I asked for comments from AFRIKAANERS on my recent Blog article (“Mark” below) on Stormfront.
One Boer replied and then went on about how disappointed he was that we pro-whites cannot UNITE in a seamless robe, without backbiting and backstabbling.
MY REPLY:
Take it from an old campaigner: This is NOT a game for nice people.
In fifty years in this fight, I have left behind legions of people who have obsessed on personalities or on others’ personal dedication to Unity on philosophies.
In fact, I wonder what world you are living in. Have you ever heard of a revolution that did NOT contain everything you are complaining about?
Get into my blog and let’s talk about reality.
#1 by kane on 09/26/2006 - 6:15 pm
NOT SPAM
This is percisely why I think groups like David Duke’s Euro or White Revolution will never ever go far. If you look at revolutionaries, they don’t cooperate. Nazis did not cooperate with other non-communists. Bolsheviks and Mensheviks did not cooperate. Saddam Hussein did not cooperate with Communists, Theocrats, and Democrats. Unity doesn’t go anywhere. A car has to have a motor and unity doesn’t drive it.
#2 by Dave on 09/27/2006 - 11:18 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
BW keeps coming back again and again to this subject of ideology versus pragmatics.
Reagan was an opponent of something that has not been opposed in big league politics since Reagan and that is the rise of “communitarian standards” in social life.
Reagan opposed the salting of the bureaucracy with his appointees because he wanted to establish a “competing standard” that specifies that appointees loose their jobs when the boss loses his. That was the way things were before the civil service and Reagan felt that if we go back to the old ways we could mitigate the plague of rule by academics and financial elites.
Reagan understood that the concept of “communitarian standards” was a mechanism through which an academic-financial elite establishes a dictatorship they call “democracy”. This is the European Union today.
Everybody (and I mean everybody) along the ideological spectrum nowadays loves the notion of “communitarian standards” in one way or another. The Christian Right is in love with the idea as are Hippy Liberals. Even the “anti-globalists” love the idea without noticing the irony.
The genius of BW is that he understands that humans are punished by cleverness and Reagan was a measure to clever for his own good. I get the feeling that BW is an opponent of all ideology.
Instead BW says focus loyalty alone. Isn’t that a truly radical idea?
#3 by Al Parker on 09/27/2006 - 12:13 pm
NOT SPAM
I think one has to first decide if he’s a conservative or a revolutionary.
Bob is calling himself both. Is there no contradiction here?
I can understand why one would want to call himself a conservative and speak in ambiguous terms about preserving European heritage. It brings the normal, mentally balanced people that we desperately need into the movement. But I find it disingenous at best and deceitful at worst. As if non-whites would leave if you gave them a plane ticket and a few dollars. Yeah, right.
#4 by Alan B. on 10/04/2006 - 8:02 am
Not SPAM
I read a article awhile back, it was about the liberal white farmer and ex-polition in Rhodesia. Seems this poor guy was finally evicted from his farm, he was shocked, he had helped screw his own people over for years by helping the blacks bring down white rule. I guess this white boy will no londer rule that roost, how alone he must feel, a white rose in a black sea, lol.