With the country all aflame over the government shutdown, Obamacare coming into effect, the raising of the debt ceiling, and the debate over spending, the Tea Party is emerging on the scene as the new vanguard in defense of fiscally conservative ideas and honest, hardworking taxpayers from the heartland of America. Being led by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY), with their dual filibuster attacks on Obamacare and drone surveillance respectively, these figures have emerged as the leaders of this new movement that could take over the Republican Party and perhaps “save America.” Their dual filibuster attacks had not so much to do with attacking the Obama Administration, but rather were an all-out assault against the neo-con establishment led by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Having successfully harnessed two of the most volatile issues confronting voters, they have forced the neo-cons into an indefensible position and exposed them for the evil statists that they are. Consequently, given the general hatred and dissatisfaction revolving around the neo-cons, it is not too far out to say that the libertarian takeover of the GOP is inevitable and could occur as soon as 2016, when the Tea Party will most likely nominate Senator Cruz or Senator Paul for the 2016 election. This rise to superstardom of Tea Party/libertarian figures is the culmination of Godfather Ron Paul’s long crusade to “save” America. However, this ascension of the Tea Party will be short-lived and remembered as nothing more than a hiccup in American electoral political history.
The defeats of John McCain and Mitt Romney to President Barack Obama were the godsend the American Right needed. To have one of these men ascend to power would have further narcotized Caucasians and Christians into believing that “America is still ours” and, furthermore, would have put a white face on the inevitable decline and destruction of the United States. Having held the presidency for the last eight years, Obama has done marvelous work which traditionalists could never have hoped to do: divide and destroy the GOP establishment. This division, along with Obama’s actions in ruining the American economy and eroding the last remnant of civil liberties, has made quick work in radicalizing the American Right – though the task is not yet accomplished.
The Tea Party, having first opposed former President George W. Bush’s massive bailout schemes, would then experience an inevitable growth as a white and Christian reaction towards Obama’s socialist-styled transformation of America. The problem is that the Tea Party is simply a step in the right direction, rather than being the goal itself. The Tea Party is a movement of possible hope to “preserve” the traditional heritage of America that is composed almost exclusively of Caucasians and Christians. Their bold stances on the role of government, fiscal policy, and other economic issues are a positive step in the right direction in a nation of corporatist banking cartels. The main problem which remains, however, is that the Tea Party is only operating within the “acceptable” framework the establishment will tolerate. By only concerning itself with economics, rather than advocating correctly on the issues at the heart of any civilization – religion, family, and race – the Tea Party is simply placing itself at the helm of the sinking ship of America.
For nationalists, then, this leads us to the inevitable problem: libertarians and the Tea Party are only in the short term friendly to nationalists and, in the long term, are overtly hostile to America’s needs. Furthermore, given their economic presuppositions and their apathy towards religion and race, they are fundamentally opposed to the core of America’s traditional culture heritage. Nationalists must then realize that the libertarians will not save us, and nationalists should put no hope in their long-term viability as a political force, nor trust them as worthwhile allies.
At its core, libertarianism could be dubbed “right-wing Marxism.” Having accepted the same materialist presuppositions of Marxism, specifically the ideas of economic determinism and the inherent goodness of man (ergo rejecting the Christian concept that mankind is totally depraved), libertarianism believes in nothing more than the concept of radical individualism as the productive means to controlling the path to utopia, rather than through the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, it is communism for the bourgeoisie.
Therefore, libertarianism operates within the same mental framework of Marxism in presupposing that humans are fundamentally economic creatures driven by economic profit, circumstance, and production. For example, a Marxist would say that Africa is poor because white, capitalist exploitation has prevented the Dark Continent’s development. A libertarian would only slightly disagree, arguing that Africa is poor because statist and mercantilist policies were imposed from Paris or London that inhibited Africans from experiencing their natural liberties inherited from the “state of nature”; therefore the Africans have not received the benefits of free-market capitalism that would have led them to evolve into a civilization that would have made Botswana look like Bavaria and Khartoum look like New York.
