« The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood
The Counter-Currents 2016 Summer Fundraiser
The Measure of Greatness »
Never Trust a Conservative
Soft, cowardly, pleading, treacherous Paul Ryan
"Never trust a conservative." As an oft-repeated mantra in Paul Christensen's recent novel The Hungry Wolves of Van Diemen's Land, this sentiment accuses so-called conservatives as being closeted liberals who are only a few decades behind on the liberal curve. As our civilization lurches leftward, what seemed cutting edge liberal years ago (for example, black-white miscegenation), conservatives now consider to be mainstream and healthy . . . or at least they don't have the courage to challenge it.
Today's conservatives, Christensen's story tells us, are essentially yesterday's liberals. According to theory then, in 2040, when liberals are pushing for the legalization of pederasty and polyamous, non-age-specific civil unions, the "conservatives" of the day will be chairing LGBTQ church clubs and pining for the days when we only had to worry about gay marriage.
This all leads to how dozens of prominent conservatives in the GOP, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, had recently either "un-endorsed" candidate Donald Trump or distanced themselves from him after the media received audio recordings of Trump saying lewd things about women.
A tall, powerful billionaire bragging about his prodigious exploits with beautiful women. For this, many so-called conservatives in the GOP are willing to hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton. For this, many of the so-called conservatives in the GOP would actually prefer more non-white immigration, more socialist policy-making from the Democrats, and more pandering to anti-white hate groups like CAIR, La Raza, and Black Lives Matter.
These Republicans may appear conservative, but really they're just conservative liberals. Liberalism these days starts with a sacrosanct rule regarding race: abnegation for whites and affirmation for non-whites. No exceptions. A liberal can be defined as someone who embraces this rule. Conservatives also embrace this rule; they just like to talk about it less. That, essentially, is the difference between the Democratic elite, which would never un-endorse Hillary for any of her crimes, and the GOP elite, which un-endorsed Trump simply because he brags about seducing women.
It seems to me that Christensen was right. Never trust a conservative. My only corollary to that dictum is that it's okay to trust race-realist conservatives or right wing conservatives. I lovingly refer to such people as the R3Ws: Race-Realist Right Wingers. Anyone calling himself a conservative but isn't a R3W is not worth our time.
As for the Trump issue, sure, it's never good to kiss and tell. Yes, Trump was being crude and sophomoric. Certainly, by behaving promiscuously, Trump does not live up to the puritanical standards we set for our leaders. But the facts of life get in the way of treating this as anything other than what it is: a minor embarrassment for a presidential candidate.
We need men like Trump in the world of business. These are ambitious, highly-motivated, hard-working men who want to put their personal stamp on the world. Men like Trump are what we call BSDs. 'B' stands for 'Big', 'S' stands for 'Swinging', and 'D' stands for what John Derbyshire calls "the male organ of generation." BSDs build things, invent things. They employ millions. Without them, our world would be much more mediocre.
Getting to the top as a BSD is fraught with risk, and not just of the financial variety. Identity is also on the line. For normal people — for example, an accountant or sales manager — failure could entail losing a job. But such people can still apply for work as accountants or sales managers elsewhere. Their financial stakes are at risk but not their identities. On the other hand, for more BSDs, failure entails losing everything. The only way to survive after that would be to either suffer the pain and indignity of rebuilding everything from scratch, or to no longer identity as a BSD. How many of us have egos hardy enough to withstand that kind of humiliation? How many of us have the chutzpah to put our last names on every business venture we start, thereby making our names synonymous with failure if things don't work out? How many of would risk a lifetime of Maginot for an outside shot at becoming Napoleon? Not very many, which is why we should be grateful for each and every person brave enough to do it.
Since success is so risky for BSDs, success had better have some perks, otherwise there would be fewer incentives for taking risks to begin with. Yes, the money and power are great. But sex is also an incentive. Further, we all know there is an entire class of women who aspire to shower sexual attention on BSDs. It's not part of the politically-correct narrative these days, but it is nonetheless true. To expect a billionaire BSD like Trump to play the boy scout — when there are literally thousands of women out there who'd prefer he just play — would be unnatural for two reasons. For one, men are men, and powerful men are powerful men. This is how it has always been, and Trump has done nothing to deviate from this ancient pattern. Secondly, to shame Trump for his lewd comments is an anti-prosperity action since it de-incentivizes taking the risks to become a BSD. Truly, having bragging rights like the ones Trump was indulging in are one of the main reasons why men put it all on the line to become BSDs. We would much rather live in a world with BSDs than without them, so perhaps much of this shame can be deflected.
