No Way Out But Through the Jews

A Review of Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement
by Alex Linder

Executive summary: The Jews have taken over the American right, and they have the money and media access to shut out any contenders. Meaning: Unless you build a movement that explicitly forbids Jewish participation and focuses on Jews as the political enemy, you are destined to be coopted or crushed. Or at least rendered impotent, like the Old Right, and left broke and fuming on the sidelines. Caveat: The Internet isn't accounted for in Gottfried's calculus.

...the review

In his 1993 book The Conservative Movement, Jew Paul Gottfried provides an excellent short history of post-WWII conservatism, and one that provides a clear, if implicit, message for today's White nationalist. That message is the title of this review: No way out but through the Jews. If you plan to pursue the political goal of a civilized White America, these Jews will be at your throat every step of the way. So you might as well not kid yourself about that but set your phaser on "kill" from the start.

Gottfried never comes right out and says it, but the upshot of his history is that the right has been taken over by Jews. Centered around the Podhoretz and Kristol families, this Jewish movement pushes an anti-American ideology. Where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson advocated no entangling alliances abroad and local rule at home, the neocons promote a plus-sized managerial state at home, and global democratic crusades abroad. Since their infiltration in the late sixties, early seventies, says Gottfried, these Jewish "conservatives" have garnered the lion's share of money and media access, marginalizing the traditional right. And although he nowhere mentions talk radio or the Internet, Gottfried sees virtually no options at the disposal of those who would usurp the usurpers.

Who are the neoconservatives? Essentially, they are a small group of East Coast Jewish intellectuals of regular private morality. They are former reds or red-diaper babies who departed from the New Left when it started advocating odd sex and communism and other policies they felt were potentially anti-Semitic. As they emerged from this sixties morass, they gravitated to the right, where they found allies in the anti-communist cause; friends with foundation money that could be used to construct a bulwark against their crazier New Left brethren. Over the course of the seventies, the Jewish neoconservatives took over one foundation after another, supplanting the Christian traditionalist bias of American conservatism with their detailed policy studies and position papers. These bore proof of their sociological and statistical cast of mind, different from the Kirkian religious-literary bias of traditionalists.

By the time of Reagan, they had achieved dominance. Any conservative hoping to make a career of it, whether in politics or writing or commentating, had to hew to their specific vision of the America they wished to conserve if he wished to preserve his own office, air-time or sheet space. Any vestigial strains of racial feeling or regional sympathy were anathema to these racist philo-Semitic anti-racists who are unstinting in their anathematizing of anyone who diverges from their pluralist, democratic dogmas. Any American, that is. The dogmatic democratic pluralism disappears when it comes to Israel, where Semitic chauvinism is, quite rightly they think, the law. What White racialists want for America is no different from what Jewish neoconservatives want for Israel. But they will try to shout down anyone who makes the equation, just ask Joe Sobran. Only Jews have a right to an ethnostate; democratic pluralism is good enough for the rest of us. This hypocritical double-standard springs directly from the gut Jewish feeling that an America made up of many conflicting groups, riven by cultural standards, divided by ethnicity, history and behavior, is the America in which the Jew is safest, and can move about most freely. A strong, sure White nation scares the Jew. So whether it's America or Europe, he tries to undercut it with anthropological lies about the unreality of race, falsified histories ("diversity has always been our greatest strength") support for open immigration, suppression of free speech and the destruction of free association -- all in the name of "civil rights." Neoconservatives are Jews, no need to look further than that. Jews, whether left or right, ask only one question: Is it good for the Jews? They hide behind universalist rhetoric, but their concern is for themselves. And you can be absolutely sure of this: Their interests are not our interests.

Perhaps the most interesting question to emerge from this study of these newly proclaimed "conservatives," although Gottfried never conclusively addresses it, is how conservative these neoconservatives really are. I'd put it this way: It's not clear how many of them are conservative, but it's quite clear that most of them are Jews. I'd also answer, They are not conservative so much as less progressive or wacky than the left. But it is probably not possible to prove that they are essentially different. They both believe in the welfare state. George Will, one of the non-Jewish neocons, points to Disraeli and Bismarck as conservatives who forestalled revolutionary socialism through welfare-state provisions.

