The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ryan Andrews Archive
A Time for White Leadership
Will the last American kindly turn off the Shining City on a Hill?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With the passing of Rush Limbaugh, this feels like the right moment to reflect on the legacy of talk-radio conservatism—an “alternative right” which preceded us—and to consider how we might succeed where they failed. In their bones, millions of right-leaning Americans know that the time of ‘standing-up for America as founded’ has passed. Our job is to prevail upon them that now is time for White America to stand-up as Whites, and stop fighting with half-their-brains-tied-behind-their-back.

But if we are going to fare any better than populist conservatism at bringing the necessary intellectual leadership to our people, we must be clear on our purpose—the ethnostate. We, as English-speaking Whites, view ourselves, rightly, as a nation. And as any other, our nation has a moral right to a state of a size commensurate to accommodate its numbers. This must be our message, stated just so plainly. Along with our ideal, we need a basic outline of how we can go from here to the ethnostate in a fashion morally acceptable to reasonable people. Otherwise, we are just wasting ours and everyone else’s time. Make America White Again is just as ridiculous as Make America Great Again. The fundamental flaws were (1) ideological misdirection/incoherence and (2) overestimating numbers and potential numbers. We should not make the same mistakes.

• • •

I’m not here to bash Rush; he was a supremely talented American original who faced his impending end admirably. I was never a dittohead, but I certainly get why so many were. A lot of other people did what he did, and he was a lot better at it than any of them. And there are many more nice things that may be said of the man, but I cannot be uncritical. It must be said that superior political insight—the ostensible purpose of his program—was not among Rush’s gifts. Though he spent his entire career railing against it, “the big voice on the Right” never did quite comprehend the magnitude of what we face, and even if he had, it’s not like he had any great ideological vision to counter it anyway.

He was just an American-style conservative, along with all the nonsense and futility that that entails.At the end of the day, his worldview amounted to a cruder version of that of the National Review. Plus, the Dems are the real racists. This, combined with his inimitable style,won him millions of loyal fans, and hundreds of millions of dollars, but it made not a dent in the Left’s relentless advance in the “culture war.” In the year Rush’s show went into national syndication, the GOP won the presidency for the fifth time of the last six elections (winning at least 40 states four times, and 49 states twice). Since then, the Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential contests. “They used to get away with it.” Then Rush came along, and they still get away with it, but then, they’re the majority now anyway.

Their City is Gone

The contradiction at the heart of talk-radio conservatism has always been an exaggerated love of “America” combined with a deep-seated opposition to all of America’s major institutions. It sounds ridiculous to us now, but forty-odd years ago, when Rush was a young man, it would have had some surface plausibility. In 1980, the country was still 80% White, down a bit from what it had been at mid-century, but the same as it had been when the first census was taken in 1790. Demographic changes were surely noticed around the edges, but it still looked like home. To the average low-information conservative, everything was fine until the pampered boomers came along. Then we got soft, and let the hippies and the bleeding-hearts infiltrate positions of power. Luckily, the ‘silent majority’ had reacted strongly against the excesses of 60s counter-culture. And then Ronaldus Magnus came along and warmed the cockles of their little hearts. Maybe we had learned our lesson. We just had to be more vigilant about “leftist wackos” going forward.

Well, we see how that worked out. During the “racial justice uprising” of this past summer, we received a particularly vivid illustration of how well that’s worked out. (Take note, an uprising is totally not the same as an insurrection, even if said uprising involved attempting to storm the White House, resulting in the evacuation of the president to an underground bunker. It is a false equivalency to compare storming the White House with storming the Capitol, and is just the sort of disinformation that we must get a handle on if we are to protect our democracy.) While many conservatives were aghast over the summer that Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act to quell the “mostly peaceful” racial reckoning, Rush speculated that Trump worried about losing face, because the military leadership might well have refused to follow such an order. My friends, when it’s come to this, we can no longer speak in terms of our institutions being compromised. At such a point, there is no longer any “we” to speak of; there is only an us and a them.

