Trifkovic Leaving Chronicles

February 11, 2009

But why is Trifkovic leaving? Is it just at the site, or will he no longer be writing for CHRONICLES? That would be a huge loss, at least for me. Since the death of Sam Francis, I always read Trifkovic first. I’m a few months behind in the magazine – does it say there why he’s leaving? I hope it doesn’t signal a further shift of the magazine to the left, or at least Christian right, which is becoming way too prominent among the paleocons. What with Lew Rockwell’s group’s own massive shift to the pro-immigration, anti-military left, this site’s advocacy of bailing out the UAW Democrats, the descent of THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE into “gastronomic conservatism”, an exaggerated and affected ‘localism’, and similar irrelevancies, and takimag’s cowardly banning of any forthright examination of the accelerating racial dispossession of white (ie traditional) America, even amongst mere web-discussants, the intellectual Right, or what passes
for it, is really spiralling down the bowl. At least AMERICAN RENAISSANCE and THE OCCIDENTAL QUARTERLY are upholding an ideological tradition which is still serious, secular and rightist. But there is a need for a genuine rightism applied to more than just racial issues (even if they are obviously the most important). Trifkovic ably performed that service with respect to foreign policy analysis. He will be missed.

Advertisements

Pat Quinn

February 11, 2009

“Economically liberal, socially conservative” is exactly the opposite of what the authentic conservative cause requires at this particular juncture. Translated into plain language, this ideological deformation indicates someone who a) wishes to continue or expand American welfare-state socialism, which, translated into still plainer language, means expanding the already horrendous forced interracial wealth transfers from whites to blacks and immigrants (while concurrently expanding our government parasite bureaucracy, with its gold-plated pension and health benefits); while b) opposing the wilder aspects of the sodomite agenda, as well as abortion, the single liberal policy that actually advances the conservative cause in America (by slightly keeping down the minority and dysgenic white populations), as a matter of his precious, public “faith” (”faith” being to conservatives as “culture” is to liberals: matters to be earnestly respected
and kept off limits to critical analysis); and, of course, c) having absolutely nothing to say about white racial dispossession, affirmative action, Third World immigration (though this creature might further be judged “conservative” by the media for supporting the death penalty “for the worst cases”, which might result in a dozen actual capital convictions, and one or two real executions – out of thousands possible, and millions, yes MILLIONS, merited).

The “economically liberal, socially conservative” creature, in other words, is at base a white leftist with a tiny handful of inconsequential, atavistic attitudes, usually carried over from a working class/prole upbringing. He is a “trailer park liberal”, as opposed to the more common and noticeable “limosine” variety. Jim Webb is an excellent example, a leftist next to whom Abraham Lincoln was an arch-conservative, who “supports the troops”, and wants affirmative action for white hillbillies, and has an Asiatic wife, and “stood proudly” with “Barack” in the primaries – and who apparently suckered an embarassing number of the “conservatives” at CHRONICLES into thinking he was one of them (well, come to think of it, maybe he is, real conservatives being in rather short supply at Your Home for Grumpy Old (and Prematurely Old) Men Who Are Terrified of Facing the Real Issues Extirpating America).

Pat Quinn will be worthless.

February 11, 2009

While I strongly agree with the correct, if hardly original, comment about “changing demographics” condemning the GOP’s electoral chances (though it’s unfortunate that at CHRONICLES the issue of RACE needs to be discussed in cute euphamisms, and that the website excludes those who speak about it forthrightly, even when without epithets or vulgarities), I find it a bit odd directed at Hanson. I’m not a Hanson supporter, though I read one of his history books and thought it pretty much as scholarly as the productions of the CHRONICLES intellectuals. But Hanson did write a book called MEXIFORNIA, which I have not read, but was able to infer, from the many reviews of it I did read, advocated greater border security, and was at least mildly hostile to continuing mass legal immigration.

As I have said on earlier posts, Obama will be a formidable opponent, but, while I wrote in the name of Ron Paul on Election Day, he was clearly the superior choice for Middle Americans (not that anyone is excused for having voted for him, especially in those states where victory was clearly projected to be lopsided for a candidate; I, too, was disappointed by the low third party vote). John “Amnesty” McCain, and his best Senate friend, Lindsay Graham, are the two most repulsive GOP national politicians. They are wrong on nearly every issue, particularly the most important ones: stopping the non-white invasion, colonization and conquest of America, and keeping our country out of needless foreign conflicts. The Democrat party is the party of non-white domestic political imperialism, and freakish leftism, and as there are multitudes of such people, ALWAYS will be. Suggesting that some conservatives should fight within the Democrat party is far beyond
merely idiotic. MARs, or really, white preservationists and American patriots, have no choice but to conquer the GOP, and turn it for our purposes (though if and when we do, we damn well better use it for the Right things – focusing on racial preservation in ALL its aspects, from ending the invasion, to rejecting foreign wars for Israel, preserving guns rights, and slashing interracial wealth transfers – and not waste our time on the routine, ephemeral nonsense that does nothing for our people’s cause, like “family values”, or improving the (minority predominant ) public schools, or stopping abortions (2/3 of which are performed on women of color, thank goodness, and praise be to the great Margaret Sanger!)). If we were to have had any hope of accomplishing that task, the defeat of the Third Bush Term was vital (what a shame, though, that Graham was reelected, and in the process defeated a more conservative Democratic candidate).

