Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker
Much of this fantasy comes from MacDonald's belief that the Tea Party movement is a case of "implicit whiteness." Apart from the left's racism smear (used on Reagan and so many other non-racists), I think this is as "plastic" as the Freudian ideas MacDonald rightly condemns. How do you validate "implicit whiteness"? For example, if the Beltway GOP nominates Bobby Jindal to the national ticket in 2012 and the TP rejects him, I'd concede that supports MacDonald's theory. But if (as I suspect) they support Jindal, will MacDonald concede that cuts against his theory? Or will he just say it shows how very implicit the whiteness is?
|
Yep. Implicit whiteness doesn't really mean anything. KM thinks its good that this or that group is made up of whites; the jew-lefts thinks it bad. But if the people themselves aren't conscious of the fact and understand why it matters, then it's academic.
What must be done is polarize the nation between whites and jews, and this is best done by attacking the conservatives by lumping them in with the 'liberals.'
"We are different - we are the real thing - we are the only ones who understand the problem and have the courage to fight. We are the only ones who CAN win."
Some version of the above is what Whites must do. Trying to influence Republicans only strengthens them, puts them further in the position of power, and is seen by the parties we should be trying to win over as weak. It only strengthens their view that Fox and the Republican Party are serious, and anyone who pitches a line to their (White) right is a dangerous extremist unworthy of anything but being laughed at. Really, contra Jack Toot and the other fools, appealing to people is entirely the wrong mindset. We should be demonstrating that we are different, we are capable, we are serious, and we are radically, revolutionarily different from the DC happy-sad clowns.