Friday, April 14, 2017

You cannot stand alone

On Wednesday I wrote a post about weaponised politics:
I think it's true as well that politics can be weaponised. By this I mean that it is not just a case of pursuing abstract political principles and attempting to apply them logically and justly, but instead a means (a weapon) in pursuing group interests.

Politics today is being ominously weaponised against white people. The issue then becomes whether white people remain caught within a politics that aims to do them harm, or whether they see through the surface claims of a weaponised politics to the animosity and the malevolence underlying it.

The next day, as if to prove my point, The Huffington Post (supposedly a reputable news source), chose to run an opinion piece titled "Could it be time to deny white men the franchise?"

It's a disturbing read. The author, Shelley Garland, is apparently a white South African feminist woman (maybe even a troll, though the fact remains that the Huffington Post has chosen to run the piece).

Ms Garland is upset that white males voted for Brexit and for Donald Trump, thereby holding back the triumph of the progressive left. So she thinks it right that white males be forbidden from voting for 20 or 30 years. That would give progressives enough time to strip white males of their wealth.

This is politics weaponised against a particular group (white males). It has the aim of justifying seizing the assets of one group of people - white males - and transferring them to others.

There is a harsh reality at work here. We live in a world in which you need to be strong to defend your own interests and to keep yourself and your family safe. And it will not be enough to be strong as an isolated individual. A white man in the future might be personally resilient, a hard worker and physically courageous, but if he cedes political power to other groups he will nonetheless find himself defenceless. It is not possible to stand alone when other powerful groups are willing to organise against you.

To illustrate this point graphically, consider the following incident that took place this week in London. A couple of white men found themselves caught in a fight with a very large number of black men. As you can see in the video below, one of the white men is very strong and courageous but, inevitably, he is knocked out and then mocked by his attackers ("sleep tight").

White men are brought up to be individually strong, and part of the message is that you are strong if you are independent and able to succeed on your own. You are supposed to be self-reliant.

That can work in a highly homogeneous society, particularly if you are competing in the corporate world for success. But in an era of weaponised politics, it won't do. You cannot stand alone when a crowd of people wish to do you harm. In that scenario you need to organise with others to defend yourselves as a group.

The reality of the world is about to hit us hard. I hope that we can adapt quickly to the new situation we are going to find ourselves in. It's a little hard for us to imagine now what that future mindset will look like, as we have been influenced by an individualistic liberalism for so long and have become accustomed to living atomised lives, cut off from each other in our suburban homes.

In the coming world, we will need to more confidently assert a group interest, and we will need to find ways to organise so that we have a more effective means of defending ourselves from those who wish us harm (and, also, to maintain our own culture, values and tradition).

I can't be entirely sure what this will look like, but there are little groups of traditionalists springing up in Australia which represent one possible path toward this goal. If you're interested in them, the contact details are as follows:

Melbourne Traditionalists: You can contact me (Mark Richardson) via swerting (at)

Sydney Traditionalists: see here.

Perth Traditionalists: see here.


  1. The next day, as if to prove my point, The Huffington Post (supposedly a reputable news source), chose to run an opinion piece titled "Could it be time to deny white men the franchise?"

    At the moment they're testing the waters. Their aim of course is not to disenfranchise white men but to abolish democracy altogether. They want to move us forward into the post-democratic age when we'll no longer need outdated patriarchal colonialist relics like democracy or privacy or freedom of speech or legal rights. Truly progressive societies don't need any of that stuff.

    Of course non-whites and women won't have a problem with any of this. Non-whites don't have any heritage of political freedom. They consider politics to be merely a system of patronage. As long as they get handouts they won't complain.

    Women, on the whole, have no real understanding of the concept of political freedom. Their biological nature causes them to prefer security to freedom. As religion and family have now been largely destroyed the only provider of security is the state so they'll happily trade freedom in exchange for the (apparent) security offered by the state.

    The only group likely to cause any difficulties is white males. If white males are denied the franchise democracy instantly ceases to exist. No other group will offer any resistance.

    1. Excellent comment - thank you. You have to assume that a white woman who wants white men dispossessed is looking for security via the state rather than through a family.

  2. This is the greatest disservice that hero movies like Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the like make: they delude men into thinking that one man can take down a dozen enemies without any help.
    A bit like how women think they can take down guys twice their size.
    Minorities know their strength is in numbers, as they seldom take on people when there's only a couple of them.
    Muslims, for example, will pick on people and, if challenged, will not hesitate to call in all their friends.
    Think you can take three scrawny middle Easterners? Need to take them down fast, because while you're waiting to see if it's going to escalate, they're already calling for reinforcements.

    1. That's a good point. If you look at the comments at YouTube, two of the commenters are white guys full of bravado along the lines of "Why were the English guys such pussies, I would have kicked those guys to the curb etc." It's delusional, just like the women who have watched all those movies and who think they can take on men. The future will be a humiliating one for white guys unless they:
      1. Stay individually strong
      2. Start to adapt to the need to organise together to have strength in numbers
      3. Accept the need to uphold a group interest of their own.
      4. Stop listening to the chorus of liberal whites who also wish them harm

  3. Their race is based on covetousness. The group that stands firm against it is a church of likeminded sincere believers. With God on your side, none can hurt you eternally.


