Pat Buchanon As a Covert White Nationalist

A commenter writes:

Pat Buchanan also seems to be a White Nationalist, or at least someone who believes the US should remain a majority White country forever and uses his “Western Civilization” term as a code for White domination constantly. I’m sure his covert White Nationalism (Which I guess is Nixon era moderate ideology isn’t it?) is what got him kicked off liberal MSNBC.
Most Black, Latino, Amerindian etc racists by definition are on the Left, aren’t they?

Yes Buchanan is a covert White nationalist in a sense. Buchanan is about as far as any form of WN, no matter how mild, has made it in the mainstream. There is little stomach for even Buchanan’s very mild race realism and White ethnocentrism which is why he is being thrown off venue after venue.
Buchanan has few other peers in the mass media, as there is almost no space there for them. Actually, aside from his antisemitism (itself quite mild), Buchanan’s views are quite mild in terms of WN and HBD in general. He’s pretty much saying what a lot of us liberals think but are too frightened to say.
But almost all true White nationalists want to split off and form their own state. Few WN’s want to just keep the US a White majority country anymore, as that seems to be hopeless anyway. The definition of WN anymore seems to be one who wants a separate White country.
Most WN’s nowadays are split into a few camps:
1. Take back the US by force. Enforce White dominance at the state level and throw out the minorities and send them back to wherever. With the most extreme, this would involve some level of genocide or mass murder against non-Whites and “White traitors,” especially Jews and White race traitors.
2. White separatists. Most WN’s nowadays are White Separatists. They want a separate White state in the US along with separate states for Blacks and Hispanics or possibly a separate mixed race state where anyone could live. This has always been the goal of almost all of the major WN figures. Those who deny this are basically lying. WN for all intents and purposes is White separatism in one form or another.
3. The apartheid crowd. Some want to take back the US, enforce White dominance, but not throw out the minorities. This is a lesser trend. They want to keep the minorities under heel with some form of apartheid or Jim Crow. At the very least, they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws.
4. Get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. This is the least toxic of the trends, and it’s the fallback position in the even that there is no White state and no White capture of the state and enforced apartheid. All WN’s and I do mean all of them believe that we should eliminate all anti-discrimination laws. Then White towns at least could be set up where there would be massive discrimination against nonwhites on a private level.
This ties in very well with the Libertarian position since all Libertarians want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. People of color support Libertarianism at their own risk.
5. End all immigration, legal and illegal. Some modify this to say that we should allow immigration by Whites. This is a fallback minimal position. Obviously this is never going to happen either. We can’t even limit legal immigration. We can’t stop illegal immigration, and there are continuous calls for amnesty. This will never fly, but it’s supported by all WN’s with vehemence. The 1965 Immigration Act was one of the worst things that ever happened to America in their book.
6. End affirmative action. All WN’s support this, and quite a few regular folks do too. This is another fallback minimal position and ties in well with the positions of the Republican Party.
7. Sing the praises of a White majority US and White dominance, bash minorities, but do nothing to keep a White majority or White dominance in place. This is essentially a rhetorical position, and it’s where Pat Buchanan is coming from.
One very smart Black commenter on here wrote a while back that the logical end result of WN could only be genocide, apartheid (or separatism) or expulsion. He was correct of course.

Most Black, Latino, Amerindian etc racists by definition are on the left, aren’t they?

Unfortunately, most Black, Latino and Indian racists are indeed on the Left, often on the Far Left. As there is no space for racism on the Left, this has always bothered me, but on the Left, they say that these folks are not really racists. They’re just fighting back against White racism and only Whites can be racist, bla bla bla.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

31 thoughts on “Pat Buchanon As a Covert White Nationalist”

  1. “Unfortunately, most Black, Latino and Indian racists are indeed on the Left, often on the Far Left.”
    This an example of one of life’s sacred truths that many people hate nazis because they were not allowed to be nazis themselves.