The silver-lining, for us, in the contradictory talk-radio conservative worldview is how definitively it draws a friend-enemy distinction between the Left and the Right. Rush in particular never tired of expounding on why there can be no compromising with Leftism. Not only did Rush paint the Left as the implacable enemies of liberty and the American way, he went further, characterizing the psychology of Leftism in essentially the same terms as Edward Dutton does. The Left, Rush would explain, are not like you and me. Every aspect of life is political to them, they insert ideology into everything. And they are never happy, always resentful. We might take pity on them if not for the fact that their resentfulness fuels a relentless hostility toward us. They are always on the attack. In other words, they are spiteful mutants. Amidst all his silly denunciations of “environmentalist wackos” and “feminazis,” this hard friend-enemy distinction was the true essence of the Rush phenomenon. Whether he pushed that way in the interest of securing audience engagement/investment or out of genuine conviction (I think both), is of no concern to us. What matters to us is that he did push that line, and in so doing, molded the entire populist wing of conservatism into that mindset.


What he ultimately sowed with this is something close to the opposite of his purported intent. His stated aim was to save America from liberalism, to not rest until every American agreed with him. What he actually accomplished was the division of America into separate nations. He so thoroughly alienated his audience, and much of the populist Right, from the rest of America that they have become a sort of amorphous proto-nation. It turns out he really was on the cutting-edge of societal evolution.

• • •

To me one of the most extraordinary developments which I have not seen remarked upon elsewhere is the emergence of the Trump 2020 flag. At the rallies, on cars, and hoisted up residential flagpoles, Trump partisans have a flag for their cause. As far as I can recall in my lifetime, this is a first in American politics. Supporters of American political campaigns have bumper stickers, yard signs, and campaign pins. They wave signs at campaign rallies. They don’t have flags. Nations have flags. The populist Right in America is already at least sub-consciously aware of itself as a separate nation. What defines them as a nation, and what they want for their nation, that they do not yet know. Their leadership has utterly failed them in that regard. In the grand scheme, all the wacky conspiracy theories that float around the mainstream populist Right are testament to Conservatism Inc’s failure of leadership. The stupid, and frankly sad, conspiracy theories of the Right are a direct result of conservative leadership being too weak and stupid to unequivocally rebut the conspiracy theories of the Left.

We live in a country in which every major institution has explicitly favored non-Whites over Whites for the better part of three generations, a country in which reducing Whites’ share of the population has long been official policy. And yet, the Left, and its mainstream media, is able to push the conspiracy theories of “White privilege” and “systemic racism” virtually unchallenged by mainstream conservatives. Sure, they will argue that the Left goes too far. Some of them will say that the leftist racial narrative is wrong altogether. But never do they give it the serious attention it deserves. Either they don’t comprehend the depths of the issue, or they just don’t care.

The concept of “White privilege” is not just one of many eccentric narratives floating around the leftist blogosphere. It is the Left’s very reason-for-being. They, and well-nigh the entire American establishment, stand on opposition to Whiteness as the foundation of their legitimacy. And it is a racial blood-libel, one that is for all intents directed squarely at the Right’s voter base, and aims at delegitimizing their cause at the root. And still, conservatives can hardly be bothered to address it.

Talk-radio is right when it tells conservatives that they are under-attack, but the attack is primarily against them as Whites. And the conservative establishment will not defend them on that ground, nor advance their interests on that ground. This is where we come in. We are the ones to defend them as Whites, we are the ones to advance their interests as Whites. We need to tell that, if they so choose, they, as English-speaking North American Whites, are a nation. Our job is to provide (1) the moral justification for why they ought to see themselves as a nation, (2) the moral vocabulary for them to assert their right to be a nation, and (3) explain the moral means by which we might have a state for our nation. In other words, our job is to fill the leadership void on the American Right.

Naturally, weening them off of Americanness is a prerequisite to their embracing Whiteness as their nation. In the long run, this should not be too difficult. The America of their dreams is utterly implausible. The reality of America moves further away from their vision of America everyday. The very existence of talk radio is implicitly based on this fact of American life. The other side’s numbers grow every year, your side has won the popular vote for president once in the last eight cycles; do the math. Virginia and Colorado are deep-blue states. Even if you can cobble together a majority, do you really want to live in a country where a substantial share of the population bases its politics around hating you and everything you stand for? Your country should feel like home; you shouldn’t need to live on knife’s-edge every election cycle.

Meanwhile, this negative message is twined with our positive message for the ethnostate. You and yours were White long before they were American. The White race has been our peoples’ nation since before we had even conceived what a nation was. As an individual, race is your foundational group identity. Your ancestral membership in this group goes further back than any other group identity that separates you as distinct from others. It is your true nation not because its members share common values or tastes with you, but because it simply is you, you at scale.

