Sonia Sotomayor, the “Wise Latina” of the Supreme Court, recently made some headlines in the mainstream press.
She gave a speech to the University of Chicago Law School in Illinois. There was a question and answer session with law students.
Sotomayor made some candid remarks about her thoughts on the topic of “racial justice.” She has kept a low profile since her confirmation hearings.
In particular, Sotomayor took issue with the old hat “civil rights” cause of “colorblindness.” She told the forum that our society is “too complex” to stop discriminating on the basis of race. That formula is “too simple” for her.
A week before, Sotomayor told students at Kansas State University that we still have “structural problems in the society that have to be addressed before we reach full equality. We can’t live in a society where the poorest children are the poorest educated.”
In other words, Hispanic judicial activists like Sonia Sotomayor (who represent the “people of color”) must be allowed to discriminate against Whites in the name of “racial justice” to overcome “white privilege” and “structural racism” in the United States.
Sotomayor believes they have a license to do this until racial disparities in poverty and education are eliminated – which is to say, the discrimination against Whites will go on indefinitely, so long as people like her are on the Supreme Court.
If you want to know where this idea of “structural racism” originated, check out the Racism Review website. It is one of the most reliable anti-White hate sites on the internet. They blog about “systemic racism” and “structural racism” all the time there.
Racial discrimination against non-Whites is never “too simple” or “too complex” for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. It is never “too simple” or “too complex” for the New York Times either which wrote a glowing review of her speech.
If you feel that “racial justice” requires you to discriminate against Whites on the basis of race, you should send your resume to Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The Democratic Party ought to be able to find you some type of employment in the vast federal bureaucracy they have created with White taxpayer dollars.
How do we respond to this?
We live in a society where Whites are discriminated against on the basis of race. Progressives on the Supreme Court and at the New York Times dump on White America from their perches at the pinnacles of law and journalism.
The response in the White Nationalist movement to Sonia Sotomayor will invariably come in two forms: “mainstreamer” and “vanguardist.”
This reflects the timeless division in American politics between “hotheads” and “cool heads.” The cooler heads must prevail.
I will articulate our position. I’m sure the hotheads will show up in the comments to share their point of view.
(1) The Democratic Party – The first observation to make is that the Democratic Party is the enemy of White America. Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan all share the same mindset on this issue.
If we elect a Democratic president, we are going to get Supreme Court nominees in the mold of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who will rule in favor of the defense and expansion of affirmative action. We are also going to get ever more racial activists infesting the lower federal courts.
If we elect Democratic senators, a Democratic president has a greater chance at pushing through a more anti-White nominee. We got Sotomayor and Kagan because of the Democratic strength in the Senate.
There is nothing redeemable about the Democratic Party. No self respecting White man should ever vote for a Democrat.
If Whites in the Midwest would stop voting for the Democratic Party, as Whites in the South have largely done, that would be sufficient to deny them control of the White House and Senate.
The biggest targets for White Nationalists must be the “Blue Dog Democrats” like Jon Tester in Montana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and Jim Webb in Virginia who represent conservative leaning states.
The easiest way to stop another Sonia Sotomayor is to kick the Testers, McCaskills, Nelsons, and Webbs out of the Senate. They shouldn’t be there anyway.
(2) Progressives – The anti-White coalition travels under an ideological label. They call themselves “progressives.”
Progressives are our enemies. We must name the enemy.
We aren’t fighting the Jews alone. We are fighting a Jewish led coalition of Jews, SWPLs, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Jews alone don’t have the electoral strength to control the government. They can only reach the government on the basis on their alliances with these other groups.
There is nothing redeemable about the “progressive movement” either. These people are the core of the opposition. They are the enemy camp.
(3) Lemmings – Ordinary people are not lemmings.
White people dislike affirmative action. They have banned affirmative action in Blue States like California, Washington, and Michigan. In the midterm elections, they banned affirmative action in Arizona.
The solution here is obvious: we need to position ourselves as the foremost enemies of affirmative action and as the champions of a popular cause. We can use this issue to build legitimacy and connect with a mass constituency.
We should use Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks to polarize Whites against the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. They should also be used to delegitimize the mainstream media.
(4) Conservatives – Conservatives are a source of frequent abuse in the White Nationalist movement.
The vast majority of conservatives are opposed to affirmative action. The problem is not the conservative grassroots. It is the conservative leadership.