  2. WN’s are quite a diverse group, despite what their haters might say. I think the Alt Right basically agrees on opposition to living with non whites and neo conservatism (as long as it’s jewish dominated.) Other than that they are divided into multiple opposing factions and this would prove problematic if they were to ever get their wish.

  3. I don’t mind Pat Buchanan so much. I’ve read Amcon and generally find it to be pretty civil in tone and they pick their battles wisely.

  4. 1 to 4 are complete non-starters in the US and not really worth worrying about.
    5 would be possible in less a extreme form such as drastic reduction in immigration and a crackdown on illegal immigration. I imagine most Americans would favour both of these, most people in the UK certainly would.
    6 is doable but it hardly gives the WNs what they want the most
    7 is basically what they do anyway!

  5. Most WNs agree that Pat Buchanan is a civic nationalist and not a White Nationalist. When he ran for president in 2000 he chose a black woman as his running mate which pretty much ensured that no racialist types would vote for him.

  6. If I were President I’d make Pat Buchanan my Sec. of Defense. I like his anti-war leanings and seriousness about border security.

    1. Amen on his anti war stance. I’d rather have the national guard take full control of border patrol, and kick out the vigilantes.

      1. Someone would have to mobilize and oversee the National Guard to do so. There shouldn’t be a Homeland Security agency. It’s redundant. Another thing worth noting, Buchanan considers the influx of illegals into the country to be an act of war from Mexico for not doing anything about it.

  7. I like Pat Buchanan.
    However, as long as white liberals (particularly Jews) and non-whites dominate the Democratic party, and so long as corporate and business elites dominate the Republican party, current demographic changes will continue.
    (despite the Obama Administration’s unprecedented level of deportations)
    Of course, the Democratic party is mostly going to support the immigration of brown people. They’re a lost cause, as far as the Buchanan types are concerned.
    Pat Buchanan and his ilk need to wage their little war within the Republican party, and purge those economic and pro-globalization elites. I spent enough time in Orange County that I know how these types of wealthy white Republicans think. They could care less about loyalty to the white masses and support multiculturalism…so long as they can keep their wealth and comfort. Ultimately, that’s all they care about. The rich have no souls or loyalties. It’s with those people that the battle needs to be fought.

      1. “I thought that OC was full of evangelicals as well as establishment republicans.”
        It is, and they are exactly as Bay Area Guy described them ie., “They could care less about loyalty to the white masses and support multiculturalism…so long as they can keep their wealth and comfort. Ultimately, that’s all they care about.”

        1. Partially, I think these wealthy OC Republicans are so indifferent to the fate of white America because they live in places where whites are a wealthy majority, if not the overwhelming majority. Their wealth allows them to live in a bubble, which shields them from “diversity.” For white people in Orange County, a “diverse” friend group means wealthy, docile Asians, with maybe the occasional Hispanic thrown in.
          They live in a mental world where they’re still dominant, and every now and then will even say something to the effect that they’re dominant because they’re white.
          If anything, I interestingly enough side with the anti-racists when I insist that movies and T.V. be more diverse/less white. I think one of the reasons why the white masses haven’t yet mobilized to reverse their decline is because when they look at most movies and television shows, they’re still the large majority, so as a result they live in a mental world where whites are still the firm majority.
          Movies and shows that reflected the U.S’s true demographics might give them the rude awakening they need. I had my rude awakening a long time ago. It’s their turn now!

