IF YOU WONT WORK FOR US, THE OTHER SIDE CAN USE YOU

IF YOU WONT WORK FOR US, THE OTHER SIDE CAN USE YOU | 2012-10-15

One thing you should keep realizing is how points made here seem to tell the future.

For example, it looked a little funny to some people that, when I was concentrating on race, I had a lot of space on the nature of institutions. Now we are running into a situation where American Renaissance must be understood as an institution.

We certainly LIKE American Renaissance, but the danger is that it will go the Republican/respectable conservative route.

In the early 1960s the very idea of a conservative getting air time was intolerable. All political discussions on national TV consisted of two liberal Democrats and one or two liberal Republicans.

Two SEPARATE things happened. First, conservatives stopped being purely defensive and began to denounce the shibboleths of liberalism openly. By 1968 Nixon and Wallace had an overwhelming majority of the vote.

This was undermined, not by a Conspiracy meeting in Lower Broscupal or somewhere, but by a natural tendency. Liberals, who owned the media both literally and figuratively, chose conservative "opponents" they felt comfortable with.

The result was surprisingly effective for the left. Conservatives survived professionally if they looked like all-out opponents to their own featherheads but gave the other side what it needed.

Respectable conservatives have taken on a role as RATIFIERS of liberal policy. No one denounces "reactionaries" and "racist" as loudly as the professional right. But this obedience is not the big thing, the ratification.

Leftist policies go through many years of being denounced by professional conservatives. But, inevitably, the day when they can say, "Even conservative columnist George Will" or "even William Buckley now agree that..."

This means the policy has now become that of "both sides," and there is no room for further debate.

Anyone who listened to part of the debate Jared was part of in Canada can see how this could easily happen to pro-white institutions. From the first word, Jared conceded and conceded and conceded, not by statements but by silence.

And silence is the other side's weapon.

If there is a policy in place to wipe your race off the face of the earth and you join with the other side in refusing to mention, that it is too radical, it is ratification. I have no suspicion that Jared and friends are doing this on purpose.

They are just politically naÃ¯ve.

I have been in the midst of things while politically naÃ¯ve conservatives became the best friends leftism ever had.

COMMENTS (8)

#1 Jason | 2012-10-15 07:05

If it's true that the social dynamics favor the inevitable rise of pro-White spokesmen, we must make sure they are the right spokesmen and we must develop ways to either influence these pro-White institutions or make sure our kind are in the driver's seat.

Because if the pro-White movement goes into the same slot that Respectable Conservatives have, then we still get genocide (just with a pat on the head). That's not why any of us are here.

Maybe we should identify the major mistakes the AMPW's are making? The central one, of course, is failing to notice GENOCIDE. I don't see how you can be a spokesman for a people, but fail to notice they are being GENOCIDED. How does that work?

They may disagree over the use of the term GENOCIDE, but then they need to do research, look up the UN Treaty. It seems to be working for the Tibetans. I value my people as much as the Tibetans value theirs.

The other thing I notice about some pro-Whites, especially the "White Nationalists", is a weird kind of pan-nationalism. They are MAINLY for groups having total self-determination and homelands, and as a SUBSET of that, they argue for Whites to get the same. That whole approach strikes me as silly and here is why:

No one is taking any homelands away from black Africans. Or the Chinese. Or the Japanese. Or the Latinos. Or the Middle Easterners. It is just WHITES and ONLY Whites that are losing homelands. So, why are we wasting time worrying about whether China has a homeland or not, when of course they will, for the next 500 years? It also comes across as weak, like we are asking other ethnic groups to be our protectors. When has this ever been a wise strategy? Why should the defense of White people be farmed out to people in Zaire and Vietnam? It strikes me as moral cowardice, as if they are trying to get people of color to vouch for our desire to exist, as if we need "cover".

I have even see a White Nationalist whom I used to respect, go on and on about the evils of White Supremacy and how Whites were "rapacious" in "stealing" resources from third world countries (never mind that we made them trillionaires in the process). It's a kind of weird Marxist White Nationalism that slanders our ancestors as much as any Anti-White.