Like the Tea Party, we should present ourselves as conservatives with teeth, and invite a favorable comparison between us and the spineless, waffling moderates. Instead of attacking conservatives, which only turns them against us, we should attack their gelded leaders and replace them as the leaders of a mass constituency with a racial grievance.
(5) Republicans – While Democrats are our enemies, Republicans are not always our friends. We have eight years of George W. Bush in the rearview mirror.
I have repeatedly pointed out on this website that there are two wings of the Republican Party: the business wing, which is our enemy, and the populist conservative wing, which tends to side with us.
We should support the populist conservative wing and their efforts to knock off the pro-business Republicans like Sen. Robert Bennett in the primaries.
In 2008, the Republican Party nominated the hideous John McCain, who co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy amnesty. The proper course of action was to vote third party or not to vote for McCain while supporting populist conservatives down ballot.
We can always block the worst Supreme Court nominees of a Democratic president in the Senate.
In 2008, I voted against John McCain, but I voted for Sen. Jeff Sessions in Alabama. He voted against Sotomayor’s confirmation and led the opposition to the DREAM Act in the Senate.
(6) The System – We should work within the system to oppose affirmative action.
At the federal level, we should vote against Democrats and pro-business Republican moderates, while supporting Republicans who are opposed to affirmative action.
At the state level, we should follow the same plan, but we should make a strong push to ban affirmative action in other states. We have already banned affirmative action in California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, and Arizona.
White conservatives dislike affirmative action. White Nationalists need legitimacy and a mass constituency.
That’s why White Nationalists should reinvent themselves as Hard Right conservatives to push for anti-affirmative action initiatives in the other 46 states.
This type of real world organizing, networking, and leadership can always be put to better use down the road. Once a people are set in motion, as we saw in Arizona or with the Civil Rights Movement, they will push on into more controversial territory.
(7) The States – I’m sure there will be people who respond to this post with comments to the effect that the federal government is lost to White Nationalists.
That might be the case.
Changing demographics might eventually put the federal government and federal courts out of reach, but that is still decades away. That doesn’t mean our state and local governments are unreachable. The best initiatives on immigration are happening at the state level.
I have noted several times now that White Americans do not respond well to the illegitimate use of violence. The key point here being the legitimacy of the violent act.
Recall the War Between the States. How did the secessionists create the Confederacy? It wasn’t through hiding out in bunkers in Appalachia and praying for the inevitable collapse of the system.
They captured control of state governments, positioned themselves as the champions of Southern Rights, split the Democratic Party along sectional lines, waited for an “overt act” (i.e., the election of Abraham Lincoln), and coordinated the secession of three states (South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi) to force other states to reconsider their loyalties.
Vanguardists fantasize about destroying the two-party system.
William Lowndes Yancey pulled it off at the 1860 Democratic National Convention. He worked within the system to destroy the system. He knew from decades of experience that was the only way it could ever be done.
Southerners would have never bolted the Union over slavery. Within the South, slavery was a divisive issue between slaveholders and non-slaveholders. There was a strong patriotic attachment to the Union among the non-slaveholding, yeoman farmer class.
The issue had to be framed as a choice between Black Republicanism and Southern Rights or between Alabama and the United States or between state’s rights and consolidated government.
So what is the point of this analogy?
In our own times, several governors have flat out refused to enforce Obamacare, and 26 states have filed lawsuits in federal court to block the individual mandate. This is a step in the right direction.
There will never be a successful vanguardist revolution in this country launched in the name of an abstraction like the White Republic.
Ordinary people are attached to real communities. The only people who are addicted to substituting an abstract utopia for real communities are intellectuals. This is a common intellectual pathology found among all stripes of ideologues.
White people will only revolt and use violence to defend a Beavercleaverville, Idaho or a Charleston, South Carolina. They will only dissolve the Union when they are convinced that legitimacy and morality are on their side.
If you asked the typical Confederate soldier why he was fighting the Union Army against incredible material odds, he would have told you it was to keep the Yankees out of his hometown. Likewise, the typical Union soldier was fighting to hold to his nation together.
White people fight for their homes and families. They will fight against oppression and for glory and fortune.
We should work through the system to take back our country from the likes of Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor. Should we fail in that endeavor, we will be in a position to consider other solutions.