  8. Dear Robert
    I like Pat Buchanan. He is that rare breed: an American nationalist. Most Americans aren’t nationalists. What passes for nationalism in the US is a quasi-religious belief in American exceptionalism, which easily degenerates in messianic imperialism and strident chauvinism.
    As long as there is affirmative action, it makes sense for whites to try to insure that whites remain a majority. If non-whites become a majority, affirmative action may become irreversible and the ratio of beneficiaries to victims will increase. It is one thing to support affirmative action for 12% of the population, it is quite another to support it for 60% of the population. Once whites will have become a minority, affirmative action will no longer be a generous attempt to help minorities but will become a policy to advance the interest of the majority. Being a member of a minority is not a problem as long as you have the same rights as the majority. That will not be the case when whites become a minority in a country in which affirmative action is official policy.
    As I pointed out before, racial thinking in the US is totally illogical. Essentially, Americans operate with a dichotomy of whites and non-whites, in which all hybrids are assigned to the non-white category.
    Suppose that in a country 35% of the population is pure black and 65% is pure white. Further down the road, pure blacks are 10%, pure whites are 40% and mulattoes are 50%. By American logic, non-whites have now become a majority. But why not assign the mulattoes to the white category. After all, they are 50% white. If you assign all hybrids to the non-white category, you only weaken the white position. Historically, mulattoes have never shown much sympathy for pure blacks. Of course, with affirmative action, mulattoes have an incentive to identify with non-whites.
    About 40% of the children of Hispanic immigrants marry a non-Hispanic. However, by the absurd rules of American racial classification, their offspring will swell the ranks of the non-whites. The son of Jeb Bush is classified as a Hispanic because his mother is Mexican. He may become the first “Hispanic” president of the US, just as the half-white Obama is the first “black” president.
    Before it is too late, American whites should strive to eliminate all racial classifications and abolish all affirmative action. That is not racism, that is the only fair ands reasonable policy for a country which is irreversibly multiracial and in which a lot of miscegenation occurs.
    Regards. James

    1. @ James
      Excellent comment.
      I don’t trust non-whites and their demands. When they were the minority and whites were still around 80% of the population, they justified affirmative action through moral arguments.
      However, now that they’re the majority in places like California, they make arguments along the lines of “the student body at UC’s doesn’t reflect California’s demographics, and it should,” which is basically their way of saying, “we’re the majority now, so you’d better start accommodating us.”
      Whenever they’re the majority, they almost always vote one of their own in.
      The only reason why they don’t completely dominate politics in California is because so many Hispanics are illegal immigrants, and their anchor babies don’t exactly care about voting all that much. Just you wait though.
      Re: Nationalism
      Yes, I would say that the U.S. is one of the least nationalistic countries in the world. For most Americans, waving an American flag on the 4th of July and eating hot dogs qualifies as “nationalism.”
      And speaking of race, I do sincerely believe that this country’s racial diversity hinders the development of any meaningful American nationalism. It’s no coincidence that the most nationalistic/united countries in the world are also among the most homogenous.

      1. Interesting points BAG and James
        I’d had a discussion with my sister who is a proff at the U of T in Austin. She mentioned that the white students there were demanding certain ‘benefits’ (for lack of a better term) since they were now a minority at the U. My sister was appalled since power has little to do with numbers she told me. In other words, if whites are destined to become a minority, they’ll always be a privileged minority that still retains power and therefore shouldn’t be eligible for any benefits. What are your thoughts on this?

        1. I don’t agree.
          Just look at the UC system, where white students are already underrepresented, along with blacks and Hispanics.
          Give affirmative action to Hispanics and blacks, at the expense of whites, and whites will cease to be relevant on UC campuses.
          In California, young white people are at the very most 25% of young people. Non-whites have come to dominate many public schools. And if you look at cities such as Oakland, non-whites wield political power as well.
          Whites who support affirmative action nowadays basically support their own demise. No sane group of people does that.
          Trust me, whites are not going to have much fun as a minority, especially at the hands of a mainly Hispanic/black majority.

        2. Those Orange County types of whites who are the 1% will remain a privileged minority, but what of the white masses who don’t have access to that wealth?
          They’ll be outnumbered, surrounded by hostile, newly empowered non-whites, but lack wealth.
          What would you tell them?