You may have been mislead to think that collective identity necessarily imposes on individual liberty, especially if it is an inherent identity such as race. With other collective identities, that may be true, but not with race. The fact that race is inherent, the fact that you did not chose it, is precisely what makes it so conducive to individual liberty. If race is the basis on which your nation-state defines itself as a nation state, then there is no inherent need for the state to coerce you into conformity. You conform with the nation-state by your very existence. You are free to do whatever you like with your life, and it will not change the fact that you will conform to the nation’s definition of itself from the second you were born until the second you die.

If you still want something else, whether that be Americanism or whatever, so be it. Unlike the Left, I do not wish to force you into ideological conformity. You are right that nationalism should be based on ideas. But it is not the nation that hands the idea down to the individual. That would truly constitute a harmful collectivism. Rather, it should be the individual who makes his idea into a nation. As a good, freedom-loving American, I believe every individual has an inalienable right to the nation of his choice. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a dead letter if the tyranny of the majority can suppress the nationalism of the individual.

To most ethnonationalists, this all looks very unrealistic at first glance, but think deeper, and outlandish idealism of this kind is the only realistic path. Our “nation” is scattered all across the fruited plain, everywhere a minority, yet all together we are several millions. There is certainly potential for us to grow our numbers, but it is pretty safe to assume that we will always be a minority. Not least because barely more than half the country is even White, and that share is going down all the time.

Let’s say we nationalists, as 15-20% of the population (we are likely not half that, but that is probably about what we need to be for anyone to pay attention to us), identify as a separate nation, and request the right to go our own way. To that end we ask for a viable area of some 3-5% of the country’s territory, home to an even smaller share of the country’s population, for ourselves. And as recompense we announce our willingness to pay the U.S. an x-amount share of our GDP for an x-number of years, as well as pledging to remain in military alliance with them. Most Americans, eventually,will support our cause, provided we are loud and visible enough.

In principle, most people have no moral objection to the notion of an ethnostate. If some number of people want to go and live that way, fine. The only moral problem they have with it is, but how? What about the people already there? It’s all well and good to talk of “raising consciousness,” but public consciousness never becomes public acceptance until we answer this question. Besides, answering the question of how is in effect an aspect of our moral argument ,and thus is of a piece with raising public consciousness.

There really is no good argument against us, other than, “But we hate you, and you deserve nothing.”

What about the people who already live there, and want to stay in America? The other 95+% of America is still there for them. If moving 100 miles down-the-road is too great an inconvenience, then it must not be that important to them after all. You can help them with their moving costs with the money we’re already paying you. What’s really inconvenient is not having your own country at all. What about the non-White population there? Same goes. And if they live inland that would become part of the ethnostate, then the odds are they already live around a bunch of White people anyways. What’s a few more?

Yes, majority support is not the same as elite support. The establishment is unlikely to be moved by the righteousness of our cause. Opposition to our cause is their cause. So we have that going against us. But things can change.

Having majority support is not everything, but it gets the ball rolling, it builds consciousness. If it is the right majority, it becomes difficult to ignore. If we are 15-20%, and 70% in total support our cause, including a large chunk of the organized non-White and far-Leftist base who just want the racists out, meanwhile increasing numbers of the Right are joining with us, then pressure starts to build in our favor.

Combine that with where our politics appear headed over the next decade. The federal government has run-up an enormous deficit over the past year. The Democrats’ base is impatient for even more spending, for an ever wider and deeper social safety net. To those in the beltway, \$50-100 billion a year is not worth losing a France-size chunk of territory over, but activists may well see it as leaving money on the table that could go to social programs. Meanwhile, the conservatives have been making their own murmurs about the possibility of a national divorce. No less than Rush himself hedged in that direction recently. Conservative Inc’s first instinct would be to suppress us as hard as they can, but the base is likely to continue entertaining their own ideas of national divorce. Suddenly there’s a lot of moving parts in play, and maybe, eventually, the establishment decides a state for us is their least worst option. They can decapitate red state secessionism, and pacify the proles with some gibs in one move.

Maybe our message never breaks through here, but what about Canada or Australia? Like the US, those countries have run up huge deficits during the pandemic. Unlike the US, their currencies are are not the global reserve currencies. They may be in for some lean economic times. Canada also is planning to increase their already outlandish immigration totals for the coming years. You never know who’s going to rally to your flag until you unfurl it.