Trump was merely trying to seduce women, many of whom knew what they were doing and wanted to be seduced when they came before him. No one is talking about rape. And no one is talking about under-aged girls. So then, what exactly are we talking about other than an attempt to smear Donald Trump by his political opponents?
Unfortunately, this is not all. Would that it were. If the so-called conservatives in the GOP would use these talking points and others like them to help defend their candidate rather than simply abandoning him, then they would deserve our trust. But by not doing this, and in some cases by deliberately undermining Trump's efforts to win, these conservatives are not only revealing their contempt for their constituents, but their liberal stripes as well.
This is enemy action.
There are two possible outcomes off all this, and for us, the R3Ws, as with our risk-taking BSD friends, it's either all or nothing. In effect, the R3W base of the Republican Party is trying to be the next BSD in town.
If Trump wins, the R3Ws must press their advantage as much as possible. Remember how the neocons and Bill Buckley conservatives purged the R3Ws? Well, it's finally time to start purging them back. First, the R3Ws should push the GOP elites into the Democratic Party where they belong. They hate us anyway, so it shouldn't be too difficult (and as Democrats they could at least be useful in retarding that party's Leftward swing). Any candidate who doesn't at least tolerate the R3W agenda should be energetically defeated. Even sweeter would be if such candidates were funded by deep-pocketed GOP donors who secretly despise R3Ws. We want these people to lose money. We want them to start investing in the opposition. A Trump victory will grant R3Ws the political leverage to start talking about race and racial interests to their representatives. If they don't listen, we should find ones that will and tolerate nothing less. If they resist, then we must be merciless, outing them as liberals and tar and feathering them with evidence of their betrayal.
Just as importantly, R3Ws need to take heart in their majority and storm the mainstream. We need to start talking about white racial interests, at the office, at parties, at family get-togethers, everywhere. We have to make it normal again. And if non-whites don't like it, they can do what many non-whites like to do: riot and commit crimes and throw temper tantrums in public. At this point, we can leave them to the tender mercies of our much-maligned yet suddenly emboldened law enforcement community. I'm sure a president Trump would shoot a wink in their direction for their efforts.
Basically, Trump had his chance to condemn the R3Ws and he never did. This means that under Trump, R3Ws could potentially seize their seat at the head of the table once again. Couple this with the Wall, mass-deportations of illegals, and the halt on Muslim immigration, and we may have a slim chance of salvaging this nation as it was originally intended to be. But we would have to impress upon Trump that he is riding on the back of a monster. Sure, we can take him as far as he wants to go. But if he betrays us, he should know that we can dump him as fast as he can grab a woman by the you-know-what.
If Trump loses, however, the R3Ws will lose everything we have invested in this country. The cuckolded GOP elite will be vindicated in their treachery, and will shift the party leftward in order to better compete with increasingly liberal and multiracial Democrat Party. They won't be too broken up over it since that's the direction in which they want to go away. As observed in The Hungry Wolves of Van Dieman's Land, these people are indeed liberals, just not as far along on the liberal path as their more honest liberal colleagues. Expect the Republican Party to eventually endorse non-white immigration as well and become more multiracial as a result. They will have to be if they care to win congressional or gubernatorial seats, let alone nurse semi-realistic chances at the White House. After Hillary collapses in a couple years and has to resign in office, picture a popular Kaine-Booker ticket in 2020 crushing Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio by seven points.
Meanwhile, the millions of R3Ws who voted for Trump will be left out in the cold. Especially the white ones. The one political party which ever promised to meet their needs and fight for their interests will be greedily sucking up compliant non-white immigrants to replace them. This is our future if Trump loses, which is hardly a future at all. We will resemble the Southern elites after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. We will know that our nation has no need for us and only demand we stick around so it can exploit us for our labor and tax dollars. Further, we will have no chance of having meaningful effect on government. At that point, our choices will be simple and terrifying: keep our identities and fight, or give in and contribute to our eventual demise.