        3. “…if whites are destined to become a minority, they’ll always be a privileged minority that still retains power and therefore shouldn’t be eligible for any benefits.”
          Your sister is a White Supremacist, and doesn’t even realize it, LOL. What other conclusion is there to draw, other than that your sister believes White people are innately superior? Riddle her that one some time, why don’t you?

  9. Let’s not forget that Pat B is also the only noteworthy political figure on the American Right in recent memory (recall his multiple failed Presidential runs) who took a serious interest in the mounting problems of working people (not just white working people) – one of the many reasons he is no more popular with the GOP than with the Left.
    I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Blacks and Latinos are “on the Left” in the way that white people mean that. They – entirely correctly – view the Democratic Party as a vehicle for their ethnic group interests. Blacks, for instance, support state transfers of funds, direct and indirect, to the less affluent because they benefit from it (I just read somewhere that 45% of Blacks are on EBT), so no Black politico is gonna run against something widely perceived as “good for Blacks.” The vast majority of Blacks are not “progressive” in any conventional sense.
    The overt racialization of the Obama administration, eg Eric “My People” Holder and all of his pandering to Blacks and anti-white actions, not to mention Obama’s very unwise forays into high-profile legal cases involving Blacks, is causing a tectonic shift in American politics. For the last 40+ years, the Democratic Party has supported policies that have benefited Blacks and Hispanics at the expense of whites – eg the affirmative action racket, which is bad for Asians especially, and most Republicans have gone along, resorting only to occasional whining and nothing done to actually change anything. This has all been spoken of in coded language about “social justice” and whites have mostly played along and, outside the WN fringes and its fellow travelers, kept basically silent.
    Obama’s direct injection of racial non-coded language is a game changer here. A lot of whites are becoming willing to say “racial” things, for the first time in many decades. They blame Obama et al for this, and they surely have a point. If other groups will politic on an overtly racial, group-spoils basis, why can’t we? This is especially germane with slow-rising consciousness among whites that they are on the cusp of losing their majority status in the USA. It’s a revolutionary period.
    We will soon see the emergence of a wholly new, softer white semi-nationalism that seeks to manage the decline, as it were, and will speak more directly in group-interest language. This will have zero to do with old school WN, much less Klan BS and Jew obsessions etc. It will be a new political game, one which the GOP is doing everything to ignore but, per Steve Sailer, they will eventually have to quietly embrace since the Republicans are rapidly becoming the de facto White Party anyway, as has already happened in the Deep South (where, unless you’re a young hipster, gay, or fabulously rich, you’re a GOPer, regardless of income, it’s all about race).
    For the record, I’m a white guy, an old school socialist, who was raised with “proper” views on race and equality and think that’s been trashed by people like Holder and Obama.
    Anyone who thinks Blacks are “progressive” in the way white people mean that term is in for a rude surprise. It’s all about race, identity and group interest, not ideology per se

    1. Anyone who thinks Blacks are “progressive” in the way white people mean that term is in for a rude surprise. It’s all about race, identity and group interest, not ideology per se
      Couldn’t have said it better myself. Jews are certainly the same way, and the same with Hispanics and Asians.
      They don’t support the left out of noble principles. It’s all ethnic hardball for them.
      White gentile liberals are their useful idiots.

    2. I agree with you, but I want to tell you why many non-white races are anti-white and dont see there Hypocrisy on many issues and i like to show that theres at least one black who doesn’t hate whites. Fear and racial tribalism, those are the two reasons why its hard for many to truly analyze themselves and there own race. Fear from what will happen if the world becomes race aware e.g. whos going to stop Asians or whites from taking over africa,india or the middle east if they wanted to? they can say there “helping” the low iq lesser races while taking advantage of them and manipulating them into uncle tom’s and Fear of how hard it will be for my race to find stability on its own.
      Racial tribalism is..well tribalism, they see everyone not of there culture/race as an enemy and see themselves as great and infallible so self examination is out the window. It was extremly hard for me admit the mass amount negative of my race and it cause me unbelievable depression, but seeing anyone of any race thats race aware but not crazy makes me feel a little better. Thank you for you honest opinion