I agree, though, that Obama/Pelosi is indeed laying the groundwork for a great GOP populist reaction, but that will only come about if serious conservatives develop a national strategy around issues of white preservation, albeit without justifying those policies in overtly racialist terms (that will come later, a few decades hence). Anti-immigrationism, foreign policy isolationism, protection of property and the free market (which favors whites), expressed particularly in opposition to taxes, and serious confrontation on affirmative action and multiculturalism: these are the issues on which to build a great movement, one both politically successful as well as useful in light of the ultimate goal of every true conservative, namely, saving Western civilization from eclipse, and the white race which created and alone can sustain that civilization, from biological extinction or extermination..

As to the social “conservatives”, who have been nearly as much of a plague as the neocons, let us extend our hand of friendship, pay lip service to their concerns, and roundly ignore and marginalize them. Our future rests with the Racial Right, properly coded (eg, vdare.com for now, AMERICAN RENAISSANCE presently, as whites intensify their growing, collective racial awakening).

February 11, 2009

From Mises blog:

 

I am a long-time follower of Mises, Rothbard, and the rest of the Austrians, and believe their economics is correct, even if ‘radical’ by conventional standards. Their politics is quite another matter. There is nothing philosophically dispositive about libertarianism, however persuasive Misesian praxeology. One can be an Austrian without worshipping the Market God (as so many on this site do), or exalting homo economicus to some privileged position above all other human types and aspirational categories.

These truths are always brought home to me whenever libertarians idiotically start pontificating on areas about which they so often either are clearly ignorant, or otherwise blinded by ideology. Foreign policy is one such area. While I share much of the libertarian critique of imperialism and the threat it has historically posed to domestic liberty and tranquility, a nation’s security interests can hardly be satisfied simply with endless reiterations of “do nothing”. If many libertarians had their way, national defense would be reduced to civilian militias, desperately hoping that a non-interventionist foreign policy of peace and free trade with all, entangling alliances with none, would somehow so charm the rest of the planet that no hostile powers, coveting the immense wealth of our desired retro-capitalist system, would emerge to threaten us. The naivete of this view, in a world of predatory states and nuclear weaponry, is mind-boggling, evincing the
complete triumph of obsessional ideology over any awareness of history and the really existing world order.

Immigration is another area of libertarian utopianism and flight from reality. I’ve enjoyed many of Robert Murphy’s articles, but if he is serious that we should allow UNRESTRICTED immigration (his usage @#9 above), then I must call into question the value of all of his earlier work that I had thought was enlightening. Throwing open America’s already hemmoraghing borders, an act of world-historically pathological stupidity, would result in the virtual overnight extirpation of the United States, the literal foreign conquest of America. Does Murphy have ANY understanding of: 1) evolutionary biology; 2) the history of interethnic relations; 3) global demographics; 4) international wealth disparities; 5) infectious disease epidemiology; 6) the American welfare state structure; 7) American anti-discrimination law;  8 ) geopolitical relations; 9) military security issues; or 10) American ethnographic electoral patterns, and political realities? In a word,
outside of some tiny specialty in Austrian economics, does Murphy have any knowledge of any discipline relevant to formulating immigration policy? In advocating “open borders” the answer is, embarrassingly not.

Immigration is the great disaster of our time, not just for traditional Americans, who are losing their country to this peaceful invasion, but for liberty, too. Immigration strengthens the hand of government in dozens of ways, but I will emphasize just one. 99% of immigrants are racial ‘minorities’. Here is the racial minority vote for Obama in 2008 (admittedly, I wrote-in Ron Paul, but third party voting is still rare; the vast bulk of pro-private property voters are registered Republicans): blacks 95%, Hispanics about 70%, Asians 62% (and Jews, incidentally, voted 81% for Obama). These electoral demographic imbalances have been remarkably stable over the past four decades. Why would we want to increase the numbers of minority voters ten-fold virtually overnight?

Open immigration would spell the immediate end of private property and the free market in America, and usher in an era of total wealth confiscations for old-stock Americans. Advocating such destruction is not funny or “tongue-in-cheek” ; it is treasonous (and per Hoppe, it is not even libertarian, at least not necessarily so).

If Mr. Murphy and other libertarians indeed wish to emerge from their little ideological ghetto, and have their views (at least the correct ones, those dealing with the economy) taken seriously by sober men, they need to jettison their non-economic nonsense. Note that the one libertarian doing something in the real world, Rep. Ron Paul (Republican), is staunchly opposed to the immigration invasion, and wants are borders sealed, not cast aside.