I'll shut up, but I would encourage everyone to notice the BAD approaches put forward by misguided pro-Whites and catalogue them. You guys (and me recently) have worked too hard to hand over power to a bunch of people who don't know what they are doing.

#2 Daniel Genseric | 2012-10-15 08:05

<b>$ilence is acceptance. Please do not let them continue bullying you into acquiescence.

The spiritual reward will surpass any worldly gain. Come home to the camp of the saints.</b>

#3 Dave | 2012-10-15 09:09

Silence is how you "answer the whip", as if you were oxen being driven down the road.

And to hell with those who fall by the wayside.

This is nature and this is the world - the world that has ALWAYS existed.

And it is why it is so deadly to be distracted.

We must turn and confront those who wield the whip DIRECTLY.

IT IS SO EASY TO GET DISTRACTED!

And being distracted is Jared Taylor's and David Duke's sin.

It is our sin! It is the sin of forgetting what is real. And "forgetting" is THE PROBLEM.

We BUGSERS are not exempt from this problem at all.

#4 Gavin | 2012-10-15 11:04

Jared Taylor is using an old strategy (starch collar academic giving lectures) to fight a battle in the modern world. For us to focus so much attention on him would be like the Navy Seals constantly focusing on what a bunch of civil war re-enactors are doing. As far as I am concerned if Jared won't mention that every single White country in the world is in the process of being made into a non-White country and our race is being "assimilated" out of existence and call it what it is...genocide, he is just an irrelevant blabbermouth.

That may be a harsh thing to say but it's how I see things.

#5 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-10-15 11:37

Yesterday Bob also made a brief comment here about Jared's reply:

http://whitegenocideproject.com/too-hard-to-awaken-whites-to-white-genocide-an-exchange-with-jared-taylor/

#6 steadiness | 2012-10-15 17:56

We began to lose when Whites started to be afraid of the word racist and believing in the absurd lie that Jared Taylor recently described thus, the idea that race is an optical illusion is so wrong and so stupid, only a very intelligent person could convince themself to believe it.

We win if we can get enough Whites to no longer be afraid of the word racist.

I could see them perhaps convincing Glenn Beck, BillO, Hannity, and others to publicly assent to the word "racism" so that they can say that both sides denounce it. In fact, those people already do, that's what makes them respectable conservatives.

Ann Coulter recently was on a talk show with some Black academic, he was calling her racist and she was responding by calling him a child molester. That's why Ann Coulter is only a semi-respectable conservative.

Breitbart was never a respectable conservative. Very few people in the new right-wing blogs are.

That's really all there is to it. The anti-Whites are correct when they say that Whites have social power, they are correct when they say that their gains so far could evaporate overnight if they lose control for an instant.

I don't think we need to worry about spokespeople in the age of blogs. We will have to worry about getting pro-White politicians to stop using the anti-White terminology in maybe five years when being pro-White is no longer something that peoples careers are destroyed by the allegation of.

#7 Feu denfer | 2012-10-16 00:46

steadiness wrote:

"We win if we can get enough Whites to no longer be afraid of the word racist."

+1.

#8 premiseblog | 2012-10-16 00:50

"I have been in the midst of things while politically nave conservatives became the best friends leftism ever had"

The PREMISES of the politically naive conservatives are wrong: We must undercut the edifice of "human nature", "homo economicus equalis", and their polite edifice of Conservative Inc. will fall.

Bob, I am so glad you have revived the flagging pro-White arm of the Republican Party. Your writings have been the seed from which a new way of speaking has sprung.

I listen to the respectable conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.

They currently give me the impression of shell-shocked war survivors, POWS who only survived by spouting and accepting enemy propaganda.

The race-blind, "genocide-blind" nature of the modern conservative is based on the false premise of the equality of the human races in potential.

Your approach to hammering down this egalitarian, "everybody gets a start" Mommy Professor nonsense works.

But we need to have archers in formation as well, launching arrows, and projectile weapons at the towers.

Enter, M.G., the amazon of

"Those Who Can See."

You would do well to notice her contribution to our anti-Genocide formation: http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/