Continuing to pin our hopes on the electoral process(which is under the influence and control of an alien entity) as a means to stanch the bleeding and turn back the tide of our own destruction is a dereliction of duty and a forfeiture of the gifts paid for in blood by the Founders.
Why Conservatives Can't Win
by Dr. William L. Pierce
Some of my best friends are conservatives. I sincerely like them and I admire them for their genuine virtues: for their sense of propriety and personal integrity in an age of corruption, for their independent spirit and their willingness to stand on their own feet in an increasingly paternalistic society.
Therefore, I hope my conservative friends will forgive me for what I am about to write.
A Tragic Choice
There is not the least doubt in my mind that if I were forced to cast my lot with either American conservatism or with the left - old or new - I would choose conservatism.
But, fortunately, none of us is faced with such a limited choice. It would surely be tragic if we were. It would be tragic in the great sense, in the Spenglerian sense. We would be making the choice of Spengler's Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii - who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. We would be choosing what is right and honorable and in accord with the traditions of our race - and certain to fail.
For conservatives cannot possibly emerge victorious from the life-or-death struggle in which they are presently engaged. Although their opponents on the radical left may not attain their own goals - indeed, cannot attain them, because they are based on an erroneous conception of man and Nature - conservatives have proved themselves utterly incapable of preventing the destruction of their own world by those same radical leftists.
Revolutionary Advantage
Conservatives cannot win because the enemy to which they are opposed is a revolutionary enemy - an enemy with revolutionary goals and guided by a revolutionary view of life.
The advantage has always lain - and always will lie - on the side of the contender who is prepared to take the offensive, rather than maintaining a defensive position only. And the elementary natures of the conservative and the revolutionary determine that the one shall always play an essentially defensive role and the other and offensive role.
Besieged vs. Besieger
This defensive-offensive dichotomy does not apply absolutely to tactics, of course, but it does to strategy. The conservative may launch brief counterattacks - he may sally forth from his fortress to harry his revolutionary besieger - but in the long run he is always the besieged and the revolutionary the besieger.
The goal of the conservative is to protect what is, or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary is to radically transform what is, or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different.
Raceless Nirvana
Thus, the conservative talks of "restoring the Constitution", of halting crime in the streets, of keeping down taxes, of fighting the spread of drugs and pornography, of keeping Big Government in check. And the leftist strives for a utopia in which there shall be no war, no "repression", no "discrimination", no "racism", no bounds on the individual's freedom of action - a raceless and effortless nirvana of "love" and "equality" and plenty.
Never-Never Land
The conservative's goals may seem reasonable enough - and attainable. The leftists goals, on the other hand, lie in a never-never land far beyond the horizon of reality. And that is precisely what gives the advantage to the left.
When the conservative makes some minor gain - getting a "constructionist" on the Supreme Court or a Republican in the White House - he is likely to act as if he had just won the whole war. He sees the achievement of his aims just around the corner, he lowers his guard, and he settles back to enjoy the fruits of imagined victory. But the leftist is never satisfied, regardless of what concessions are made to his side, for his goals always remain as remote as before.
The conservative works in fits and spurts. He reacts with alarm to new depredations from the left, but is satisfied if he is able to fall back, regroup his wagons, and establish a new line of defense. The leftist keeps on pushing, probing, advancing, taking a step back now and then, but only to be able to take three steps forward later.
Defeat by Halves
If the leftist makes new demands - for example, for the forced racial integration of schools or housing - the conservative will oppose them with a plea to maintain "neighborhood" schools and "freedom of association". When the smoke clears, the leftist will have won perhaps half what he demanded, and the conservative will have lost half what he tried to preserve.
But then the conservative will accept the new status quo, as if things had always been that way, and prepare to defend it against fresh attacks from the left with the same ineptitude he displayed in defending the old position.
Evil Ideology
This continually shifting position is almost as great a disadvantage to the conservative as is his chronic inability to grasp the initiative. The revolutionary left has and ideology, evil and unnatural though it may be, and from this ideology come the unity and the continuity of purpose which are indispensable prerequisites for victory.