If you want to sit around, all coming up with reasons why the elite will never permit us an ethnostate, that’s your affair. Okay, maybe the ethnostate doesn’t have much to offer the establishment. That is all the more reason why we must appeal to the moral sympathies of the people. The morality of our cause is the only card we have to play

”Be realistic. Stop LARPING”
”Be realistic. Stop LARPING”

This sounds pie-in-the-sky, but our ideal is already pie-in-the-sky. Embracing that is our most realistic option. “More realistic” people on our side claim the path to our salvation is infiltrating the GOP/conservative movement, or boycotting the electoral process, or attaching White identity to an economic populist program.

Infiltrate the GOP? People have been attempting this for years, and it’s gotten nowhere. Hell, conservatives have been at that game for even longer.

As for boycotting the electoral process, would anyone even notice? If every one of us had sat out the last election, voter turnout still would have been higher than it was in the 90s. Rather than delegitimizing the establishment, lower voter turnout might just as easily be interpreted as a sign of relative social content. And while economic populism may well be useful as a cudgel for bludgeoning the GOP, it is certainly not going to Make America White Again. And if your ultimate aim is a separate ethnostate, then economic populism is a dishonest line. The ethnostate is not going to be in a position to provide a lavish social welfare system. If it’s gibs you’re after, best to stick with Team America.

But whatever the merits of these or any other strategies, they would “put the cart before the horse.” The self-styled realpolitik tacticians of our side who would sneer at my naïveté betray their own misapprehensions of how power works. They fundamentally misunderstand our position. Strategies are for actors, and we are not an actor, we are an ideology.

States, sports teams, chess players; these are actors. They have strategies. They are actors because they already went through the ideological part. They already know who they are. We are not like them. We are a still-forming idea. It is a still-forming idea because, even if we here know who we are, 90% of the members of our would-be nation do not know who we are. Many Whites are ethnonationalists ‘who just don’t know it yet.’ Subliminal entryism is not going to get them there. The first step is to define to our people what we want, and why we should have it. Otherwise there is no “we” in the first place.

Sorry folks, just saw the word count, and I’m long here, but we’ll be back before you know it.

Ryan Andrews is the author of the forthcoming book The Elective Nation.

(Republished from Affirmative Right by permission of author or representative)
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Fr. John says:

    ” The populist Right in America is already at least sub-consciously aware of itself as a separate nation. What defines them as a nation, and what they want for their nation, that they do not yet know. ”

    This article is (like so many) totally disingenuous. We DO know what we want:

    1) A whites-only ethnostate
    2) Primacy of Place for (even I have to admit it) traditional, orthodox Protestant Christianity.
    3) populism (i.e., Huey Long/Wm. Jennings Bryan) government.
    4) DISENFRANCHISEMENT at the very least, and DEPORTATION at the very most, of all ideological/racial ENEMIES of Christ and America.
    5) yes, and the lies of a certain (((Ethnic))) tribe are now all out in the open, and people are waking up.

    Oh, you may not hear it, here. And you certainly won’t read it on the J-media. But it’s there, and the percentages are growing. Just a look at sites like Occidental Dissent confirms it, via graphs, charts, and the ever increasing USELESSNESS of fools like McConnell, Cheny, et al. on the RINO front… and EVERY SINGLE BASTARD ON THE DEMON-RAT front. Just sayin’…..

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @advancedatheist
  2. Realist says:

    A Time for White Leadership

    Thanks…it’s been time for a long time.

    • Replies: @goldgettin
  3. Leadership is the West was always in the hands of outsiders. Except for a brief period in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s.

    The history of the jews in Germany during the 1930s is seemingly repeating itself. In Deutschland a total of 2,275 anti-Semitic hate crimes were reported in 2020. This is an average of six per day.

    Police reports reveal that very few perpetrators have faced court for these crimes. This seems strange given that German government officials repeatedly claim that fighting antisemitism is priority number one.

    The real reason the perpetrators don’t face justice is because it is politically incorrect to identify the true suspects. The hordes Merkel invited to Europe in 2015 are responsible for the vast majority of this antisemitism.

    But the German authorities are not letting a good crisis go to waste. They instruct the police to systematically assign unsolved antisemitic hate crimes to the far-Right.

    The proof of this is in the criticism which has been expressed for a long time by experts that the pinning of the vast majority of antisemitic cases to Right-wing extremist perpetrators is incorrect.

    Who has instructed Merkel’s police to exonerate German Muslims of these crimes and instead blame them on native German nationalists? The EU’s jew overlords of course. It seems the jewish elite don’t really mind their tribal members being under attack in Europe. But beware, when the jews are attempting to get their tribe to leave Europe, you can be sure something big is on its way.