Of course, a five-second glance at capitalism in Haiti versus socialism in Sweden would negate this theory. Furthermore, even an overview of capitalist Rhodesia versus capitalist Liberia quickly fragments their arguments and leads one very quickly down the road to racial realism and Christian supremacy.
Additionally, libertarians agree with Marxists that the nation-state is a hindrance to mankind’s development. Sure, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are not going to say America needs to disappear and be replaced by some sort of international utopian order, as Marxists might, but given libertarians’ radical adherence in principle to the free movement of goods, services, and people, their policies inevitably will create a world in which borders, cultural identity, racial identity, and religious dominance will be eroded.
It should be noted that the libertarianism of the past, through men such as Barry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan, was a much more nationalistic form of libertarianism that did not violate the sacred tenets of religion, culture, and national borders. The new and emerging libertarianism is a more radical breed, one which more strictly accepts the Marxist presuppositions of a borderless, colorless, and religion-less world.
Libertarians, much like their corporate allies, despise barriers to production. On the surface, most nationalists would agree that government goes too far when OSHA mandates a worker must wear a safety harness to climb a ten-foot ladder. However, nationalists understand that freedom has its limits and is only applicable within a specific environment. Just as important, nationalists understand that economics is subservient to the interests of the ethno-religious nation and that economics should not be used to exploit or trample on the traditional values of God, country, race, culture, and family.
Libertarians, in contrast, could care less about the state being used to uphold these sacred values. In fact, they find the notion repulsive. Whereas Marxists aggressively attack traditional institutions via the power of the state, libertarians passively attack them by demanding that the state not defend them in any way. Instead they default the defense of sacred institutions to the individual and to each individual’s own interpretation of those values. Consequently, there arise as many strategies for defense and interpretation of those values as there are people. Hence, with everybody thinking, nobody is thinking.
Thence, having made the individual supreme in deciding what values are important and how best to defend them, we have a world where every individual is sovereign and seeking out his own interests. Therefore, all sense of community, cohesion, solidarity, and trust is thrown out, and nothing actually gets done in the long term. Thus at the end of the libertarian road, we are left with a world in which Marxist values and libertarian values meet in the creation of the valueless, impersonal, atheistic, materialist, and deracinated society, where humans are nothing more than mindless automata who assert no absolutist teachings of truth over the community other than the absolutist principles of “natural law” and the ability to most expediently turn a profit. In regards to the issue of race, this lack of moral assertion extends by proclaiming, as Marxists do, that race has no value. Each individual’s individuality is all that matters, and every individual is a product of his environment, inherited biological and spiritual traits being deemed irrelevant.
Hence, given their lack of any absolute assertions in regards to religion, culture, and race, libertarianism only encourages people to strive and succeed in the arena of economics and for the sake of self-interest. The social mentality resulting from this limited worldview leads inevitably to a radical form of individualism that manifests itself as social narcissism and erodes high culture into a blend of shallow bourgeois attitudes and sloppy blue-collar behavior. Given libertarianism’s Marxist presuppositions regarding religion and race, libertarianism will eventually create a similar-styled society where these sacred ideas are suffocated from the collective’s consciousness as all races, religions, cultures, and individuals are reduced to their lowest common denominator to promote equality and to make the economic-based society function.
This process of de-civilization has disastrous consequences on scientific progress, the arts and high culture, religious teaching, cultural folkways and values, educational development, and the protection of the patriarchal family structure. For evidence of this process of de-civilization, I cite the contemporary United States and every democratic state since the Second World War. None of these democratic states have produced a culture and society that excelled on the level of nineteenth-century (and monarchical) Europe, which made possible the level of development necessary for the institutionalization of democracy. Only the United States was able to achieve never-before-seen economic progress, thanks to its pseudo-religious belief in libertarian economic presuppositions which came at the expense of America’s traditional identity, values, culture, and family structure.
To return to the contemporary situation that confronts nationalists: again, libertarianism will not save us, for libertarians advocate for the perpetual expansion of economic idealism while ignoring or even outright rejecting the issues lying at the core of the problem: the process of de-Christianization, the decline of the White race, and the problem of mass immigration.