  10. Let me elaborate a bit. One of the many mistakes committed by WNs is that they operate with a dichotomy of whites and non-whites. Of course, non-whites aren’t a race, no more than non-English is a language.
    Let’s take 100 people. 40 of them speak English and the other 60 speak 4 languages, each with 15 speakers. If the English-speakers were to look at this situation as a WN, they would wring their hands and lament the majority status of of the non-English-speakers. Of course, the correct way of looking at it is to recognize that there are 5 language groups and that the English-speakers have a plurality. They can protect themselves by making an alliance with one of the 4 other language groups.
    Similarly, the correct way to look at the racial situation in the US is to understand that there are 6 main racial groups: Caucasians, Northeast Asians, Southeast Asians, South Asians, Negroids and hybrids. The majority of Hispanics are of course hybrids. For most of the foreseeable future, whites will have a plurality. What is there to stop them from making an alliance with one of the other races?
    Paradoxically, the most likely candidate are the blacks. Both blacks and whites have deep roots in America and both have an interest in limiting affirmative action and in ending mass immigration. A white-black coalition could agree on the following: affirmative action is to be restricted to desendants of American slaves and immigration is to be reduced to a very low level. What interest do blacks have in sharing affirmative action with other non-whites? What interest do blacks have in mass immigration from Latin America and Asia? What interest do blacks have in promoting Spanish to the level of a semi-official language? The biggest losers from the massive inflow of Latinos in the US have been the blacks.
    If racial politics is unavoidable and if there are no more racial majorities, then whites will have to learn to practice racial politics intelligently. Treating all non-whites as enemies and as a monolithic group is certainly NOT an example of intelligent racial politics. I would vastly prefer a complete deracialization of politics, but if that is unattainable, then you may as well play game in a smart way. WNs are in fact the worst enemies of long-term white interests because of their mindless insistence on a dichotomy of whites and non-whites.
    A white-black coalition in the US would be comparable to an English-French coalition in Canada. After all, both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians have an interest in insuring that English and French remain the only official languages of Canada. They are the 2 founding language groups of Canada, just as blacks and whites in the US are the 2 founding races.
    Alliance-building is an essential part of politics when there are no longer any clear majorities. Majorities don’t need allies but pluralites do. American whites would be well-advised to remember that.
    Regards. James

  11. @ James
    You make some very good points. Even though I on many occasions have supported the white/non-white dichotomy, much of it has to do with my experiences with a diverse group of various non-white people back in my adolescent days.
    I never initially endorsed that dichotomy, but they sure as hell did, and would often side with each other against me, and give me shit just for being white.
    Granted, that’s just my experience, but I’ve seen all different non-white groups band together on many occasions against whitey.
    Yes, I agree that it’s bad strategy for WN’s to enforce this dichotomy, but at the same time, it would be foolish to presume any non-white group to be a friend.
    Blacks and whites could never be true allies, particularly against newer immigrant groups. For starters, there is just too much bad blood between the two. If any alliance were to be forged, a significant degree of trust and mutual respect would first have to be built, and both sides are nowhere near that.
    Second, you say that blacks could potentially be allies against massive affirmative action, so long as it’s limited solely to the descendants of black American slaves.
    Well, sorry, but as Keith Alexander of the Political Cesspool would say, you can’t let the camel’s nose into the tent. Once you start supporting affirmative action for black slaves on the account of the injustices they suffered, then you open the floodgates.
    What’s then to stop Hispanics from saying, “oh, we come from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, this used to be our land, we were discriminated against during the bracero programs, zoot suit riots, we were excluded from entering the country for several decades, etc. We deserve restitution as well!”?
    Heck, what’s to stop Asians? Sure, they generally don’t benefit much from affirmative action now (though they did benefit quite a bit in the past, at least according to Steve Farron), but once everyone else has hopped on the gravy train, why not them? After all, some specific Asian ethnic groups, such as the Hmong, Cambodians, and Vietnamese, fled U.S. imposed turmoil and carnage, and came as poor immigrants. They’re also a racial minority that faces prejudice. If blacks and others can get affirmative action, why not us?
    If anything, whites would do better to ally themselves with Asians. Asians, through their high educational attainment, relatively high salaries, would be valuable allies, both economically and politically. Also, there are already so many white/Asian marriages (proportionally more than white/black marriages, despite blacks’ deep roots), and so many Asians already live in white areas/suburbs, that there’s no reason why whites and Asians couldn’t get along.
    In fact, a recent survey of Asian Americans revealed that 87% of respondents said that they either got along really well or pretty well with whites.
    I just don’t see a white/black alliance working.