    This is almost an exact repeat of what happened in Germany during the 1930s. Back then Zionists wanted jews to leave Europe and resettle in Palestine to build up their numbers there, but also because they knew Europe was heading to war. But many jews didn’t want to do this.

    So, the Zionists approached the Nazis – who also wanted the jews to leave – and did a deal. The Nazis would encourage anti-jew feelings and the Zionists would provide transport and publicise the advantages of moving to Palestine.

    To a certain degree this worked, but many jews, even in the face of antisemitism, refused to leave Europe and immigrate to the Middle East.

    In the latter half of the 1930s, in light of this refusal and well aware that war was coming, a top Zionist said, “Let them stay, let them experience war and even worse antisemitism, this will teach them a lesson and ensure in future that when we advise our jews to leave an area, they’ll obey”.

    When the war actually started many jews then approached the Zionist elite and asked for assistance in going to Palestine, but they were refused help. The Zionist elite stuck to their guns about teaching Europe’s jews a lesson.


    It has to be said that the Nazis were actually very nice to do a deal with these jews, considering how these same jews had betrayed Germany in 1916.

    Not many are aware that Germany made a very decent offer to England in 1916 to end WW1. At this time England was on its knees and at the point where she couldn’t continue with the war. German U-boats had almost closed off all her sea lanes and England’s food and munitions had run out.

    The Germans said to England, let’s end it and return to the way things were in 1913. This was a stupendous offer considering England was all but beaten.

    European Ashkenazi jews saw this as their chance. They wanted a headquarters in the Middle East for their planned-for world hegemony. These jews went to England and told her that if she promised them Palestine they’d get the US to enter the war on her side.

    The scumbag English snatched at the offer. The Ashkenazi jews then got their cousins in Washington to order the halfwit Wilson to bring the US into WW1. Then in 1917 the English announced the Balfour Declaration, which was the blueprint for a jewish state in Palestine.

    Joe Biden isn’t the first halfwitted fool puppet in the White House. Wilson beat him to it.

    The Germans became aware of how their Ashkenazi jews had sold them out for a piece of desert land in the ME whilst the Treaty of Versailles was being negotiated. That every jew in Germany wasn’t strung up from lamp posts in the 1920s and 1930s shows how civilised the German people actually are.

    It also shows that being civilised isn’t always the best way to go.

    As for the 1930’s Zionist elites deciding to teach Europe’s jews a lesson, they didn’t factor in that the Nazis would eventually take revenge for the jew betrayal in 1916, and load the jews into cattle wagons and haul them to work camps. Where many of them died when the war turned bad for a resource starved Germany.

    The deal the Zionists made with the Nazis in the 1930s in regards to European jews, along with the 1916 betrayal, undoubtedly played a big part in the subsequent suffering of Europe’s jews during WW2.

    Modern progressives and the low-IQ will not believe there was a deal done between Zionists and Nazis in the 1930s. This is because they naively think that if it were true that Zionists actually played a part in the suffering of jews in WW2, then the modern jew elite wouldn’t have the gall, or be shameless enough, to continually whine about the “holocaust”. After all, the progressives would think, if jews themselves were responsible for their lot during WW2, they’d accept this.

    And considering this deal, some on the political Right might be confused as to how the modern jewish elite can harbour such hatred against whites for the happenings in the 1940s. Happenings that they themselves hold all responsibility for.

    To understand how the modern jew elite can be aware of the guilt that they themselves hold for the vicissitudes of WW2’s jews, yet blame it on Whites, you have to understand the mindsets of inbred sociopaths.

    Usually, a community engaged in consanguineous breeding doesn’t last long. Inbreeding throws up all sorts of genetic abnormalities that impede and eventually stop the reproduction of the community.

    Impediments such as high levels of homosexuality, pederasty and paedophilia will greatly constrain reproduction rates. Then there’s the low-IQ idiocy that makes the consanguineous community’s survival much less viable.

    The inbreeding jews overcame some of these problems by incorporating outsider communities into their own. The Ashkenazi “jews” are the best example of this. Originally, these people weren’t jews at all. They were a non-semitic hodgepodge of criminal-type Asian people that had been run out of various parts of Asia.

    They eventually ended up in the area of the northern and central Caucasus and the Pontic-Caspian steppe where they interbred with various Turkish tribes and, in the 6 century A.D., formed a conglomerate there which was known as Khazar.

