Enoch Was Right
For many years in American and European politics, the left has utilised a political strategy to gain influence and win elections which involved uniting the minorities (the coalition of the fringes) and diving the majority (Whites). This is a kind of revamped Marxism (Cultural Marxism) which sees the heterosexual White majority as an oppressor class vis-à-vis the various “minority” groups; “liberated” women, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Latinos, homosexuals, the poor, atheists, disaffected youth, disabled people etc. who must be united under an “oppressed” proletarian banner (with heavy organisational input from leftist “intellectuals”) to overthrow the “oppressive”, White neo-bourgeoisie. The New Left has been relentless in its opposition to White Western civilisation and it has largely been successful, and it will gradually become more successful in the future as demographics shift in their favour due to the mass third world immigration that they have instigated. The left, blinded by its hatred of traditional White people (especially straight White men) largely does not realise that its efforts to reconstitute society in an egalitarian, anti-White direction will not bring about a new era of liberty and equality but the destruction of European civilisation. Nevertheless, the ultimate consequences of the New Leftists actions whether intentional or not, are irrelevant to whether they will be successful in bringing about these changes.
The New Left strategy is twofold; strengthening minority consciousness, while weakening majority cohesion. The only way that a coalition of such disparate groups with conflicting interests and often mutual antipathy could be held together is by uniting them against the “patriarchal, heteronormative, White ruling class”, real or imagined. What else but hatred of traditional White people could bind together Muslims, homosexuals, feminists, hard-secularists, Jews, Blacks and Latinos? The second part of the strategy has involved weakening the ties which bind the majority. This has been done partly with a program of educational and media propaganda and revisionist history to make Westerners ashamed of their ancestors’ civilisational accomplishments and to separate them from their bio-cultural roots but much of it has been done by turning various groups of Whites against each other. The New Left has attempted to divide the Whites on the old grounds of class resentment (bourgeoisie vs proletariat) but this has not been of primary importance to them since the fall of paleo-Marxism. This is partly because many White working-class people (who are far wealthier than they were in the 19th century and thus less dependent on the economic left) have come to support “reactionary” political positions and parties following the failure of globalisation and because the vast majority of White supporters of the New Left program are very much bourgeois themselves. However, the main reason for this switch in allegiance is that New Left “intellectuals” have identified a new, more pliable proletariat to exploit politically (and one they can continuously import) on grounds of identity rather than class, plus the radical students of said “intellectuals” and the radical gender and sexual minorities from the White population already mentioned.
Using Blacks, Muslims and Latinos against Whites while continuously lobbying for further non-White importation has done a great deal of damage to us in this regard as virtually all Western societies are facing the prospect of a minority White population at some point in the future. This colonisation of our land has already had severely negative political, cultural and economic effects for the White majority and will continue to do so in the future, at least until the White majority decides to fight back. Aside from rallying ethnic minorities against traditional Whites, other important groups in this coalition have joined the other side in the civilisational war. Many White women have joined our enemies due to the toxic anti-male ideology of feminism, while White homosexuals generally see themselves as an oppressed minority with more in common with the other members of the fringe coalition, young Whites (especially those in academic institutions) have recently been (or are in the process of being) brainwashed by leftist teachers or professors and hard-secularists have been encouraged to join the coalition (especially in America) due to their distaste for the religious right. The most important part of the New Left coalition and the kingpin of the anti-Western, anti-White racket, is the North American and Western European Jewish population. The Jews provide the vast majority of the financial muscle, political clout, media propaganda and academic brainwashing, which the poisonous coalition relies upon heavily for survival. One only has to look the names of the major U.S. corporate and political donors, media moguls, Hollywood producers and leftist “intellectuals” to know which group of nogoodniks are running the operation.
