The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left plays for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time.
Other things being equal, the side that fights to win will defeat the side that fights for a draw. Fortune favors the bold, those who launch offenses, not those who merely play defense.
Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. - T. E. Lawrence
Fundamentals of a New Movement
The overarching, basic fundamentals of a New Movement are listed here. The link leads to the relevant post below. Also see "The Fundamentals" post list to the lower right. This is our new path. If you agree with this direction, then join with us.
The Old Movement is dead. Let us instead build something that works, a New Movement, a fresh start.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Johnson on Why Conservatives Can't Win
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Pavel Tulaev Interview
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Some Futurist Writings
Monday, December 13, 2010
Kevin MacDonald's Good Sense
December 12, 2010 - 4:42 pm | Permalink
The term ‘White’ is useful because in fact the various White groups do have biological common ancestors. See, e.g., Salter’s On Genetic Interests. We are related and constitute a race or ethnic group. In America, where the various White groups are mixed, it makes no political sense to emphasize the various pure White ethnicities because there aren’t many pure types (e.g., I am German and Scottish) and because we need a larger category that has political potential. The designation of ‘White’ has a long history in American culture, although I am not averse to calling ourselves European-Americans. White Americans have common interests with various European indigenous ethnic groups and all of us have interests in defending Europe from invasion by Muslims and other non-Whites. Hence, it seems to me that a larger category like White that applies to all of us is useful. This is not to deny the reality and usefulness of particular White ethnic groups in the European context. For example, in Sweden, it makes sense to appeal to the traditional people and culture of Sweden.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Explicit White Nationalism
Friday, November 12, 2010
Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Death of Francis Parker Yockey
Greg Johnson on White Unity, Immigration, and America
A favorite argument of immigration advocates is to seek out Italian, Polish, Irish, or other “ethnic” (i.e., non-Anglo-Saxon) Americans, and say: “They wanted to keep you out too, you know, so how can you side with people who want to keep out Somalis and Haitians and Mexicans?” Of course, in doing so, immigration advocates tip their hand. They know diversity is a source of weakness among whites. It undermines our solidarity, and our enemies seek to exploit that.
To my ears, there is nothing more grating today than a white American talking about his “Anglo-Saxon” identity. It is grating for two reasons. First, most of them are Euro-mutts anyway. Second, pure Anglo-Saxons like me are the people who gave this country away in the first place, and if “we” are going to take it back, we are not going to do it alone. Perhaps, then, we should begin by shutting up, setting aside our old prejudices against fellow whites, and learning to work with the Irish and Italians and Poles who as a rule are far less hamstrung by “white” guilt, emotional repression, and reluctance to take our own side in a fight.
That said, I can still grant that the Anglo-Saxons of the past had good arguments for wanting to exclude other white ethnic groups. They knew that ethnic diversity was a source of social conflict and weakness, even when the diversity was among fellow whites. The same arguments are even more cogent today when applied to non-white immigration, since non-whites cannot be assimilated without the destruction of the white race and white civilization.
When it was founded, the United States was primarily an Anglo-Saxon society. If we really take seriously the idea that diversity weakens a society and homogeneity strengthens it, then we must conclude that the US should have striven to become even more homogeneously Anglo-Saxon. And that implies that if the US permitted immigration at all, it should have been only from Great Britain. That means no Irish, Germans, Poles, Swedes, Norwegians, Italians, Greeks, etc. need apply.
But immigrants from Europe are not like non-whites. The peoples of Europe have common racial and cultural roots that make it possible for Irishmen, Germans, Italians, and Frenchmen to all become Americans. Europeans can be assimilated. But non-whites can never become Americans, except in a purely legal sense. This means that immigration from the whole of Europe was not an unmitigated disaster for the United States.
But we must be objective enough to admit that it was a (mitigated) disaster nonetheless. Just because non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants were assimilable, that does not mean that they had the same interests as the Americans who were already here. Their arrival depressed wages, just as non-white immigration does today. Immigration aided the rise of an establishment of rootless, raceless men, just as non-white immigration does today. Immigration led to an increase in crime and violence, just as non-white immigration does today. Immigration diluted the political power of Anglo-Saxons, just as non-white immigration dilutes white political power today.
I do not deny that many immigrants who would have been excluded by this argument made enormous contributions to this country. But, by the same token, there is no way to calculate the Anglo-Saxon geniuses who may have been lost because of the social dislocations caused by immigration. Furthermore, it is possible to point out real contributions by Jews and other undesirables, but does that constitute an argument for letting them in? If the contributions of a Jonas Salk do not trump considerations of homogeneity, then why should the contributions of a Nikola Tesla?
