We’re winning the battle with National Review. The comments have generally been favorable toward identitarian and Neoreactionary positions. Trump’s civic nationalist revolution against the Beltway status quo is bedeviling the neocon wonks and weasels, and Ann Coulter said what was on everyone’s mind (philo-semite and anti-semite alike) about the CNN Debate; “Cool it with the pro-Israel pandering!”
Ann Coulter, who’s exceedingly Jew-friendly, said exactly what Jason Zengerle said last week in New York Magazine, that the Sheldon Adelson Primary was getting out of control. It’s not even “good for the Jews” at this point. As Ann Coulter noted, the candidates were obnoxiously pandering for Israel wildly out of context, off-topic, and over-the-top for the entirety of the exhaustive debate. Those who deem Coulter’s tweet to be anti-semitic are implying that noticing Jewish political power being expressed is anti-semitic, regardless of context or motive.
We’re pivoting National Review into precisely the position we want them, which is where they bundle identitarianism in with Trump (who is not an identitarian), confirm their anti-White political bias, and expose their treasonous pandering to the Israel Lobby. They’re attempting to delegitimize Trump’s candidacy by falsely associating himself with our positions, which offers us a unique opportunity to deliver our critiques of neo-conservatism as if they’re coming from Donald Trump himself.
To stop us from winning, to stop us from having and exploiting this incredible platform, National Review and the rest of the cuckservative crowd would have to admit that Donald Trump is neither racialist nor anti-immigrant, and they hate Trump too hard and are too afraid of his civic nationalist position to treat him honestly. They’re throwing everything at Trump that they think will stick because they’re in an existential battle for their wonky survival, and there are currently more of our tweets and quotes posted at National Review than at our own websites.
The men who instigated #NRORevolt–like the unstoppable @Jimmy_Vaughn99–have been roasting National Review with hard facts and clever attacks, making the most of this temporary glitch in the matrix of mainstream political discourse. There’s no centralized coordination of these sorts of things, and nobody answers to anybody else, so it’s only natural that the least appealing angles coming from our camp will be propped up and presented as representative of our views and there’s nothing we could or should do about the situation.
At this stage in the game, chaos is our best hope.
When I refer to least appealing angles, I’m referring in particular to the handful of folks who’ve jumped on National Review columnist David French’s family life, namely his having adopted an Ethiopian orphan. Technically, biologically, any adoption is categorically “cuckoldry,” and as a White Identitarian, I agree with the Leftists who believe that the fad of interracial adoption is deeply problematic. It’s problematic for the community the children are being taken from, for the children who are placed in communities dissonant with their heritage and identity, and for the communities they’re placed in.
But it’s not our problem, it’s not our fight, and it’s a fight which threaten the success of the “cuckservative” label. While David and Nancy are indeed both White, they’re what I refer to as WIBOs: White In Biology Only. They never claimed an allegiance to their ethno-racial kinsmen. They’re global cosmopolitan citizens of the world who are loyal to a handful of vague political abstractions and paperwork peccadillos regarding who is and is not a fellow “American.” America is a multi-racial empire that’s hostile to all of the organic traditional identities within its borders except for the privileged Jewish one, with a particular hostility toward our own.
Black conservatives generally catch flack from their racial kinsmen for being traitors to their identity, and their kinsmen are right. A Black who’s promoting universalist classical liberal ideals is only biologically Black, and his chosen identity and future is a deracinated melting pot of global consumerist paperwork patriots. It’s impossible to know exactly how many White folks with White spouses and White children have a degree of vestigial or hidden loyalty to their identity. But at this point, it’s safe to say that a huge subset–probably the majority–of White American families are only technically White at this point, not politically so.
