Part 1 of the series is here:

Part 2:

In Part 1 we discussed the ‘ruling class’ and the ‘country class’ as described in Angelo Codevilla’s recent Spectator article, and modified his descriptions to fit racial realities. His article ends with this paragraph:

How the country class and ruling class might clash on each item of their contrasting agendas is beyond my scope. Suffice it to say that the ruling class’s greatest difficulty — aside from being outnumbered — will be to argue, against the grain of reality, that the revolution it continues to press upon America is sustainable. For its part, the country class’s greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it. America has been imposed on enough.

Well, luckily for us, this subject is within our scope, and we don’t see it as much of an ‘imposition’ to ‘impose’ on any universalist loyalties to systems which serve the ruling class.

Many white advocates believe the electoral system is a lost cause. However, whites still make up over ¾ of the electorate in this country. In our discussions regarding the ‘Southern Ethnostate’, the case was made that even in the states of the Deep South where whites make up the smallest portion of the electorate of anywhere in the US, whites acting together can defeat the alliance of the ruling class and their nonwhite dependents. Even stronger is the concept that the ‘Republican Party’ is hopelessly corrupt, an opinion which Codevilla shares.

This is based on the misconception that American political parties are organic entities with a set of values, the way they are in most of the rest of the world. They might better be seen as pseudo-legislative bodies. Instead of forming coalitions after the election the way they do in most countries, here they form them into ‘party’ coalitions before the election. The ‘Democrat Party’ in fact is a coalition of the Black National Party, Partido de la Raza, the Organized Labor Party, the Feminist Party, the Gay Party, the ‘Green’ (more like ‘Watermelon’) Party, and the Liberal Party.

Like it or not, the U.S. is inherently a ’2-party’ system. The reason for this is partly because of our ‘winner take all’ elections. Yet, all Anglo countries have this system, and most of them have at least 3-4 large parties plus some minor and regional parties. What America has that these other countries don’t is a separate and strong executive branch. If you can’t compete for top dog, you’re not in the race. Whereas for example the Liberal Democrats in Britain can force themselves into the administration with a third place finish, as they did recently, Ross Perot ended up with absolutely nothing after a strong third place finish in 1992. This is why even strong ‘third parties’ such as the Populist Party and Progressive Party ended up being assimilated by one of the two larger parties, as did more recent ‘third party’ movements such as those led by George Wallace and Ross Perot. In the past, even these ‘third parties’ started out from regional bases, but politics are far more nationalized than ever today along ideological lines, with non-ideological regional differences minimal.

American political parties can’t kick out renegade officials like Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, the way most political parties in other countries can. The ‘Republican Party’ disavowed David Duke, and he still almost won. Today, they might just have to stomach a ‘David Duke’ who didn’t have a history of being a KKK leader and being photographed in a nazi costume. Witness the change of Sean Hannity from viciously attacking Ron Paul to becoming a defender of Rand Paul.

Candidates are usually elected by the voters, in the ‘primary elections’. Party officials are elected by lower officials, which are elected by even lower officials, on down to the lowest level which are elected by local voters. Derek Black of StormFront was elected to one of these bottom-rung positions. David Duke’s allies at one point dominated entire areas of Louisiana. Political parties are also losing strength due to campaign finance laws, and ‘lobbies’ such as and the NRA often prove stronger than the ‘party establishments’.

Strategic Thinking is Necessary

Most importantly, this divides up the electoral battle into 2 different battles. Instead of trying to take on the entire electorate all at once, you only take on about 1/6 of the electorate in the primary election for your first battle. Only about 1/3 as many voters vote in primary elections as in the general elections in November, and they are split between the two parties, so about 1/6 of the electorate more or less, depending on the general party orientation of the place. Then if you win this battle, you will have the votes of many people in the general election who vote mainly based on political party. Remember, we’re not out there to represent the ideology which currently has taken hold of this party, but to shift it. If you can’t get people to register to vote with the appropriate party identification to enable themselves to vote in these major party primaries, you’re certainly not going to be able to get any significant number of people to commit to voting for a candidate for a ‘third party’.

Many people think it is a lost cause to attempt to win electoral control of the country to put in place a white-friendly government. They may be right. Yet, for each of the alternative paths suggested, this strategy still represents the best course for the time being.

Many white activists favor secession of one part of the country or another, and focusing on that region. Maybe it’s the deep South, where whites already vote as a bloc. Maybe it’s the northwest or northern New England, with their still mostly white populations and independent spirit. Maybe it’s the post-industrial Ohio Valley and upper Appalachia, which are still largely white and have suffered heavily but never benefited from the global economy.