    These Khazars were sociopathic, disliked manual labour, were gifted at stealing, trading, cheating, slavery, human trafficing, manipulation, prostitution. Being experts in these lines they eventually came into contact with the jews. The jews liked them very much, and found they had a lot in common with them.

    In the 6 century A.D. the jewish bloodline was very consanguineous. Inbreeding and being continually turned upon by states they were parasitizing off had taken its toll. The remedy: very soon there were thousands of jewish rabbis in Khazar converting the citizens with the full blessings of their chieftains.

    Today these converts are known as Ashkenazi jews. London, under her jewish overlords, went all out to get the Khazar “jews” into England in the latter part of the 1800s. When the Khazar “jews” got to England they immediately set up protection rackets and very soon had the natives cleared out of many of the commercial areas and their businesses taken over. British authorities turned a blind eye to this. (The infamous Kray twins’ ancestors, and many others like them, came to England with this deluge of Khazar “jews”.)

    Check this link for a talk that Benjamin Freedman gave, where he mentions the Khazar “jews”. Freedman was a genuine jew who disliked the way jewery was headed and turned on them:

    So, you can see how the modern jews are a very unique species. They undertake centuries of inbreeding, and then every millennial or so they incorporate a hodgepodge of hybrid sociopaths like the Khazars into their race.

    The end result is a species that has the mathematical skills of computers and the mindsets and empathic powers of lizards. Then throw into this mixture the traits of a serial killer that simply hasn’t the power to stop murdering those that are weaker and has his home full of body parts that he keeps as trophies.

    This is the modern jew. A species of inbred hominid that really can’t be said to be intelligent. When a person with intelligence attempts to pull a manipulative stunt on another and gets hurt as a result, he or she will learn that being straight is better. They’d certainly learn this lesson after the second or third attempted manipulation backfired.

    But not the jew. After all the violence they brought upon themselves in the early 19 century. After all they suffered. They are again trying to pull the exact same stunts again. They haven’t even bothered to change their modus operandi.

    I’m inclined to think that the jew has a mental sickness similar to what gambling addicts have. Gambling addicts that are hooked on betting machines have a weird illness: It’s the expectation of winning that gives them their high, not the actual winning. This is why the addicts, while knowing the machine can’t be beaten, will throw all their money into it week after week. They don’t need to actually win in order to get their kick.

    I believe the jews may be mentally unhinged along these lines. The jews have tried 1,043 times throughout history to enslave sovereign peoples who welcomed them to live and work among them. And the jews suffered enormously because of their cheating and sly manipulations.

    Are jews like gambling addicts? Do they get their high from the expectation of winning, and not the actual winning? It seems that they do, because they have never actually won. But man, do they keep trying.

  4. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Not only did Rush paint the Left as the implacable enemies of liberty and the American way, he went further, characterizing the psychology of Leftism in essentially the same terms as Edward Dutton does. The Left, Rush would explain, are not like you and me. Every aspect of life is political to them, they insert ideology into everything. And they are never happy, always resentful. We might take pity on them if not for the fact that their resentfulness fuels a relentless hostility toward us. They are always on the attack. In other words, they are spiteful mutants. Amidst all his silly denunciations of “environmentalist wackos” and “feminazis,” this hard friend-enemy distinction was the true essence of the Rush phenomenon. Whether he pushed that way in the interest of securing audience engagement/investment or out of genuine conviction (I think both), is of no concern to us. What matters to us is that he did push that line, and in so doing, molded the entire populist wing of conservatism into that mindset.

    But he never said Left and Neocon orthodoxy and propaganda is formulated and financed by top Jews, which is where it gets its pathologies.

    This made him, ultimately, a careerist, a coward, and by default, a propagandist shill for the controlled opposition on the right. He shilled for the money. Just like the other rat-shills on the right.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  5. @Fr. John

    An atheistic white nationalism makes logical sense because white people exist, and we can observe them as an empirical reality. Whereas gods have always had trouble getting out of people’s imaginations and showing up the real world.

  6. Limbaugh had the job of containing and politically neutralizing America’s declining white population so that we wouldn’t do anything about our dispossession. And on top of that, he set a bad personal example. Back in the 1990’s he ranted endlessly about the importance of demanding good character from our politicians, in response to Bill Clinton’s degeneracy. Yet in his personal life he lived like an Epicurean of the bad sort, with his over-indulgences in food, “adult beverages,” cigars, sexual encounters and so forth. (Remember his sex tourism to the Dominican Republic?) On top of that, when he got into legal trouble in the early Aughts, he hired the same attorney who represented Jeffrey Epstein, a fact which in itself raises questions about Limbaugh’s extracurricular activities.