White identitarians in America must abandon the obsolete notion that White skin implies a White identity. At one point in the living memory of some of our older advocates, this was pretty much the case. But it’s not the case, it hasn’t been for a while, and it’s unlikely to be the case again in the immediate future. The only appeal that’s going to work is an appeal for folks of our persuasion to be allowed to exist without being destroyed by the virulent anti-Whites. And not all who opt out of Whiteness are anti-White. I’ve met several folks over the years who are married to non-Whites or even are mixed race themselves who are indifferent toward or even supportive of my choice to remain White.
Plenty of deracinated Whites can tolerate or even respect Whites who wish to opt out of the multicultural social experiment. Practically none of them will tolerate the implied premise of the attacks on the French family, that their choice to be in interracial relationships and participate in a multicultural society is challenged. Both husband and wife have leapt onto their respective blogging platforms to complain about the abuse they’re receiving, and I agree with them that they should not be receiving the abuse.
A lot of Whites in America, perhaps most, are already gone. Don’t let their pale skin and light hair fool you. They have close family members who are non-White, close friends who are non-White, and decades of indoctrination against White identity which guarantee that they’ll choose a Brazilian-style future over one which preserves the heritage and qualities that they’ve been trained to feel at best ambivalent about and typically downright guilty about. That’s their choice. We don’t have the power to stop them, and I wouldn’t stop them even if I had the power.
My attitude is “Farewell! Best of luck!” At some undetermined point in the future, they may well regret the decision and demand entry into our formal or informal enclaves of Whiteness. It’s at that point that their personal choices would become relevant. At that point, perhaps they’ll gnash their teeth and regret having discarded tens of thousands of years of adaptation to a precious and rich social and cultural disposition in return for some vacuous abstractions. Or perhaps they’ll get along just fine in the multicultural “American” nation of immigrants they’ve selected.
It’s not my family. They’re not part of my community. Their choices aren’t my concern, and my choice to remain White and preserve a White living space shouldn’t be their concern. When we make the moral mistake of challenging their choices, we’re implying a commonality of identity and sovereignty which we should be moving away from. You go do your thing, and allow us to do ours. While the virulent anti-Whites will attack and hate us and push White Genocide regardless of what we say or do, there are persuadables for whom a coherent and consistent moral argument matters.
I don’t care about their family, because caring is a finite resource which I choose to reserve for those who share my tribe and tradition. I favor some degree of charity for the aliens and foreigners, particularly for disaster and emergency relief. But the globalization of caring results in what we’ve come to today, a society where we couldn’t care less if our neighbors choke while we eagerly await our Kony 2012 packets and passionately cheer about this or that media-driven humanitarian “concern” for a week or so before moving on to the next one. The French family doesn’t share my identity, and I don’t care what multicultural globalist Americans do with their lives.
What I do care about is winning the hearts and minds of the rapidly shrinking subset of Whites who are still persuadable, still capable of deciding, “You know what? I am White. I have a rich heritage. The kinds of societies my ancestors built are the kinds of societies I wish for my grandchildren to enjoy. And I would rather they look and act like me.” If we forfeit the moral argument in our eagerness to overextend the apt political analogy of the cuckold into the personal realm of a loving family’s beloved child, then they’ll tune out our compelling arguments from history, science, and personal experience for White Identity.
It’s not about moderation, but about direction. We should not bother being politically correct. People have had it with political correctness. We should not hold back in naming and blaming Jewish Power. We should not sweep the problem of Black-on-White crime under the rug. We should be bold and direct, and always on the offensive. But to actively attack a blended family, making a young child the target of political vitriol, …that’s just offensive.
Update: I wasn’t aware of the extent to which the French family have egregiously and repeatedly relied on their adoptive daughter as a political prop for their anti-White agenda. I was under a false (and gullible) assumption that they were responsible parents who weren’t shamelessly exploiting the young girl. Why do I keep giving anti-White scum the benefit of the doubt? My position is that private family situations should be approached with caution and delicacy and I maintain that position. However, in light of their having made the daughter’s race a public and political issue to repeatedly attack White Identity, the matter is certainly fair game. Play ball!