The Basic Issues

This is important.

Readers here are aware that I have been writing recently about mainstream electoral politics to a significant degree, including the recent Presidential election and the upcoming Senate runoffs in Georgia. This is important and I will continue focusing on that when relevant. But we must be honest as well - those are short-term issues; they are not long term.

We must be realistic. Given the direction this country is going, it is inevitable that we will have, at some point, Democrats controlling the Presidency, the House, and the Senate at the same time.  It may be in 2021. It may be after the 2022 mid-term elections. It may be in 2024, 2026, or 2028, or whatever. But, it is inevitable and whatever small, short-term GOP electoral victories that block that only delay that inevitable outcome and the permanent nation-destroying consequences that will follow in its wake.

Therefore, any prudent and sane and rational approach acknowledges this reality and prepares for it. That is what leadership is about; that is what real leaders do.

Real leaders do not look forward to inevitable radical changes in America’s demographic, cultural, political, and social landscape and conclude that what needs to be done is “more of the same.” That is, from a political and metapolitical standpoint, criminally negligent.

From the political standpoint, the only valid and sustainable way forward is unapologetic right-wing populism. By unapologetic, I mean the exact opposite of this stupid tweet. I mean no “Platinum Plans,” no more pandering, no more taking the White base for granted. I mean a right-wing populism that starts out with, as its absolute initial floor, the implicitly White 2016 Trump campaign and that moves inexorably, inch by inch, over time, moving that Overton Window, in the direction of overt, explicitly White identity politics. No apology, no compromise – a creeping normality in our direction, reversing the trends of the last 60 years that has seen virtually all of the creep toward the Left.

The driving force behind the creeping normality, pushing the Overton Window, is metapolitics (although, unlike the common consensus, I do think that people in mainstream electoral politics can contribute to this, if they work in concert with the metapoliticians on the outside, in a synergistic relationship). For this, we need a fresh approach as well. The “business as usual” approach promoted by grifters and unimaginative dullards must be rejected. Endless decades of constant failure - enough is enough. We are now entering a critical phase of American history in which we simply cannot accept the sort of shoddy, meritless, affirmative action-derived, poor judgment, fossilized dogma-influenced, uninspired, morally defective, and freakish “leadership” that we have so unfortunately had to endure. We can no longer afford the imbecilic dogmas, defective memes, lies, and outrageous stupidities of “movement” ideology.

We need a change. I have outlined some suggestions here. Whether you agree or disagree with that – that is at least one possible starting point for discussion and debate.  But, alas, the current crop of “leaders” don’t want that discussion and debate, and they defame critics such as myself with labels such as “insane.” 

“Movement” “leaders” are for the most part self-centered grifters, more concerned with their own status in the “movement,” ego, access to “movement” money and other resources, and other selfish motives than they are the good of their people. 

How do we know that is true?  By answering criticism of that accusation, perhaps we will find some answers.

The riposte to my accusation would be – if they were so self-centered, why did they get involved in such an unpopular activity as White racialism to begin with?  Why not just follow their own selfish life direction?  This can be answered in a number of ways. First, it assumes the person in question had the capability to be successful in a “normal” mainstream career.  In some cases, that is true, but in some cases it is not. Second, the person may have started out sincere, but then became cynical over time and/or realized their own deficiencies. Thus, then realizing that they had cut themselves off from any possibility of a mainstream career, they were left with no choice but to grift on the “movement.” Third, we must remember that human motivation is complex. It is possible for someone to be both sincere in their activism and still be a power-hungry, self-centered, money-grubbing, low character disaster, who prioritizes their own interests. Was Stalin a genuine Marxist or merely a power-mad dictator who used Marxism in an instrumental fashion? Why must it be either/or? Maybe he was both, at the same time. Likewise, failed “movement” “leaders” may be sincere in one aspect but selfish grifters in another. In the last analysis, we must judge the outcome – endless failure to achieve any meaningful pro-White objectives, coupled with constant demand for donations and ego-stroking by followers.

Real leaders who were disinterested with respect to personal promotion and who prioritized the well-being of their people would have the honesty to acknowledge the endless failure surrounding the “movement” and they would recognize the lateness of the hour, and thus they would embrace change, listen carefully to different, dissident voices in racial activism, and they would engage in discussion and debate, instead of selfishly “circling the wagons” to safeguard their personal perks and privileges.

Anyone reading this and agreeing with it needs to join with people like me to get real reform moving, both within the metapolitical “movement” and in the broader world of rightist electoral politics.