What can conservatives, on the other hand, look to as fighting credo, and immutable principal for which they are willing to sacrifice all? They have been retreating so rapidly during the last 50 years or so that they have completely lost sight of the earlier ground on which they stood. It has simply receded over the ideological horizon.
"Racists" Are Radicals
Consider race, for example. Half a century ago men like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were spokesmen for the conservative position on race. They argued eloquently, albeit defensively, for the preservation of America's racial identity by maintaining strict barriers against miscegenation, adopting sound immigration controls, and applying eugenic standards to the problem of population quality. Today no "responsible" conservative would be caught with the books of either of these men in his living-room bookcase, for by present conservative standards they are both "racists" - hence, "radicals" rather than safely respectable conservatives.
Saving the Constitution
Is there any granite outcropping in the midst of shifting sands - any firm common ground on which conservatives can rally?
The defense of the Constitution perhaps?
The Constitution no longer exists, except as a scrap of paper in the National Archives. Its relevance became nil when it was no longer able to serve the purpose it's authors intended for it.
Insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare are quite different undertakings today than they were 200 years ago. Even such a fundamental portion of the Constitution as its ironclad guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms has proved to be as worthless as the paper it was written on. Nor has the Constitution's explicit ban against legislators who give aid and comfort to our enemies served to prevent the United States from becoming a hotbed for treason.
Free-Enterprise Pitfall
How about rescuing the American free-enterprise system from the evil machinations of Big Government?
As a matter of fact, the free-enterprise system was still relatively intact during the period when alien forces subverted our government and took over our country, and it cannot be said that free-enterprise slowed them down even one little bit. Those who gained control of our biggest newspapers and our motion picture industry and our radio and TV networks did so with the aid of free-enterprise, rather than in spite of it.
More than Economics
These comments should not be considered a condemnation of free enterprise per se, nor a belittling of the importance of economic problems in general; more than one nation has gone to ruin through economic mismanagement. The point is that America's problems today go far deeper than any Constitutional or economic reforms can hope to cure or even substantially ameliorate.
The youth of America are smart enough to recognize these things for themselves, and, consequently, are not to be blamed for having few tears to shed for the demise of either the Constitution or laissez-faire capitalism.
Fanatics Needed
The left can find plenty of misguided young fanatics willing to set themselves afire or blow up a police station in order to further the cause of "equality" or "peace". But the idea of young men and women assembling bombs in candle-lit cellars to put an end to the progressive income tax or social security reductions is simply ridiculous.
Until conservatives can offer something more inspiring, not many young Americans will rally to their standard.
Conservatism's two principle failings, lack of a spirit of aggressive activism and lack of any clearly defined ideological basis, go hand in hand. The one cannot be had without the other.
Ultimate Goals
In the words of an outstanding anti-communist leader: "The lack of a great, creative idea always signifies a limitation of fighting ability. A firm conviction of the right to use each and any weapon is always bound up with the fanatical belief in the necessity in the victory of a revolutionary new order on this earth."
"A movement which is not fighting for such ultimate goals and ideals will never seize upon the ultimate weapon"...and , needless to say, will never emerge victorious from a struggle with an opponent who is so motivated.
Revolutionary vs. Revolutionary
Though conservatism cannot win against the left, a new revolutionary force, with the spiritual basis that conservatism lacks, and advancing with even more boldness and determination that the forces of the left, can win!
That new revolutionary force is being built now. Its ranks are being filled with disciplined, idealistic young Americans.
They have examined and found wanting both drugs-and-sex libertinism of the left and the economic libertinism of the right.
A New Order
They are fighting for a new order in American life, based not on the fads and whims of the moment, but on the fundamental values of race and personality - values which once led Western man to the mastery of the earth and which can yet regain that mastery for him and lead him on to the conquest of the universe.