How would the vastness of America have been settled without immigration? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Without immigration to fill sweatshops and coolie gangs with the half-starved refuse of Europe and Asia, the capitalist class would have lost a significant advantage over the working class. Wages would have been higher and work weeks would have been shorter. And since the only way to add new workers would have been reproduction, the system would have encouraged large families and made sure the children were properly educated. Big business would have developed more slowly, if at all — which is fine.
America’s large and prosperous working class would have developed much sooner, along with a large and prosperous middle class of farmers and shopkeepers. Both groups would have had the resources and the leisure to protect their rights and liberties from the plutocrats and do-gooders and war-mongers. America would have been a freer, less divided, more harmonious, and happier society.
Well, it was not to be.
Now white America is a mixture of people from all over Europe, slowly being submerged in a rising tide of mud.
If we are going to survive as a race, we have to unite as one. In this context, I understand why my fellow White Nationalists are hesitant to revisit old debates about immigration. How does it help the cause of white unity in today’s America to look at failed arguments to exclude the Irish, the Slavs, and the Italians?
The Americans of the past wanted to hold onto their Anglo-Saxon identity, and they failed. With each new generation, there is more and more mixing between the descendents of different European immigrant groups. What is emerging is a generic white American, with a sense of his interests merely as a white. The linguistic and cultural divisions of the Old World are fast disappearing, and with them the ability of our enemies to exploit them.
This need not be seen as a loss. After all, there is still a France. There is still a Poland. There is still a Germany. And Americans will probably still celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day and Oktoberfest. It will simply be the same crowd at both events.
But how is this a gain? America may be the place where we recreate the original unity of the white race before it was divided and pitted against itself. In order to preserve and advance this emerging (or re-emerging) white unity, we need to stop and then reverse the influx of non-whites into the United States.
Aside from barring non-whites, what sort of immigration policies would a White Nationalist America have? I would of course open our borders to persecuted whites in Rhodesia and South Africa. But does that apply across the board? Do we open our borders to persecuted Muslim Kurds and Afghans too? Some of them are not just white, but Nordic.
Here Johnson becomes absurd, and confuses phenotype with race. First, very few "Kurds and Afghans" are phenotypically "white" in the European sense, let alone "Nordic!" Second, even "Nordic" Asiatics are genetically distant from Europeans - a "Nordic" Afghan is going to be more genetically distant from a Swede than a swarthy Greek. Why not just stick to Europeans?
And how white is white? Most of the peoples of the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia have to be categorized as Caucasians. Even pure-blooded Dravidians of South India, unmixed either with the Aryans or with the Australoid aborigines, are Caucasian, even though their complexions are sometimes blacker than Blacks’. There is, in short, quite a lot of diversity within the Caucasian race.
But we should remember that in politics diversity brings weakness and homogeneity brings strength. Therefore, we should be quite hesitant to accept any immigrant simply because he or she is Caucasian in the broad sense.
Since the population and culture of white America is still primarily Northern European, I would like to see immigration policies that preserve and strengthen that element. If we value greater homogeneity, the quickest way there is to promote immigration from Northern Europe.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Individualism-Collectivism on a Global Scale
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Judging, Accuracy, and Costs of Democracy
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
What Will Work, II
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
What Will Work, I
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Whites, Class, National Socialism and Leftist Pathology
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Pathology of Moral Universalism
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
White Anxiety and Higher Education
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Is EGI Degenerate?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Race and Culture
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
TOO blog post here.
Original essay posted at Western Destiny below:
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Yockey's Alleged "Plagiarism"
There is nothing original in the content of this book, the book itself only is original.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Another Kurtagic Essay on Strategy
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Salter in Quadrant Online
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Cancer of Bureaucracy
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Another Defense of Free Speech
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
MacDonald on the Costs of White Advocacy
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Against Free Riding
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
MacDonald: White Empathy and Ethnocentrism
Saturday, April 24, 2010
MacDonald vs. Auster
Excellent rebuttal to Auster's mendacity is here.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Movement Image and Social Construction vs. Social Pricing
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Centrism and the Media
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Overman High Culture: Future of the West
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Western Big Tent
For my part as a Western Man, my friends are those who are friendly to the Western Tradition, and my enemies are those who are enemies of that tradition. I find much of value in Eastern and other traditions. But as Kipling wrote: “East is East, and West is West.” We can coexist and share ideas and recognize threads common to the human experience. That said, everything is not the same; everything is not everything. My people were never samurai. We have our own history — a history that includes Roman legions and Vikings, knights and Crusaders, conquistadors and cowboys. The artistic, philosophical and technological achievements of the West are truly awe-inspiring when compared to any standard. We can claim one of the richest traditions on the planet.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Ted Sallis: EGI and Separatism
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Taylor on the 2010 Amren Conference
In Support of White Nationalism
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
TOQ on AR Meeting
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Sallis on the A3P
Friday, January 1, 2010
Norman Lowell Interview, 2009
Sallis vs. Malik