    1. “Blacks and whites could never be true allies, particularly against newer immigrant groups. For starters, there is just too much bad blood between the two.”
      I shook my head in dismay when I read this. James is right, the white/black alliance is the only way to go. Also bear in mind that while Asians might make potential allies, whites must be weary of Indians as they have cast their lot in with Jewry. On a group level they are also somewhat hostile to whites and Christianity while on an individual level they get along just fine with whites. Hindu groups are beginning to mimic Jewish groups in their organization and lobbying efforts. If WN is ever to succeed, then the Zionist/Hindutva alliance must be thwarted.

      1. @ Dota
        Believe me, I have no illusions about those kinds of desis.
        My point was only that it would be much easier for whites to forge an alliance with Asians than with blacks. Most Asian I’ve known are 2nd or even first generation Americans.
        This, of course, means that they are relatively newer arrivals to the American scene, which in turn means that there is far less bad blood between Asians and whites.
        Less bad blood, and there’s better potential to build trust and mutual respect.
        It would take years, if not decades, for both blacks and whites, as a WHOLE (so excluding individual black/white friendships), to trust one another and develop mutual respect.

        1. Aside from the West coast, Asians are irrelevant as a voting bloc. I think the best advice I could give to White Nationalists is not to treat hispanics as a monolithic group (there is potential for alliances with white hispanics and castizos.) Also not to underestimate ethnic tensions between blacks and hispanics or tensions within various subsets of blacks and hispanics and even to exploit those hostilities. They should avoid bashing hispanic culture and the Spanish language, because that alienates lighter hispanics as well. They should be more knowledgeable about various hispanic or black immigrant groups and be able to recognize which groups are more peaceful and well disposed to anglos or whites. They should not ignore the silent majority, as many hispanics do, with liberal/moderate/non WN whites or NAMS.

        2. Asians don’t belong to the U.S and most are just scumbags who want to fit in with Whites but also are doing it with their own agendas and benefits because they know their own race is ugly. They have no real history with the U.S as deep as that of U.S black or Native Americans. They secretly hate and loath U.S blacks and treat respectable ones like shit in their countries, while proclaiming themselves as victims. I honestly don’t give a shit about racism towards Asians lol, infact people should be 100% racist towards Asians and deny them privileges intentionally in this country; because of their behavior in their own countries and when they are on their own.
          Japan/Koreans doesn’t allow Whites the same privilege as their own compatriots in their own countries of which you pay for financially through various apparatus’s. So Asians cannot realistically be part of this alliance and framework. One problem with lighter Hispanics is that they are the ones that are causing this massive Hispanic migration because they don’t want to share the wealth in that country, they are behind the drug cartels, and are mostly criminals themselves too. So these lighter Hispanics cannot possibly be part of this alliance.

        3. Don’t confuse the Latin American elite with white hispanics in the US, who have immigrated for a variety of reasons.

  12. Dear BAG and Dota
    BAG may well be right. Rationally, a white-black alliance makes sense, but it may not work at the emotional level.
    Cheers. James

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)