I just don’t look to my politicians for historical guidance.

Surely everyone should tattoo this statement on his forearm as a daily reminder of how to think! Even were it so done, alas, I fear that after a short while, the tattooed would forget its wisdom and begin making exceptions for this or that “decent sort of guy.”

There is a gulf fixed between the skills required of the successful politician, whether he be a good man or a bad, and those required of the historian, the political scientist, and the political philosopher or theorist. It’s not a matter to be sad, happy, or angry about; it’s simply a fact to be lived with—more often than not, to be endured.

When Lord Byron called George Washington “the Cincinnatus of the West,” I wonder how many people saw his point: that there were basically only two such paragons in 2,200 years of Western history. To build a theory of a society on such a foundation bids fair to stretch exceptionalism a bit far, even for a neocon!

And maybe even Washington … well, let’s leave that for another day, shall we?

http://takimag.com/article/is_mitt_being_neoconned_into_war_patrick_buchanan/print#axzz22CFtZKGg

Yes you are right. My shorter response here is, it is much easier to conflate accepted history and politics. All political parties look to the past, but it is the past everyone knows (or thinks they know). It is VERY helpful if another group of historical specialists lays the groundwork for politicians to utilize later.

Hasn’t this been the pattern of the Left? First rewrite history, then make use of it? I am talking about political campaigns making use of the lies the Left sets down a decade or two earlier. Of course, this was a Leftist or Anti-White agenda in total, I understand that, but as far as retail politics is concerned, it seems to follow the earlier wholesale work done by academics getting something accepted by the public as “truth”.

I’m not as 100% certain of this as I may sound, but this is my general impression of how things progress.

The gentleman handled himself well in that video. I very much think the record should be set straight on any important historical event. But when you mention the historical claims that Anti-Whites use, they are able to do that because those claims have already been established as true in schools and universities (even though many of them are not true). Having claims that are generally accepted as true makes things easier for a political party to take advantage of them.

If the claim you point to is not only controversial, but not even believed by the vast majority of people, then I am not sure how you move ahead in a practical sense, in terms of the next decade or so. It’s like having a political party that challenges a major law in physics – I tend to think it is better to let the physicists hash it out, not politicians. I just don’t look to my politicians for historical guidance.

I feel like many WN are, in effect, swinging for the fences and striking out. No one in the West, outside of a very small community, actually believes the holocaust didn’t occur. So, I am tempted to say that should be the province of a group of specialists, as opposed to campaigners for office.

And you have to remember, many of us are not Hitler guys. I’m not into the whole pledging personal obedience to one person. I’m not looking for a massively centralized state, and I’m not looking for Oriental style mass demonstrations.

I’m more cowboy than N*zi. I don’t have a big personal state in sticking up for The Fuhrer or his regime. As another example, I don’t think if an Australian pro-White party popped up, it’s first or second order of business should be discussing the holocaust (assuming it is legal there).

But, if the events of WWII can seriously and legitimately be reframed, then that work should be done. And sense we in the US are one of the very few places where it can be done legally, we have an obligation to do so.

Whether a political party is the best way to settle a historical claim is a separate issue I don’t have an easy answer for.

On the contrary, it’s an easy answer. History matters, and assuming the context is right, we absolutely must bring in history into the political struggle. It must be done to spread the truth and for political gain. Just look at the other side. The other side brings in history all the time! Although, in their case, it is usually false history.

As recently as the last week, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State and a prominent member of the Democratic party, dealt with a historical matter. It was a speech on the holocaust (and she lied to the world’s face about it I might add since the holocaust did not happen). It’s a perfect example of a political party blending politics and history.

In addition, I doubt anyone has failed to notice that the anti-Whites always justify affirmative action and other anti-White policies using historical claims. If you question affirmative action, the anti-Whites will bring up Jim Crow and alleged historic discrimination against Blacks. For the same reason, the anti-Whites constantly harp on how the founding fathers were slave owners, or how history shows Euros are uniquely evil.

In the right context, bringing in history can advance objectives and be lethal to the opposition. It’s why Jews and the anti-Whites do it. They wouldn’t invest so so much in combining history and politics if it did not matter. Let’s learn from our enemies.

Again, for any who missed it above, here is the leader of the Greek Golden Dawn showing how it should be done when the holocaust comes up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXy7f17GXtQ