This view holds across the board. Where the Old Right was interested in repealing the New Deal, the Judaized Right is interested in trimming a few programs. The neocons and the Jew-dominated left both retain their essential belief that smart guys with pen and paper can sit down and plan us close to if not into utopia. As Gottfried says, they believe that they have "solved" politics, and that all that remains is protection of Israel and a few cultural issues. No one can logically or legitimately or should be allowed to, politically or morally, doubt their twin dogmas of political democracy and racial equality. American history they calculatingly misrepresent to fit these dogmas. And because these neoconservative Jews are intelligent and clever they can persuade many non-stupid Americans that they are right, plucking out words and phrases here and there to project their political agenda backward onto the Founders. Those who object to having our forefathers mislabeled and lied about, they dismiss or shout down or, by means of our sons, bomb into the grave. David Horowitz would be a prime example of an expert deployer of a plausible, counterfeit theory and history of America to suck in potential White racialists and get them four-square behind a nutty, extremist, ahistorical view of politics that can only lead America into South Africa's pit of horrors. The triumph of individual rights in Black lands means the triumph of the jungle. It is extremist, rationalist and counter-historical to elevate a political process over the character of the people. How can ignorant, 75-IQ blacks produce civilization protecting the individual rights these neoconservatives claim to love? Can one-man, one-vote really produce that miracle? Of course not, and these Jews know it. And they know that the Founders knew it. So they lie. The truth, as they know and cover up, is that the Founders understood that only civilized, self-controlled White men were capable of civilization, and that to expect dissolute, lazy, TV-drenched slobs mixed with mulattoes and Negroes and Mexicans to vote in ordered liberty was to expect the impossible. But David Horowitz, living in Los Angeles, can look out the window and tell you it's possible. Never underestimate the power of Jewish duplicity in furthering Jewish self-interest. That's a second corollary to Gottfried's study.

We asked above whether or not these neoconservative Jews were really conservative. Perhaps that question isn't important. One point Gottfried does develop, writing in 1993, is just how little difference there is in today's political discourse between left and right. As I write, George W. Bush is battling Al Gore, so the point is hardly stale. Effectively, the left and right may differ in degree, but everybody supports a capitalist welfare state and global democracy. Everybody is "inclusive." Everybody bows before the great God of Diversity. Are the Jews conservative? In the deeper sense, no. They are still radicals, intent on spreading their lies about human fungibility, from which they aone are exempt as the "Chosen" people. Left or right, they are eager to destroy our White civilization to further their group interests.

On the second most important political issue of the day -- leaving the borders open to the third world -- the Jews speak with one voice: no patrols. Note this well: Never in American history has a majority of Whites favored colored immigration. The Jews alone favored it, for reasons outlined above. Now whose policy is followed today? -- that of the Jewish minority, which doesn't think like you and I do. You thought the majority was supposed to prevail in a democracy? Wrong. Political control in a democracy, as Aristotle observed, is vested in those who control television. This is part of what certain Americans are getting at with the 'ZOG' formulation that all the pseudo-sophisticated college-educated folk laugh at (as TV has taught them to). The Jews almost to a man push open-borders immigration, and they denounce anyone who differs as an evil racist/nativist/xenophobe.

All the Jewish lies dovetail intellectually, and all of them advance Jewish interests. I recommend, I urge, I wish I could force everyone who hasn't to read Kevin MacDonald's paper on the Jewish influence in the hundred years of debate preceding the nation-killing 1965 immigration act that opened the floodgates to the third world. The Jewish hatred of the White world is the story that doesn't make the news, even as it remakes your neighborhood. I doubt the plush-paunched Republicans watching TV politics as spectator sport will ever pick up on it. You will run a long way before you meet an average American with the slightest historical awareness -- nor the interest in developing one. But the arguments are lying there, exactly as I've presented them, and perhaps in a crisis people will take a hard look at what brought us to our current position. For all the disinformation out there, it's still not too hard to detect the patterns once you have the facts. . . .

So we've seen that Jews claiming themselves "conservatives" but not all that different from their leftist brethren have come in and dominated the right. Where does this leave whatever is left of the non-Jewish right? I would break this set into two subsets: those who are openly racist (which Gottfried avoids) and those who make veiled or open Semitically Incorrect arguments while attempting to maintain their "respectability." The former have no political power, while the latter are desperate to hang on to their columns and speaking engagements.

Although there are a handful of Jews pushing standard White-racist arguments, and who would receive even less notice than they do get if they weren't Jewish, these same never take into account that Jews can never simply be another ethnic group assimilated into a purified White America. The nature and qualities and history of their group shows just that -- they are a group. And since they are a group that recognizes itself as a group and fights against other groups on that basis -- they must be opposed as a group. This is not so much guilt by association as guilt by genetics and behavior and history. As a group they have strategized to destroy the civilized White America they felt threatened by, and anything we do to them in return is more than deserved. Treating them as individuals, just like we are, has failed. The correct path is to treat them as the radical alien outsiders and eliminate their influence. We need to take their flag off the courthouse, so to speak.

Getting back to the lesson at the top of the page, Jews have so strategized their evolution (see Kevin MacDonald's work) as to be considerably more intelligent than their hosts, with an average IQ of 115, a standard-deviation above the White mean. This intelligence and their proven historical character combine to ensure Jews will always be the yeast, the irritants, the makers-uncomfortable, the revolutionaries. Wherever they exist in White society they will be a force for disruption. The fact that some can exist as peaceful ethnics among the White majority does not negate this Big Truth (for if there can be Big Lies, there can also be Big Truths). Because class-arguments can be abused, and because injustice will be meted out to individual non-Whites when we rebuild civilization, the Jews enforcing their dogma of individualism will always have points to make that resonate with our myopic right-wing individualists. But just as surely as these Jews averted their eyes from the general horrors ensuing in South Africa after their racial-and-political equality dogmas were enacted, the pro-White right must be louder than ever in showing that their ethnic Jewish self-interest can only end in the extinction of the White race. Really. Those are the stakes.

The media neoconservatives can't afford to admit the evidence of the failure of their dogma in South Africa, rape and murder capital of the world; rather they redouble their insistence on individualism to evade the Big Truth that colored demographics and political democracy doom White minorities everywhere. And taking a global perspective -- as we are all supposed to do, nowadays -- the White race is a small minority, and growing smaller every day. Our White kinsmen are already being butchered in their homes and driven off their farms in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Literally tens of millions of Whites have become victims of violent Black assault in America since the Jew-eased passage of "Civil Rights" legislation. The Jews well know these facts, and that is why they avoid reporting them. They hated South Africa when it was ruled by civilized Whites. They don't give a damn what happens to Whites once their beloved Negroes are carrying the whip. Foolish, foolish White man -- will you not wake up while there is time?

What we are discussing is a very simple: the Jews are a class fighting to dominate other classes, just as Benjamin Stein saw in his report on the TV Weltanschauung, The View from Sunset Boulevard. Jew Stein, like Jew Michael Levin (Feminism and Freedom) and Jew Paul Gottfried, will never name his people as that class, pointing to "writers and producers," "feminists," and "neoconservatives." (It is really truly amazing the way that Jews are able to camouflage their interests, always presenting their specific goal as a general good, and that their terms are tacitly accepted in their opponents' rhetoric. It's like we all are under contract to agree that the Jews aren't a group and don't have any specific interests and certainly don't work to advance those interests and even if they do, they aren't in conflict with ours. But notice that on the flip side, the opposite conditions obtain: Jews always attack their opponents by class (right-wing Christian extremists, racist haters, Arabs), lingering lovingly on the specific interests of their undifferentiated opponents; always forestalling counter-arguments as "anti-Semitism" driven by the only motive Jews ever allow their opponents -- all together now -- "hate." The Jews can only get away with this clever I-criticize-you-and-you criticize-that-bag-of-flour-over-there setup because they exert extraordinary control over television and newspapers. And their backup line of defense, of course, is to denounce anyone who notices the strategies behind their tactics as an anti-Semitic conspiracymonger. This is a second aspect of what the 'ZOG'-minded are pointing to.

