to be simple Cold War conditioning along the lines of Pavlov’s Dogs. Understandably, most Americans at the grassroots level will desire socialistic policies as were provided by the NSDAP in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. Were American racialists more vocally social-minded – “We’re more concerned than corporate puppet Obama!” – they’d have more support from disadvantaged whites. And had Rockwell had less of a hangup about economic collectivism himself, who knows what America might be like today?

Rockwell as Conservative
Gregory Hood

“While Rockwell (accurately) saw the white race as the necessary root of America’s achievements, conservatives identified the secondhand products of Constitutionalism or limited government as paramount. The idea that these values were doomed to destruction in a non-white America simply did not register. Though Rockwell recognized the stupidity and impotence of the conservative approach, he didn’t have an effective response other than calling them stupid or cowards.

Commander Rockwell missed two critical opportunities. First, though he recognized the need for racial and class unity, Rockwell never presented a concrete program that outlined an economic and governmental alternative to American conservatism or progressivism. His National Socialism was almost exclusively focused on race, and his campaign for Governor in 1965 did not offer anything besides a promise to defeat the Civil Rights Movement. Though the later NSWPP program made a nod towards an “honest economy,” George Lincoln Rockwell never gave white workers a reason to support him besides opposition to integration. Attacks on financiers, corporate fraud, and capitalist sponsorship of the Civil Rights Movement were largely missing from his propaganda, which made it easier to paint the party as a publicity student, rather than a serious ideological movement.”

Read Full Post »

Meta Lane Blog

facts are good

Regulus Seradly

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Destroy Zionism!

Exposing the World Parasite

Counter-Revolutionary Traditionalism

This blog is run by a reclusive bachelor in his late 20's who spouts political incorrect rhetoric