While this tactic has been devastatingly effective so far, nationalists must strive to reverse its effects by doing the exact opposite; unite the majority and divide the minorities. Splitting the New Left coalition requires concentrating our fire upon the fault-lines of the group; the areas where conflicting interests, mutual distrust and if properly kindled, hatred are most prominent. Muslims are ideal for this purpose, as they are unpopular or very unpopular with other members of the coalition and often harbour even more contempt toward their other coalition partners than they receive. Muslims are generally averse to non-Muslims but they have a special contempt for homosexuals, feminists, secularists and Jews. We must alert gays that most Muslims are disgusted by them and wish to criminalise homosexuality, which they do in 70% of Muslim nations and execute them in 20%. We must alert feminists that Muslims generally support genuine patriarchy and Sharia law, which counts a woman’s testimony in court as half (or less) than a man’s and of their common practices of female genital mutilation, child marriage, polygamy and other anti-Western activities. We must alert secularists and advocates of animal rights that the overwhelming majority of Muslims support criminalising speech critical of their religion and the barbaric treatment of animals they slaughter, as well as dogs in general. We must alert Jews that Muslims dislike them even more than we do and that a world containing an Afro-Islamic Europe, a Latino North America and an exploding global Muslim population will not be a world where Israel can exist for very long. Opposition to ethno-cultural alien criminality and parasitism (often but by no means always Black or Muslim) should be a unifying area for Whites, who can be stirred to support popular anti-crime and welfare measures in response. Donald Trump has had some success using this strategy in the United States with certain tough policy stances on law-and-order, including condemnation of the unpopular anti-White agitation group; Black Lives Matter.
Aside from exploiting the unpopularity of Muslims, a secondary strategy most applicable to the U.S. would be to inflame resentments between Blacks and Latinos. Latinos are a smarter and more industrious population than Blacks (which isn’t saying much) so they tend to outcompete Blacks for blue-collar labour and unskilled jobs (reducing their wages and increasing unemployment rates) win rival affirmative action positions and get a large slice of the welfare pie. Mass immigration (legal and illegal) is clearly against the economic interests of Blacks, especially since the Latino ruling-class of the future will be far less sensitive to their demands than modern Whites racked with faux ethnic guilt have been. Blacks should be informed that their treacherous Democrat leaders are selling them out for their new favoured ethnic minority; Latinos. While getting Blacks on board with supporting a nationalist movement that emphasises White identity is unlikely to happen in any significant number, sowing discord between Blacks and Latinos could cause a significant number of Blacks to stay at home on election day or even to break away from the New Left coalition and form their own political party which would be considerably less influential, as the anti-White coalition cannot reliably win national elections without Black votes. This could even put Blacks on the road to Black nationalism, which is certainly desirable from a White racialist perspective as it would pave the way toward ethnic secession and pan-racial autonomy.
The other key tactic in the nationalist strategy would involve uniting the White majority. This would be done by creating a palatable political platform for all Whites, regardless of secondary identities whether sex, sexual, class, religious, age etc. The platform must be pro-woman (though not pro-feminism) pro-secular (but not Stalinist toward religious beliefs commonly held by the White majority) pro-youth, anti-anti-gay, pro-moderate environmentalism + animal rights and both pro-working and middle-class. This platform would not alienate moderate feminists with support for equal pay laws, private maternity leave and abortion on demand but it would strongly support traditional women as well and oppose radical Islamic and feminist ideology. Secularists could be brought into the fold by de-emphasising religion and unconditionally supporting free speech (especially that which is hostile to Islam). Young Whites, who ultimately suffer more than any other group from mass alien immigration, would have this issue addressed and could be given debt relief for their student loan debt to win them over, prior to closing most universities down. Homosexuals would be treated equally under the law under these proposals (including continuing the legality of the token gay “marriage” laws) they could be given stronger legal protection against Muslim attacks and security in knowing that the nationalist state would reverse the Islamisation of the West. Environmentalism and animal rights are generally very popular with the White public and instituting tougher animal protection laws, as well as banning halal and kosher slaughter would be of benefit here. Finally, the economic policy would be grounded on the old fascist principle of class collaboration, instead of class conflict (the principle of Marxist communism and socialism). Pro-middle-class policies would include the protection of private property, the abolition of public labour unions, slashing welfare and reducing taxation on the middle-class but the working-class would benefit from strict labour market protectionism (an end to all immigration, especially non-White immigration) trade protectionism to revitalise manufacturing industry and well-paid manual labour, a living wage and limitations on property speculation to reduce real estate prices. Both economic classes would overwhelmingly support the abolition of anti-White and general state discrimination quotas (”positive discrimination”) and increased taxes on the mega-rich in roughly equal numbers. White people generally support harder measures against crime and they would certainly be needed to control the (largely non-White) criminal population (along with stronger gun rights) if these kinds of policies were implemented. As nationalists, we must promote collaboration between Whites instead of allowing unnecessary divisions to be sown between us, which is half of the New Left strategy. Fascism in the more class-based 20th century supported unifying all economic factions, while the socialists and communists attempted to divide and conquer but a fascism of the 21st century must be able to meet the modern challenges faced by our race, primarily in the arena of identity politics rather than economics.