  4. This shows how this (((woman))) doesn't understand what voting actually represents. She assumes (other) people have no moral right to use force to protect their survival and future. They do. Self-defense is always moral.

    People have laid down their arms and right to use force ONLY because of agreed right to representation of their interests in a political system.

    Remove that and its a call for WAR and violence to resolve disputes. Literally.

    That she doesn't understand THAT is the real egregious 'privilege' mentality.

    We would not have to be concerned about having these conversations, if we separated. White people need white countries. We need space of our own, yet it's only white countries that are being "multicultured" to death. That is what nation is for.

    EVERY White country and ONLY White countries are being flooded with third world non-Whites, and Whites are forced by law to integrate with them so as to “assimilate,” i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.

    Massive immigration and forced assimilation is called genocide when it’s done in Tibet.

    When it’s done in White countries it’s called “diversity.”
    Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.

  5. Another example of weaponised politics, this time in the arts.

    It's quite a long article, but there is one point that sticks out. The author would like it to be the case that whenever a white 'artist' comes across a space that is majority white, that person ought to stop and consider the violent history of whites that made this circumstance possible. As one of the commentators mentions, this is a form of psychological manipulation and abuse, and yet 'whiteness' studies (where this kind of thinking is formalised) is an accredited course at certain US institutions.

    This is not only a physical and political battle... it is a psychological and spiritual battle with forces that would like to see white society suffer.

    1. Oh boy, you found a doozie there! Yes, that it weaponised politics alright. Extraordinary! Even more interesting, it's written by an Asian male - a group which is more privileged on most markers of social success than white Americans.

    2. Just to add: if you read Ryan Wong's piece I don't see how you can take it as anything other than racial aggression against white people. The question then becomes why white people would continue to support a leftist political milieu which promotes this kind of racial aggression.

    3. This is not only a physical and political battle... it is a psychological and spiritual battle

      The political battles are being lost now because the cultural, psychological and spiritual battles were lost decades ago. Politics is downstream of culture.

      You cannot win the political battles unless you can start reversing some of the cultural defeats.

    4. Why did we lose? Was it a defect of the Boomer generation? We're we just outsmarted? Too decadent( abundance of idleness abundance of bread)?

      Maybe God has just turned His back on the West after the West forsook Him. The only cure then is repentance

    5. Why did we lose? Was it a defect of the Boomer generation? We're we just outsmarted? Too decadent( abundance of idleness abundance of bread)?

      It wasn't the Boomers. The damage was done by the Silent Generation (born 1925-1945). Contraception, abortion, the normalisation of homosexuality, the drug culture, easy divorce, Third World immigration - these were all bright ideas thought up by the Silent Generation. They were the ones who were in positions of influence during the 60s and they were the ones pushing the liberal agenda.

      Why did they want to destroy their own society? They were the most privileged most prosperous generation in history. They were mostly too young to fight in WW2 so really they just had it too easy and they had never actually experienced any of the bad things that happen when society collapses. Also they had too much access to higher education which taught them arrogance rather than wisdom.

      Maybe God has just turned His back on the West after the West forsook Him.

      The Silent Generation was definitely the least religious generation in history up to that point. They hadn't yet embraced militant atheism but they were generally indifferent to religion. By the beginning of the 1960s it's fair to say that the West had forsaken Christianity. And that's a big part of the problem.

    6. "Why did they want to destroy their own society?"

      Their dominant desire was to please themselves and throw off the Christian and traditional values which constrained their lust and greed. With God rejected, their God was me, myself and I and their idols happiness and pleasure. Their views were short term and ego centric. The power vacuum created allowed other more malign forces to seize control of the country, the assets and culture.

      But there is nothing new under the sun. Nations which forgot their religion and destroyed their traditions in pursuit of self indulgence have self destructed. Few nations are destroyed by alien aggressors, maximal damage occurs from within from the relaxation of controls and decadence. Lack of self control ultimately leads to loss of control of country.

      And the situation we face today is no different from that faced by others throughout history. White men allowed aliens to reside among them, gave them equal rights, allowed them to vote, become educated, engage in commerce, buy land and property, practice the professions and now these impoverished immigrants have educated and affluent descendants who are increasingly gaining power over whites.

      The blacks pose no real threat except for violence but the Asians and Muslims are a serious threat as they have the family structure which encourages education and the accumulation of wealth which are transmitted inter generationally. Although generally of inferior intellectual ability than whites, their strength rests in their social stability which supports achievement. White men with their desire for promiscuity and serial polygamy, their weakness and inability to defend their own societies and families, dissipated wealth and power and the vacuum allowed the Asian and Muslim men to grab it.

      The aliens are now on the offensive armed with the jobs, degrees and wealth which the whites forsook and the white men seem too weak, pathetic and disorganised for the fight.

  6. The generational aspect is in some ways a fait accompli but it is useful to look at analogues and cycles in (American) history:

    Each generation affects and is affected by others in turn in a discernible sequence of four generation types according to these authors. A fascinating read.

    Good and bad ideas often die out with the passing of generations. This makes me optimistic overall but we must help some ideas to an early grave and save others for posterity.