Stein is writing about the class of TV writers and producers; Gottfried is writing about neoconservatives; Levin is writing about feminists. All of them mean Jews, none of them can afford to say it. When you become a Jew, it's almost as though you have to sign a sheet saying you will either avoid mentioning negative Jewish characteristics or -- pace Marx and Freud -- reinterpret specific, offensive Jewish behaviors or patterns as generically human: i.e., repression, or characteristic of an exploited class. (An excellent book, The Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray Cuddihy, covers this topic in depth.) The one thing none of these rightist Jews wants is a civilized White society where Jews are nonexistent. Or ghettoized. Or looked down on socially. Or in which you are free to speak and write and talk about Jews as specific people who act, look and think in generalizable ways. Jews may be physically ugly duplicitous socialist troublemakers, but they don't want you saying that. They will propagandize through the schools and TV until you are practically unable to notice it because the whole context in which you might make such an observation has been destroyed. They will make hard to find the few books that dare discuss it. (Just try finding Cuddihy's book.) History is nothing but a propaganda tool to them. In living memory they were kept out of the better hotels and clubs and colleges, and since treatment of the Jews, to Jews, is the true measure of civilization, any time they were legally or socially treated as other than the God-sent gift they present themselves (that is, all history up until about fifty years ago) must be falsified into Dark Ages (Jews out of power) preceding today's Enlightened Age (Jews running the show). Let alone the ghettoes of old Europe, these people are capable of portraying the fifties in America as some sort of racist hellhole, saved only through heroic Blacks led by saintly Jews in the name of civil rights or federal tyranny, if you prefer your descriptions accurate. What is clear to every Jew seems to be unclear to most White Americans, especially those on the right who ought to know better: this is a war of classes, a war for power and dominance between a small but smart and well-positioned ethnic group and the vast majority of civilzed White people. The Jews instinctively recognize this battle, feel it in their blood, and are fighting hard for their side. Most on our side aren't even aware a war is going on.

Gottfried points to two symbolic episodes that show the transfer of power from the traditional right to the neocons: 1) Rockford's firing of John Neuhaus, and his subsequent denunciation of traditionalist racism and anti-Semitism among the Old Right; and, 2) the neocons' successful defeat of M.E. Bradford, a traditionalist historian, as head of the National Endowment of Humanity. What was the traditional right to do? Basically, it retreated, licked its wounds, and looked about in search of allies and money and media outlets. What has happened, and this is clearer now than when Gottfried completed the book, is that the American political system under Clinton has gotten so corrupt that even average people began to notice. This alone has strengthened the traditional right's never-too-strong confidence, and strengthened its new ally, the libertarians, too. And both sides have benefited hugely from the Internet, which at once strengthens small groups and somewhat threatens established media institutions. By 2000, there were enough ganglia of pro-Whites on the Internet to get mainstream Jewish groups scribbling "hate crimes" model statutes, anti-gun legislation, and politically correct browser censorware at top speed.

It might have been expected that the loss of power and funding would have resulted in the radicalization of the traditional right, at least to the point of open talk about taking the American right back from the Jews. There was very little of such talk, none of it open -- at least among those with one eye on "respectability," that ever leftward moving boundary observed by fools.

What we still see on the right in the year 2000 are leading non-Jewish right-wing Whites couching what they know to be racial arguments in regional or race-neutral terms. Sam Francis speaks of Middle American Revolutionaries. He means Whites, but he's afraid to come out and say it. Of course, he gets called racist just the same. And he got fired from the neocon Washington Times just the same. But Jews, to him, are just people with a different religion, and he can still find a way to fit minorities into that Middle American revolution.

Then there are the various Southern separatist groups. All are carefully non-racial. All get accused of being racist. All fail to draw the correct conclusion. It is amusing in a sick and increasingly irritating way. Is there nobody left who can think clearly and isn't afraid to voice his conclusions publicly? No, the Southern Semitically Correct separatists present as sorry a face as they always do. Always trying for that elusive respectability, always failing to achieve it, and always losing the few -- and merely symbolic -- battles they do engage in. For people who brag incessantly "on" their heroic Confederate ancestors, they show little courage and less intelligence. I'll say it again, a little louder now, so Johnny Reb can hear me: THERE IS NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD TO BE OR PRETEND TO BE NON-RACIST. YOU ARE THREATENED AS A GROUP, BY A GROUP, AND YOU'D BETTER GET THOSE GROUPS STRAIGHT IN YOUR HEAD TO HAVE ANY HOPE OF PRESERVING THE LAND AND PEOPLE YOU LOVE.

A little more on the Southern-rights groups. The left always froths over them, as though people too scared and powerless to say what they mean openly are going to achieve anything. This frothing is more a measure of media boredom and the fact that the left is so dominant it has forgotten what real opposition feels like that it goes overboard. The left so buys its own frothing demagoguery it can't even realize these people have ceded the essential point before they even start arguing. Pity the poor Southern separatist. He can't even keep the flag in the air or the niggers from pooping on the statue of his great-grandaddy. Even with all that Confederate heroism runnning in his blood, he's still selling his problem as Northerners, not Blacks. As though America hasn't been homogenized by TV into one big mall or airport lobby. As though the guy in Arkansas is worried about the White man just over the Missouri line, more than the Black next door. How pitiful and obvious he is, our man of gray, thinking the media will buy that he's really not racist. He can't see that it doesn't matter in the slightest if he isn't, and if he is, he's contemptible for not arguing openly. Ditch the gray and go for black and white, Southern Man.

How many times does the right have to learn that the media really is controlled by Jews, by intimidation where not by ownership; that Jews really are leftist; and that anyone preaching anything remotely resembling White pride gets treated like a human showing emotion in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (that is, squawked at and pointed out to the cops by the aliens who are taking over the planet) -- so that he might as well oppose the Jew's anti-White hatred openly. You can't win where the other guy defines the terms, sets the labels, interprets the law. You must oppose him openly, directly, explicity and give him no quarter. Why are you always on the defensive? Could it be the same reason you always lose? Here we come to a deep-lying problem with conservatism. First of all, nobody's ever satisfactorily defined it. A branch of that problem is that there is no philosophical basis for incorporating political attack. A new conservatism must be envisioned that incorporates not merely the preservation of custom and tradition, but one that can accommodate formless spiritual or psychic drives that are even more important than patterned behaviors: questing, exploration, simple competitiveness. Even blood-lust. What could be more conservative than blood-lust? But where do you find it among the Republicans; over at the Jew-intimidated National Review? Among the foundation-based low-tax remonstrators?

The funny thing is that once you say, Yes, I am a racist. Just like George Washington. And you are a White-hating Jew -- the poison is drawn. They have set the terms of this political game we all play, and only by refusing to play do we stand a chance of winning. It is utmost foolishness, as anybody who has published conservative articles anywhere in the world will tell you, to try to escape the racist tag. You can't, and in any case it ain't a meaningful word, people -- it's just a way to smear and discredit you. Fight the smearers and discrediters directly, refuse to play on their terms. Love and fairness no more conquer hate than they conquer bullets. Prefixing your conservative arguments with "I'm not a racist, but..." and expecting to achieve your political goals is like one of those African rebel guerillas smearing himself with magical pig grease thinking it will stop bullets.

Apart from your opinion of the Nazis, consider their tactics. Did they win -- democratically -- by adopting the tactics of the respectable American right, or did they gain converts by their physical courage and their willingness to confront the Jew-led communists? How much worse can the Old Right do than it is doing right now? Not much. The mainstream right -- as I write, G.W. Bush and the Republican convention are in full swing, every other speaker addressing the hall is a colored -- has decided to ape the liberals. In the words of the song, Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Well, what on earth do the Sam Francises and Thomas Flemings and the Pat Buchanans have left to lose? A column in an obscure magazine? A speech to a few dozen like-mindeds? Is it possible they will turn to effective tactics out of sheer boredom? Sam Francis (you'll serve as representative here), how could you possibly do worse than you are doing now by openly criticizing Jews instead of making pusillanimous attacks on East Coast elitists and New World Order bureaucrats? How could you possibly fare any worse by defending the Black-and-White truths of the Founders in black-and-white terms?

Then you've got the libertarians, trying to get government off our backs without any recourse to racial explanations or group interests in explaining human behavior. Trying to understand the world one person at a time. Some of these libertarians are products of Silicon Valley, and to the extent they philosophize, they are Randian individualists. They believe in free trade and free movement of peoples, and make no distinctions between them. Libertarians seem to instinctively turn away from any historical recognition of the circumstances under which the freedoms they demand were actually realized. Even their few (and in many ways impressive) intellectuals who are interested in history tend to fall in line with the the politically safe Jewish lie about the non-racial aspect of our founding, building their future utopias in that tired old, misunderstood, misrepresented "all men are created equal." Politically, libertarians are laughable, beyond their useful ability to supply policy papers. Imagine a whole bunch of computer geeks and economics professors marching on Washington under the fear-inspiring banner of "Me!" Now there's an Army even our heroic neo-Confederates could take! Libertarians maybe never will realize that, again I yell, BLOOD AND RACE ARE WHAT MOVE PEOPLE, NOT THE RIGHT TO SMOKE DOOBIES AND BUGGER YOUR BOYFRIEND. NOT EVEN ECONOMICS. Am I really the only idiot to notice that when Whites ruled America, White people were free? And that when Jews and Blacks rule America, they're slaves? But most "right-wing" libertarians would rather support a minimum wage hike than acknowledge this simple historical fact. They are too rationalist in temperament, too much like our liberal dictators. Too in love with their idea of people-as-individuals-in-the-low-tax-multicultural-utopia-of-tomorrow to pay attention to street-level political and historical reality.

Many of us want individual liberty, but it only obtains under certain circumstances. There sure doesn't seem to be much of it around in these days of "civil rights" for everybody except the people who created the idea of 'em in the first place. If there's anything that gives the lie to what passes for "conservatism" these days, it's right here: Genuine civil rights -- association, property, speech, self-defense -- were much better protected in the days before the prating Jews and their colored parasite minions rose to the fore. Yet recognition of the race-based nature of practical, effective, genuine freedom will get you kicked out of the Libertarian party faster than you can say Don't Do Drugs!

Libertarians take one aspect of looking at the world and inflate it into the entire cosmos. This is their built-in bias. When you combine it with their standard right-wing fear of crossing the Semitical Correctness line, you have a second hurdle between them and racialism. The conservative Christians share these political flaws. Their concern is not for the race or the group, but for the salvation of the individual soul. Of course, since in years past the Good Book has been used to support virtually every position under the sun including communism, there is a bit more hope for their conversion on the racial issue, should the powers that be change. TV Christians have proven able adopters of the Semitically Correct line. Israel is good and racialism is bad. That's the message they're getting from New York, and that's the message Pat Robertson is putting out to rural North Carolina. The libertarians have their hated parties, but these are always anonymous "bureaucrats" or "statists," or "socialists" -- never anyone you can actually get your hands on. Same with the Christian conservatives. They are the equivalent of the libertarians in that the former are excellent at certain types of economic reasoning (Why We Should Privatize Trash Collection) while the Christians retain solid moral and character-development advice. They are both good on the small-picture stuff. But neither group can take a realistic look at the general; they are both concerned about saving Heaven or Liberty one soul at a time. They both simply refuse to make necessary generalizations. Christians, again like Libertarians, invariably throw their opprobrium on carefully generic targets: Atheists, secular humanists (gays are the one exception, and even here they say "Hate the sinner, not the sin," as though that doesn't conflict with their doctrine of free will). A Jew or a black or a Mexican is a vivid image, immediately recognizable. The abstractions countered by the Christians and the libertarians are creatures that nobody would recognize on a public street. They are fighting abstactly against abstractions, instead of coherently for something concrete.