I sincerely hope that when the time comes enough of us will choose the former to achieve our ends. But in either case we'll have learned our lesson to never trust a conservative.
Published: October 13, 2016 | This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged 2016 US Presidential Elections, alpha males, articles, Chad nationalism, conservatives, Donald Trump, North American New Right, originals, pussygate, Republicans, Spencer Quinn, White Nationalists. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
WWWM
Whatever you feel about politics, the career of Paul Ryan should be over. Why wouldn't they all support Trump as soon as he got the nomination? If he loses, they lose! These people don't know what they want anymore. And it isn't as if they haven't been embarrassed by Republican candidates before. The Repupublican party is on a suicide track.
"If Trump loses, however, the R3Ws will lose everything we have invested in this country."
I have a feeling that things will be a little bit worse if Trump loses than if Trump hadn't run at all but I think it's worth the risk and I would join him as a smaller BSD in wanting to see if we can win a victory, slow down the world's decline, and buy ourselves some more time.
Things will be a lot worse. Hillary will do an Angela Murkel style open the gates move so she can get as many illegals as possible. Turning them into voters will ensure she never has to worry about an insurgency like Trump has led ever again. Then they have got us.
Johnny Rottenborough
Your roll call of anti-white hate groups really should include the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. Install them at any position other than number one and they will screech 'anti-Semitic' so I would suggest they be made equal first.
NeoApollo
Agreed the ADL might be a stretch from the perspective of a normie. But the AJC should definitely be added.
A great article, it is something that many of us need to consider seeing how things are going. But I'm interested in seeing how others in the movement wish to keep the momentum going. The only positive thing I could see coming out of the cat lady being elected is hopefully more whites getting tired of the guilt our msm shoves down our throats. But how do we keep winning over younger people? There's been a nice underground culture built but it's not enough. There needs to be more action taken to getting the new rights "edginess" into the minds of you rebels besides daily stormer. I personally think continuing the mockery is great it's funny and it gives us young men an outlet. But I think another great strategy would be to after November 4th regardless of the outcome to really push to the forefront all of the lefts double standards. For example white genocide was a great campaign so another similar that would be good is something like #trueracist or something and showing how elites are exploiting whites.
BSDs [big swinging dicks] build things, invent things. They employ millions. Without them, our world would be much more mediocre.
What more needs to be invented? Don't we have enough inventions?
Employers of millions? How about millions of self-employed small businessmen and their families?
I don't need a speech about how grateful I should be for a home with a washing machine, dryer, electric stove and refrigerator. I grew up in home that had none of those things, more recently than you might think (I'm not all that ancient but we were backwards & poor). No electricity and no plumbing. After we got those things, when I was a teenager, we got used to them mighty quick and as any thinking person might suspect, felt we'd like to have yet more of what the BSDs were busily creating.
It is not about mega capitalists, the Trumps, and the jobs they provide anymore. Believe me, I would go back in a heartbeat to the "suffering" involved in carrying firewoodwood and water and reading by a coal oil lamp if it came with a sane society.
Otherwise, you are correct in exposing the Republicans and "conservatives" for what they really are.
Palerider1861
Most excellent article, Mr. Quinn.
The only way Clinton wins is through a combination of illegal voting and vote tampering — either way, her victory will be the end of the Republic, what with amnesty of the 3rd world hordes.
Were this election to be stolen from the American citizens, the strain on the various states to disunite will probably be approaching that as in the 1850s…who knows, those old Confederate dollars may be worth more than the current US dollars in the not too distant future!
"According to theory then, in 2040, when liberals are pushing for the legalization of pederasty and polyamous, non-age-specific civil unions,—"
After these types of unions are passed then they will start pushing for legalization of bestiality as a legitimate lifestyle and union.
Of course, and we might not even have to wait that long, as culturally (the whole Furry and animal rights thing) and technologically (gene-splicing and hybridization) the boundary between man and beast gets increasingly thinner.
Doubtful, for the simple reason that vanishingly few people lust for bestiality. In contrast, homosexuality seems to have existed for most (if not all) of Man's history.
What about all the white women, and white men with non-whites?
Post a Reply to Johnny Rottenborough Cancel reply