    America’s normal white people deserve a better spokesman for our interests than someone like Limbaugh.

    • Agree: houston 1992
  7. Chris Moore says: • Website

    To understand how the modern jew elite can be aware of the guilt that they themselves hold for the vicissitudes of WW2’s jews, yet blame it on Whites, you have to understand the mindsets of inbred sociopaths.

    I agree with much of what you write, but disagree with the these Jews aren’t really Jews tenor.

    They’re definitely not Jews in the sense that a “Jew” would technically follows the Ten Commandments of Judaism’s founder, Moses. But many of them are of mixed Hebrew blood or background. And they’re following the ethno-gangster interpretation of Hebrewism/Judaism common in the Hebrew bible, and ever since.

    The cut-throat imperatives of Hebrewism/corrupt Judaism are baked into the religion/identity. And the cut-throat imperatives are even baked into the Moses identity of Judaism, but for reasons other than vainglory and money, as he violently eliminated degenerate Hebrew deviants from the tribe (the Golden Calf episode).

    Fundamentalist Muslims practice a variation of Moses Judaism today, whereas “Jews” simply practice ethnic Jewish gangsterism and racketeering (Zionism), which is even more murderous than Moses Judaism, because it’s intertwined with the dying British/Anglosphere empire and its English gangster ethic.

  8. I don’t get this ‘white’ stuff. Is it purely genetic, like the racehorse stud-book? Which are the preferred types of white? Aryan, Nordic, Mediterranean or Anglo-Saxon? Is it a state of mind, of education, or of religion?How much ‘non-white’ blood disqualifies you-one grandparent, great-grandparent or great-great grandparent? Can a ‘non-white’ learn the ‘Western Canon’, become a ‘Judeo-Christian’, affirm the Articles of White Faith’ and convert to ‘Whiteness’ I am confused.

    • Replies: @ForeverGone
  9. @ForeverGone

    ‘Antisemitic’ ‘hate-crimes’ are a racket. You get in an argument over Palestine with a rabid Zionazi, and that’s a ‘pogrom’. You accurately list Israel’s crimes against humanity, and that is a ‘blood libel’. A considerable portion are shown to be false-flags (and the true number is sure to be greater)by Zionazis themselves.
    Real hate-crimes against any group are total anathema, but the ‘antisemitism’ industry is set up not just to fabricate Judeophobic incidents, when they are at historical lows, but to foster that atmosphere of paranoia, hatred and xenophobia in which Talmudic Judaism and its bastard off-spring Zionazism, thrive.

  10. @Chris Moore

    Limbaugh plainly suffered from the Rightwing Authoritarian Psychology psychosis, where crude projection onto others is a feature.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  11. Thomasina says:

    Very interesting. Thanks.

    • Agree: goldgettin
  12. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Limbaugh plainly suffered from the Rightwing Authoritarian Psychology psychosis, where crude projection onto others is a feature.

    No, he suffered from Authoritarian Jew-Stooge psychosis, which afflicts both the modern (post WW2) left and the modern right.

    It is born of psychotic greed and avarice, and since the Jewish cabal controls the big banks/Fed, one has to be a Jew-stooge to play with the big boys.

    Once you understand that the Jewish banker cabal scripted Marxism and infiltrated Russia via Bolshevism, you will understand that Jew-stooge psychosis is equally represented on both sides of the materialist dialectic.

    That’s why NO Jew-stooge can be trusted, including fools who don’t even know they’re Jew-stooges. They have the minds of children, and wail for milk from “mothers” tit (the Fed). Infantile narcissists and who grow-up to be stunted sociopaths prone to violent tantrums when their milk is cut off.

  13. Ryan Andrews: “The morality of our cause is the only card we have to play”

    LOL. Then good luck, you’re fucked. America’s morality is a secularized version of Christian morality, which has spent more than two centuries getting whites to think non-racially. To expect the nation of whites that over 150 years ago voluntarily fought a bloody civil war to free the negroes and make them equal citizens to whites to suddenly start reversing itself is crazy. Worse, it’s not only morality that is deeply set against such a revaluation of values, but the meritocratic nature of modern technological society itself. What about the “good negroes”, ones like Clarence Thomas, who Rush would brag about being friends with, or Walter Williams, who often guest-hosted his show? Would they be admitted to the white ethnostate as honorary whites? And what about mystery-meat non-whites like Tiger Woods? And the Jews? Are they white? Gotta be. You’re not gonna kick Jesus out, are you?! LOL.