Never do the Christians go after the Jews who are killing their doctrines; never do they speak the name of their real enemy despite the spittingly obscene provocations to which he has subjected them. This is why, with tens of millions in numerical advantage, the Christians aren't even masters of the civilization they created. In fact, much of the leadership class of the Christians has become so enthralled with Jewish ideas that now the church will bend any which way the Jews require, whether it's removing the Commandments from the classroom the way the Jew judge and Jew-created and -run ACLU tell them to, or rewriting history to avoid the fact that Jews condemned their own Savior to die (as in the revised [read: Semitically Correct] Passion Plays)! They may think they are only turning the other cheek, but self-abasing worms is what these new Christians truly are. This used to be a religion whose adherents killed others in glorious crusade for their Truth, and died at the stake before renouncing their Faith. Today, the biggest name in Christendom hobnobs with nutty Buddhists and faxes apologies to Jerusalem. For all its residual focus on humility and self-discipline (welcome antacids to the Jewish public school lies about self-esteem, which is really self-absorption and self-worship; in a word, selfishness), the Christian church in America is today furthering the racial evils that Jewish ideologues, especially those misappropriating the name conservative, have subjected us to. Pat Robertson has no problem with those influxing Mexican chicken-pluckers heaping his collection plates, and has publicly advocated miscegenation as the long-term solution to our racial ills. If he preached miscegenation as a sin, as his hardier forebears did, he would be burned at the stake. Pardon me, I mean, he wouldn't be on TV. The fact that any evangelicals are on TV at all is conditioned on their support for Israel and their multiracialism. This is what makes their leaders despicable -- not the hypocrisy and White-trashiness the left and right would have us sneer at them for.

Recently Bush's first national campaign ad aired. It shows him at a school surrounded by little black and brown kids, all well on their way to becoming the computer programmers and doctors and lawyers and Republicans of tomorrow. It seems the GOP has made up its mind which way it's going. It's everyvato's party; down with the homies, too. Make any show that persuades in order to capture power. The old Clinton strategy. After all, reality is that waves of wets wash over the border every night, and at some point they and their kids will vote. The bulk White population is fading, and the core demographic supporting conservative principles simply won't be there to swing a presidential election in another ten years. Even Jew-genuflecting National Review has noticed this Californication of America, as has been termed in a different context. But sucking up to the powers that be, angling for a spot, doing what he's told, is something the middle-manager mind that makes up the Republican ranks well understands. Ya got to roll with the punches, ya know?

White man, you have to decide. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice, to make a phrase. You can pull a Christian Scientist, and pretend that that brown spot on our national chest will just go away if we think positive thoughts long enough, refuse to acknowledge it. But it won't. Those coloreds swamping the border, those grasping welfare niggers, those lying Jewish press manipulators won't disappear of their own accord. Twenty years from now, George Bush-Brown will be president, and all the things you fear today -- your kids blood-libeled at school; yourself discriminated against on the job; your taxes higher than ever; your wife subject to insults, rape or assault; your big cities gang-dominated; your small cities dominated by nigger "music" and clothing pollution; your guns outlawed; your political opinions criminalized; your TV louder and more intrusive and hateful -- will be worse. As Paul Gottfried shows, but doesn't tell, the same Jews that have made the present possible are working hard to make this future inevitable. But there is still a window of opportunity. But only if you recognize that we -- you and I and the others reading this -- are part of the White race, share interests, and must band together. And that, politically, culturally and socially, to achieve a civilized future, there is


Gottfried's The Conservative Movement may be purchased through our Store.

Back to VNN Main Page

Click Here!