In the two secessions most familiar to us, the separation from Britain which led to the formation of the United States, and the attempted secession of the south/eastern states in 1861, the movement had to come from the state legislatures in order to have legitimacy. In the separation of Ireland from the United Kingdom, and the ongoing attempts to do the same for Scotland and Wales, the establishment and control of a legislature is again a key factor. In order to get a successful secessionist movement in a state legislature, one must first get secessionists elected to the state legislature. For the above reasons, this will be most successful using one of the major parties as a vehicle, perhaps the Democrat Party in Vermont or West Virginia, or perhaps the Republican Party in Texas or Alabama. Once in the state legislature, these people can help push laws which contradict bad federal policies on issues such as gun rights and immigration. Even if a federal court attempts to invalidate such laws, the battle will alert many people to the tyrannical nature of the federal government, and strengthen the will of the people in that state to resist the federal government

Many whites think that the U.S. will collapse in on itself for a variety of reasons, and that only a small remnant can survive. Yet even here, the political process is useful. If the Federal government implodes, people will look to state and local governments. In the meantime, we can promote policies which enable people to evade federal tyranny, such as making it easier for people to home-school and engage in small-scale farming, as well as combating domestic spying and the abuse of police power, or at least discouraging state and local law enforcement from participating in this tyranny. Most importantly, this will help you form networks and alert more people to the tyranny of the federal government. More people will listen to or perhaps even come out to support someone running under a major party label than something they never heard of.

Many people might object that this ‘doesn’t turn people explicitly pro-white’ or that ‘an explicitly pro-white candidate or movement has no hope’. Unfortunately for us, most white people aren’t programmed to place being ‘explicitly pro-white’ at the top of their list. As Kevin MacDonald notes, white people are low on ‘xenophobia’ and high on ‘moral universalism’. We’re going to have to frame our arguments in terms of moral universalism, and perhaps in ‘American’ or ‘Southern’ or “Western’ civic nationalism.

We’ve got a good example to work off of: the people who put us in this awful situation to begin with. The jews did not become the most dominant group in modern day United States, and perhaps the world, by basing their political movements based on what is explicitly ‘good for the jews’. Even the ADL has pretended for a large part of its history to be a ‘civil rights organization’ dedicated to ‘combating hate’ against all ethnic and religious groups.

We have to do the same. Figure out which policies are good for white people and promote them on their own merits. Build coalitions of people who support these policies. Take every possible chance to drive those with the most anti-white polices out of the coalitions we participate in, for example those who support open borders and mass immigration.

This process should come naturally to us: most of us didn’t just wake up one day and decide to be ‘pro-white’ for the hell of it. Maybe we supported values which come naturally to white people, and eventually came to realize that these ideas are difficult achieve in a multicultural society or one which is dominated by jews. Maybe we got tired of anti-white discrimination and the marginalization of whites, and came to the realization that the only way to ensure freedom from anti-white tyranny is a ‘white ethno-state’. Maybe we noticed that new immigrants, and even long entrenched racial minorities, don’t view themselves as ‘American’ in the same that we do, and most likely never will. Maybe we noticed that everyone in the world was allowed to have an ethnic identity except for us. We need to get back to our roots, to what made us pro-white in the first place, and encourage these ‘implicitly white’ movements.

Our coalition is ‘beyond left and right’ in the sense that we don’t simply join in on one side or the other of whatever the talking heads on the media tell us is supposed to be the ‘Democratic’ or ‘Republican’ side of the debate today. It does not necessitate however that we disregard the way the country works in favor of the way we wish it worked and launch a Quixotic ‘new party’. Nor does it necessitate that we go out of our way to distance ourselves from labels which are favored by large portions of white people in favor of inventing new labels which will seem alien to most white people, thus leading them to reject or ignore all ideas emanating from such labels.

Those of use most aware of racial realities can and should of course continue to talk and meet with each other and promote our ideas. Yet, it won’t be enough, and likely never will be. White people just aren’t innately driven to that sort of thing, not nearly to the same degree other races are.

Many trends favor us. Our enemies are becoming more blatant in their agenda. Internecine squabbles between white people over such things as religion and socio-economic class are becoming less important. The media is democraticizing. More people read this site than if we walked around throwing photocopies of our articles on peoples’ lawns. Fewer and fewer people are reading, watching, and listening to the elite-approved ‘mainstream’ media than ever before, and far fewer still limit themselves solely to these sources.

Yet, we are in a precarious position. If we screw this up, we might not get another chance. We have to be smart about it, not barging forward waving our banners and screaming from the top of our lungs the most extreme version of our belief system at every opportunity. We have to do it intelligently, which means in a manner cognizant of the way our people, nation, and political structure function; and make sure that our plan of attack fits the battlefield.