They know that the time is long past when the conservative rhetoric or conservative votes might have saved the day. They understand that America's salvation must now come from young men and women of revolutionary spirit and outlook who are through talking and voting and are instead working toward the day when they can seize the true enemies of our people by the hair of their heads and slit their throats.
I'll take it this post was directed to me.
ReplyDeleteThis essay has been in my archives for a while now, and my intent has always been to republish it. It is timely and does come to mind due to our previous conversations, but don't feel singled out or persecuted. It's food for thought directed at all of us.
ReplyDeleteI will say this: the old saying "all politics is local" has a lot of merit. I go to the voting booth not so much with any hopes that Chump A is better than Chump B in a national election, but things on the local level are important and most voters usually go "eeny meeny minie moe" when selecting judges, county sheriffs, prosecutors, etc.
Having a guy like, say Sheriff Arpaio on the local level is far more important than having some back stabbing piece of shit at the state capitol or in Washington.
In my mind, the only real reason to vote Republican in a national election is the Supreme Court in the hopes that a President will nominate someone who will interpret the Constitution as the Founders intended it, and not through the prism of group identity politics and "empathy" as with the debacle we are now faced with. Once they stack that particular deck against us, there is no question that our only solution is physical resistance to total tyranny.
Here is the notion of "democracy" in a nut shell:
"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'
"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
-- Lazarus Long, in Robert Heinlein's To Sail Beyond the Sunset
Arpaio is a product of a conservative local political culture. During the election of 1964 only five states voted for Goldwater over LBJ, all of them were in the Deep South except for AZ, which produced Goldwater. One other mark of how conservative this state is (was?) is that AZ has the lowest unemployment benefits in the US, capped at $240 a week. Go to page five on this PDF to see what I mean.
ReplyDeleteMy long term fear for AZ is the long term influx of people from other states with different political cultures from ours. The northeast of the Phoenix metro area (Scottsdale, Fountain Hills) is the wealthy area that produced Goldwater in the 1960's and is where McCain makes his home today. A few elections ago the congressman from that area ran explicitly anti-illegal immigration ads and lost to a liberal. The Republican's name was JD Hayworth and despite years of service he lost, I believe to the influx of Northerners into the area who brought their stupidity with them. Arizona has an immigration problem, but it is not coming from Mexico.
It seems every conservative I run into online seems to have read Heinlein. Personally, I would love to have a $500 poll tax for every person who registers to vote, and no income tax. The only problem I can foresee with limiting suffrage this way is that most of our upper class loves Mestizos.
As for the barbarians entering Rome in the last sentence, I would love to be overrun with waves of German illegals, but instead I get Mexicans.
However, I would love it if our current wave barbarians would sack and burn DC.
A $500 poll tax is a little steep. I would propose instead that a potential voter be able to pass a simple written test on basic civics and comprehension of the issues. This would weed out a majority of the undesirables right there. Consider the youtube videos that showed ignorant coons who couldn't tell the difference between Sarah Palin's policy positions and Obongo's.
ReplyDeleteToo bad about Hayworth. One of the few men I respected in a town(D.C.) full of vermin. And with Tancredo out, we've got virtually no one with a pair of balls in the House to stand up to the mestizo plague.
In the absence of welfare, social security and a lot of other things the federal government could fund its operations with tariffs and a steep poll tax. Those wanting to influence the direction of government would also have to help pay for it.
ReplyDeleteJerome J Junglebunny isn't gonna cough up $500 or even $200 in order to vote. As it is the Dems have had to actually sponsor bus rides to get nigs to the polls in places like southern Ohio.
Second, tests can be defeated by crooked polls. I remember reading an anecdote online about how RFK and his cronies went into the Puerto Rican slums of NYC handing out the answers to the NY literacy test. I was shocked to know that any Northern states had literacy tests, but NY did and RFK apparently wanted to nudge NY into the Democratic column that year.
Anything that makes it harder to vote helps the right in America, and conversely our enemies want to eliminate all barriers to voting. I remember seeing a poster urging the homeless to vote.