    But never fear. If there’s a will to do so even a small band of dedicated men, and perhaps even just one man, can save the white race. A collapse of the technological system on a worldwide basis may save it, even if it has to be done against its will.

  14. @Realist

    Another extremely stupid comment?
    We all know this…try to add something
    to this well past due,excellent article.
    Like,what’s the best way?
    How long would it take?
    Who would pay?
    Are you an underpaid troll?
    Or a malfunctioning bot?
    Is your IQ anywhere near 100?

    • Replies: @Realist
  15. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Be confused no more. “Aryan” describes a particular ancient Asiatic people who migrated to northern and western Europe in the aftermath of the last ice age.

    The term was adopted by the Nazis as a propaganda tool to differentiate between those that belonged to German society and those that did not.

    The fact that in Germany in the 1920s and 19330s that pro-Nazis and pro-communists were actually all “Germans”, made it that bit harder to turn one countryman against the other.

    The Nazis needed a way to sub-humanise the Germans who advocated and fought for the introduction of communism. Germans were thus indoctrinated that they were historically “Aryans”. Then the Nazi authorities could point out that the communists were not true Aryans and, by implication, not true Germans.

    Thus, German communists were put in a different racial category which made it easier for their fellow countrymen to deal with them.

    The term “Ayran” could also be extended to other Nordic races, the people were either pure blood White northern Europeans, or mongrelised admixtures of, perhaps, Slavs, Celts, Spanish, etc.

    “Aryan, Nordic, Mediterranean or Anglo-Saxon? Is it a state of mind, of education, or of religion?”

    Ayran” is a state of mind.

    Nordic” is descriptive of the race and culture of native populations in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands and Germany.

    Anglo-Saxon” describes the resulting conglomeration when various Germanic tribes (or Nordic tribes) migrated to Britain and interbred with indigenous British groups such as Celts and Picts. They evolved a common culture and the English language.

    Mediterranean” basically describes the Romance ethnic group: Italian, Romanian, French, Spanish and Portugese.

    The Spanish are interesting in that they were colonised by Arabs for about 700 years, and as a result, today the effects of the Arabic gene can be seen in many Spaniards.

    You’ll also notice the difference between Nordic people and Mediterranean races in North, Central and South America. The Spanish and Portaguese interbred wholesale with the natives in Central and South America, whilst the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon settlers in the US and Canada didn’t pollute their blood with native genes.

    There’s no doubt that the people who didn’t interbred with the natives were also better at economic management and utilising the continent’s resources.

    If you are going to a meeting with a Nordic person, expect him or her to be on time. If it’s with a Mediterranean native, expect them to be late.

    Buying a car or any mechanical or electrical appliance? The Nordic’s build far better ones than the Mediterraneans.

    Going to war and looking for allies? Nordic allies will be loyal and stick with you until the end. Mediterraneans will sell you out at the first opportunity.

    “Can a ‘non-white’ learn the ‘Western Canon’, become a ‘Judeo-Christian’, affirm the Articles of White Faith’ and convert to ‘Whiteness’ I am confused.”

    No. You can not make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  16. Chris Moore says: • Website

    “Ayran” is a state of mind.

    As is “Zionist.” But “racial Zionists” (Jews) take their identity/entitlement deadly serious.

  17. Realist says:

    Is your IQ anywhere near 100?

    No…it’s much higher.

  18. anonymous[376] • Disclaimer says:

    For every 4 white babies being born in America, there is a 1 white-Latino hybrid baby also being born. In a generation the ratio will narrow to 2 to 1. How does any future white ethnostate plan to deal with the fact that whites in America are undergoing a racial transition to whitish?

  19. lloyd says: • Website

    The “scum bag English” who snatched at the Balfour Declaration were British Prime Minister Lloyd George who was a Welsh man and Lord Balfour reputedly of Jewish descent. Zionist Protestantism was very powerful in Great Britain. Lloyd George said he know more about ancient Israel than he knew about Wales. He also disliked the English upper classes and supported the Boers in the Boer war. Lord Balfour a former Prime Minister was known for his languid ironical nature.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ryan Andrews Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism