Question to yourself: What manner of revolution will it take to stop and reverse this genocide? Because as it’s been well documented for years now:
talking and voting doesn’t work any more.
by A Dissident Millennial
IN AN editorial titled “Who Are We,” New York Times’ “conservative” Ross Douthat portrays the divide in American politics as a battle between those who want the country to be a patriotic and traditional nation versus those who want it to serve as a liberal and “universalist” safe haven for oppressed people around the world. The latter group considers America to be, in Douthat’s words,
a propositional nation bound together by ideas rather than any specific cultural traditions — a nation of immigrants drawn to Ellis Island, a nation of minorities claiming rights too long denied, a universal nation destined to welcome foreigners and defend liberty abroad.
Although Douthat supports the end-game of the “universalists” — namely, the transformation of America into a multi-ethnic, transnational democracy — he is concerned that the left’s dogmatism on the issue has undermined the viability of the liberal experiment by alienating middle-American Whites and leading to the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the country. Therefore, Douthat pitifully hopes that liberals can somehow find a way to “correct” — i.e., negate — the traditional story of America while somehow still managing to “honor” the country’s “white-male-Protestant-European protagonists, to whom, for all their sins,” admits Douthat, “we owe so much of our inheritance.”
Such is what passes for “conservative” commentary in the New York Times.
(As an aside, consider Douthat’s above use of the term “sin” in reference to America’s founding. In Douthat’s eyes, America’s Founding Fathers didn’t simply make mistakes or experience lapses in judgment; no, instead they were terribly compromised before God for their horrid racism. Such thinking supports the notion that modern liberalism is, at least in some respects, a secularized form of Christianity’s universalist ethics. See Greg Johnson’s essay at Counter-Currents titled “Racial Civil Religion” for a discussion on how Christianity in the modern West evolved into the “civil religion” of Liberal Universalism — and how a comprehensive and assertive racial ethos ought to replace this ethno-masochistic slave-morality.)
Piggybacking off Douthat’s adolescent meanderings, National Review’s John O’Sullivan also expresses concern that the open hostility of liberals towards Whites has poisoned America’s experiment in multi-racial governance. In an article titled “Notes Towards the Redefinition of a Nation,” O’Sullivan writes that:
The “universalist” narrative [of modern liberalism] has no real place in it for white Americans, especially white males, except perhaps as permanent penitents for everything that happened before, say, 1968. They are the only group expected to make sacrifices under affirmative action — sacrifices that grow heavier because the protected classes grow steadily through immigration. They are the only permitted butts of ethnic humor. And they are regularly called upon to confess “white privilege” (or be written out of debate) in academic courses hard to distinguish from Communist reeducation classes under Mao. As usually happens, moreover, theory limps along after practice to embrace expressions of simple, unqualified anti-white racism…
Today’s America is the result of the liberal experiment having become unhinged, in O’Sullivan’s view. Amazingly, O’Sullivan admits:
It was a common and largely undiscussed assumption of both major parties and the elites that serve them that the old America [i.e., the historic White American nation] would gradually give ground to the new until a fresh American synthesis was achieved, not without hurt feelings along the way but in the end broadly tolerable to all major social groups.
Within the limits of partisan advantage, therefore, both parties saw it as their responsibility to ensure that this gradual transformation of America’s national identity occurred without violence and undue conflict. Why not? It was inevitable, wasn’t it? But this required, and got, a degree of collusion between the parties that took the form of not strongly opposing policies such as affirmative action and not exploiting popular opposition to high levels of immigration and not following through on election promises to do something on such matters.
In other words, instead of defending the interests of the historic American nation over the past fifty years, the country’s ruling elites consciously took it upon themselves to engage in a subversive campaign of ethnic cleansing against the founding White racial stock of the country. The fact that O’Sullivan admits this in a publication which bills itself as “the flagship of conservatism” is nothing short of astounding. Does O’Sullivan realize he just admitted to being a party to treason, and does he know what the penalty for that is?
O’Sullivan concludes his sorry editorial by meekly hoping that the “new America” can “find a place for the descendants of the original settlers,” who, in O’Sullivan’s view, deserve an “honored place” within America but not an “exclusive place nor even a privileged one.” O’Sullivan then exults, like a true “conservative” cuckold, that
Today the richest Americans are not white Protestants but Asian and Asian-white mixed race families.
Actually, whether O’Sullivan is too cowardly to admit it or too stupid to notice, the richest and most privileged “Americans” today are most definitely Jewish elites, followed by the members of a managerial class that is disproportionately Asian, under which exists the hollowed-out mass of White Americans living paycheck to paycheck struggling to keep their distance from a growing and revanchist “Hispanic” population and a horrific Black underclass. Yet O’Sullivan is perfectly content — nay, ecstatic even — to keep this arrangement in place so long as the expressions of hostility towards Whites are toned down a notch to keep things from getting too uncomfortable for him.
Such is what “conservatives” like O’Sullivan have to offer dispossessed White Americans: Absolutely nothing.
Fortunately, our options as dispossessed Whites are not limited to begging for a nominally “honored” place within O’Sullivan’s “new America” versus accepting the status of second-class citizens within our own country. No, a third option exists, one that conserva-cucks like O’Sullivan would shudder to even think of: Initiate a Second American Revolution, one that would partition America into sovereign regional entities based upon the insoluble racial and ethnic divisions introduced to the country in the name of liberals’ much-heralded “tolerance” and “diversity.”
O’Sullivan doesn’t want us to consider this latter option to secede because if we choose it, that would represent not just a vote of “no confidence” in O’Sullivan and his fellow elites, but an out-and-out rejection of them and everything they’ve done and stand for, leaving these obnoxious parasites stranded without a host to leech off any more.