The seminal moment for understanding the hostile nature of libertarianism’s role in the American political game was most aptly exposed during the amnesty debate in the Senate, where Rand Paul announced his support for amnesty at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which has strong affiliations with La Raza. While there, he decried anyone who would suggest deportation is the proper strategy and conceded victory to Hispanicization by saying that America already has “de facto amnesty.” We then meet the heart of the matter: that libertarians will not stand up for our values. They are as deceptive and manipulative as their neo-con predecessors, who duped so many patriots into believing that George Bush was God’s answer to save the United States from those heathen Democrats. Therefore we should lend them none of our support and actively work for their destruction. There are, for sure, areas of sympathy between nationalists and libertarians, specially in regards to abolishing the Federal Reserve, non-interventionism, supporting gun rights, and preventing the government from droning us in our homes. However, the alliance stops there, and we immediately shift into a new relationship with libertarians where we become their enemy.
For example, let us play out a couple of scenarios. Hypothetically, let us say the federal government wants to mandate that all preachers in churches can no longer condemn homosexuality as a sin, for that is a hate crime and it stirs social unrest. Libertarians will jump in and defend the Christian Church, as they would view that as a violation of government’s limited role, holding that the state has no right to impose itself upon a private institution.
However, in another scenario, consider something as basic as the criminalization of sodomy (or of any other monstrous though consensual sexual perversion). Here, the libertarians would have no concern for the public good – for the nation. Out of their worship of human autonomy, they would permit any and all sort of sexual deviancy to go without any civil punishment, leaving all such curbing to private, nonviolent spheres. Any clash between individual rights and the common good would show the enmity underlying the differences between libertarians and nationalists. This is where libertarianism’s ugly head will show itself, and falling in line with the spirit of the age rather than historic Christian political ethics.
Christians are about to fall to the political wayside, as nationalists and ethnonationalists have already done. We are being left behind, firstly because we lack organization and leadership, and secondly because we are being abandoned by those who should be our radical supporters. But given the new mythology of the GOP to be more inclusive to groups of people who have no affection for the white/Christian party (gays, blacks, Hispanics, and welfare recipients), we are left on a ship guided by pirates. Therefore, as long as Christians – white Christians specifically – are excluded from the political mainstream, and as long as black and Hispanic Christians turn out overwhelmingly for the Democrats and their welfare and amnesty policies, Christianity has little to no voice left in America.
So what is the solution?
Let the libertarians be defeated by the Democrats.
Though it is very hard to accept, Christians and white nationalists cannot be duped into thinking that a libertarian GOP will somehow restore George Washington’s or George Wallace’s America. The opposite will be true. If the libertarians were to “take back America,” we would have a country flooded with illegal aliens who have easy access to every social perversion imaginable, while being able to buy their Chinese-made goods at El Wal-marto with gold-backed dólares. And if you are one of the remaining proud white Christians, you will suffer the same social discrimination that you face now and still be labeled a racist and a bigot by Rand Paul’s von-Mises-educated Hispanic shock troops.
Therefore, for ethno-religious nationalists, in letting politics take its course, five to ten years from now we will find a much more favorable environment for our ideas to be received by an increasingly aggravated and hostile white Christian populace that is still the majority population of the United States.
The political hysteria is currently centered on the Tea Party’s takeover of the GOP. That is fine; let them have their moment in the sun, for it will be short lived. The handwriting is already on the wall for the 2016 presidential election. It will most likely be Ted Cruz or Rand Paul versus Hillary Clinton. This is the stage we want set. Many commentators think Hillary has too much baggage, and she does, but nobody cares. By then, Benghazi will be forgotten, and the selfish impulses of every voter will manifest itself by wanting more welfare, now that Obama has doped the entire country on it. As well, with the economy gradually worsening, more people who would otherwise vote Republican under these circumstances will vote for Hillary, because she will promise more free stuff than Paul or Cruz. Additionally, on this note, Paul/Cruz will be running around poor, blue-collar white areas which are heavily dependent upon government funds, such as Western Pennsylvania, northern Ohio, central Michigan, and the entire state of Iowa, talking about free-market economics, the gold standard, and some esoteric discussion about the Founding Fathers. This will inevitably cause these welfare-dependent whites to vote for Hillary.
