Making Western Horses Drink
by Karl Kammler
In a past CNBC interview, Tim Russert asked Pat Buchanan about the efficacy of his controversial new book, The Death of the West, in which he argues that America will eventually lose its core European demographic character to declining birthrates and mass immigration unless we change our liberal policies. Russert suggested that some people might concede the validity of Buchanan's argument, but still not really care about his main point. Buchanan readily agreed, stating this apathy was the problem, and the source of his pessimism.
Buchanan's text heralds a new political reality: the media-imposed veil surrounding the hard issues of immigration and population has been punctured. No doubt, the mainstream media will continue making snide comments about Buchanan and his book, but at least they're commenting. Not long ago, this constellation of issues was confined to segments the media called "right-wing extremists." At last, these important issues are entering the wider public discourse. Fewer people can claim ignorance of the challenges that the West may face in the future. Now, another barrier must be confronted as we begin thinking about long-term racial survival and national renewal: how do we get people to care enough about what they hear to effect political change? Buchanan has led the Western horse to water. How do we make him drink?
First, we must recognize the interconnectedness of the problems America faces today, and the need to address these in a systematic, coherent, comprehensive, and principled manner. The days of the "cafeteria conservative" that have characterized the White patriotic Right must end. The problem is no longer with the Left, which holds power in America only by default. The problem is that there is no longer a no-holds-barred opposition to the Left. Too many conservatives have decided to declare, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," as they crawl into the kosher sandbox to play pattycake with the Horowitzim. Major issues are defined more by voting blocs and polling results, because many confuse principle with that which is expedient -- or "politically correct." This is the only way we can explain the madness of the Section 245(i) amnesty debacle that has even RimJob's Freepers up in arms.
White Nationalism recognizes that the major issues interrelate to form the fabric of society. It was once possible to discuss a "liberal" versus "conservative" position on race relations or gay rights, for example. Much to the detriment of the White middle and working class constituency that forms the backbone of America, the brand of conservatism that the media elite approves for public consumption today makes it possible for "pro-gay rights" conservatives to exist. That same "modern" brand of conservatism jettisoned the White Nationalist elements that had characterized conservatism until the 1960s.
Worse, random cobbling together of issues has made it possible for our leaders to make deals devoid of integrity -- they say, "overlook my position on gay rights and you can have a tax cut." Middle America is left holding the bag, with no true leaders. This has to change if a consistent opposition to the Left is to be mounted.
To make people care about an issue, they must be shown how it impacts their self-interest. A nice real-world example of this might be calling attention to the prospect of what will happen if the issues are not resolved -- Americans will face a more difficult life as they conduct their daily affairs when English is no longer widely spoken and rampant Black and Hispanic street crime threatens public safety.
At the same time, one must appeal to people's idealism and sense of responsibility -- a task best accomplished by reminding them of the concept of the Burkean contract between the living, the dead, and the yet unborn -- the long-range picture conservatives used to have. This long-range picture is a bit harder to instill in others. On my desk, there is a two-inch high pewter statue of General Custer. It reminds me of the sacrifices those in the past made so that I could be here today. It encourages me to make sure I don't let past generations of Americans down by failing to transmit what they have given me to the future. Maybe a good way to instill this sense is to find a similar little piece of the past to hold on to.
Finally, exploitation of alternative media sources, including the Internet (like the Vanguard News Network), can help spark thought and interest about previously forbidden subjects. If you're reading this, you know there are other currents of thought circulating among your fellow Americans, ideas that easily become submerged as the trend toward the center among Republicans and Democrats proves Governor George Wallace correct: "there's not a dime's worth of difference between them." You may not agree with all positions you find out there in White cyberspace, but you're better off knowing that there are other ways of dealing with political reality than through the lens of Dan Rather, or God forbid, Geraldo Rivera. Moreover, you are better off asking, "who benefits?" from silencing certain discussions and viewpoints. The Establishment media certainly try to keep some items off the table -- even "citizen journalist" Matt Drudge didn't seem to have any links to the Section 245(i) story. Asking such dangerous questions is the key to restoring and preserving freedom.