While I believe that a modified form of fascism is desperately needed to save the Western nations from destruction by alien or treasonous elites and the third world populations which currently occupy our nations, we should not directly associate ourselves ideologically with historical fascist movements. Dressing up in uniforms, seig-heiling, displaying Swastika emblems etc. is dreadful persuasion. History is written by the victors and these movements are discredited in the minds of the vast majority of Whites and we need to win over a lot of them if we’re going to succeed. It especially turns off “respectable” Whites; those with a fair amount of money and influence. No political movement can reasonably expect to succeed without some friends in high places. Instead of calling ourselves fascists or Nazis, we should describe ourselves as identitarians. The latter label has not been smeared to anything like the same degree as the former labels and it appeals to a sense of fairness in Whites. “Isn’t it right that Europeans should be able to act in our own best interests and preserve nations for ourselves as every other ethnic group does” etc. Identity is regarded as something positive and non-threatening to normal people, while “fascism” conjures up images of death camps and totalitarianism. While we should not copy any ideology wholesale or adopt 1930′s aesthetics, we should take the valuable parts from fascism and National Socialism and integrate them into a worldview which addresses our contemporary problems. Very few leftists openly refer themselves as Stalinists or Maoists these days, and the ones that do have no influence. Leftists know they must adapt to changes in the political environment, which is one of the main reasons they have been so successful. The battles of the 30’s and 40’s are not relevant to the lives of the ordinary White man or woman in the current year, so we should formulate an ideology and package it in such a way that it can tackle present-day problems concerning race, identity and the whole host of other relevant issues.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has made great strides, partly by exhibiting some of the features of the strategy I have outlined. He has largely abandoned the phony cultural issues and divisive social issues which tend to turn Whites against each other and instead focused on common points of agreement and reconciliation. In his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, he omitted divisive issues like religion and abortion, while supporting gays against Muslims who wish to harm them, a position perfectly tailored to appeal to both liberal homosexuals (as well as those sympathetic to them) and conservative Christians. His attractive and classy daughter Ivanka spoke in favour of a kind of equity feminism, attractive to many or even most Western women and various policies to help women in the non-domestic labour force get paid leave to start a family, which would have effects favoured by traditionalists. We must pursue tactics like this which get Whites with disparate or conflicting interests to co-operate by unifying them with the most fundamental thing they share; their racial and cultural inheritance, while uniting them against their most basic adversaries; cucked traitors and ethno-cultural alien criminal-parasites. Another part of this platform would involve opposition to interventionist wars (which are inherently part of the globalist agenda and usually Zionist influenced) but on patriotic grounds, to unite White anti-war activists and national-jingoists. I believe that the strategy I have described is the best hope we have for reclaiming our nations with or without civil war, due to its inherent intra-racial inclusiveness and its grounding in political, social and biological reality.