Moreover, given the radically heightened levels of immigration, legal and illegal, over the last several years, other states that should be “red” are now going to become blue or swing states. For example, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico are already lost to the Democrats due to Hispanicization, and the same will soon occur for Florida and North Carolina. Soon enough Islamicization will lock Old Virginia into the Democrat camp too. This is an electoral disaster for anyone calling himself “Republican,” and any message other than socialism and Hispanic nationalism will not work in securing votes.
The Americans still believe in a political strategy to salvation. They still work off the idea that “if only we get the right person in there,” America can be fixed. In order to break them of this intellectual slavery, we need their idols to fall from grace. Obama gave the Right its largest political victory with the defeat of the Bush-era apparatchiks, and consequently his administration radicalized America to a certain degree, but not enough. Now we need Hillary (or whomever the Democrats chose) to do this next step for us: defeat the Tea Party’s leaders.
On November 8, 2016, when the Democrats win again, after having suffered through the age of Obama and after the Tea Party, the so-called best hope of the GOP, fails to take the high office, people’s faith will begin to erode again. They will begin to ask very deep and difficult questions, such as “Can our party ever win again?” And the answer will be no, so long as the socialist intelligentsia controls our culture and political bureaucracies and the welfare drugs white voters.
This crisis of a political solution will then again become more apparent, leaving room for nationalists of every breed to make their way into the mindset of America as Hispanicization, Islamicization and de-Christianization accelerate, thereby providing us room to insert ourselves more boldly and authoritatively into the political discussion. Now, all of a sudden when the GOP’s minority outreach fully displays its failure, we are in a better position to “save the day.”
A Tea Party victory, though possible, would be disastrous for our movement. With them holding the reins of power, it will legitimize the GOP “revival,” and Caucasian Christians will come to believe again that America is on the path of salvation. Then, with Rand Paul on his white horse leading the way, all of a sudden that drug-dealing Hispanic neighbor is not so much a problem anymore; his only problem is his ignorance of American values and free-market economics, so he just needs to be educated. Never mind the fact that he wants to steal your city, county, and state for la Reconquista.
Therefore, the call for us is to be political and socially active on the local level, where we still have power and we still have the opportunity, to take back our localities. We need to channel and attack on issues like Hispanicization, government intrusion, and social liberalism in such a manner as to delegitimize “the system.”
Christians in America need to be shocked out of their belief that America is still theirs. It is not. It was lost long ago. They naively though understandably do not want to let America go. Their ancestors founded and built it, but the reality is that America has been usurped by a cabal of various Leftist factions who want to use American symbols, resources, and institutions to destroy White Christian America. Unfortunately, they own the political system, and therefore we have very little hope for a political solution to this crisis of culture.
Rather, we can hope, by mimicking the passion of our Roman ancestors in the catacombs, to fight a social-guerilla war against the institutions of this nation that are controlled by the Hollywood-New York-Washington axis. Until Caucasians learn to mentally and spiritually secede from this nation, there will be no transformation. The solution in the meantime is to empower the white man spiritually and to give whites both a messianic vision of what could be and to help break down the psychological barriers that inhibit their racial and spiritual awakening.
If a spiritual revival can occur amongst whites, it will be possible to potentially save America, or at least most of it, meaning the part not conquered by la Reconquista. If we fail, however, America will turn into South Africa, with a degenerate white leadership that micromanages a servile non-white population; and White Christians, much like their Afrikaner and Rhodesian brothers, will have to pack up and relocate to Canada or Europe where white identity is larger and/or stronger.
Either way, the central point is to not fall into the grand deception that is the Tea Party and its idols. The Tea Party could be used to our advantage; it could be “hijacked’ by race realists and the remnant of the Christian Right and used to our own ends. Every opportunity for us to be involved in Tea Party action is an opportunity for enhanced victory. But even so, we cannot hope for a traditionalist revival until the ideologies have played out and the idols have fallen.