There exists in the country a class of smart, healthy, attractive white people raising white children in good schools and living healthy, happy lives. They live in segregated neighborhoods, socialize with other white people, and get involved in local politics. The husbands run the local businesses and the wives run the school boards. They are everything the WNs say they want in a white community. Why not emulate what they do, enter the upper middle class, and start being active in local politics?
If White Nationalists want power in America, they have to co-opt, or neutralize, the currently powerful. The first step would obviously be identifiing the currently powerful. I suspect most will make the same mistake conservatives and liberals make – aiming far too high. Everytime someone has some social issue they are concerned about, they follow a typical Howdy Doody American script: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Write a letter to your Congressman or the President. Vote in the election. Vote third party! What’s the obvious mistake, how are they aiming too high? They always think federal. Why do they do that? Because they TV News mostly concentrates on federal politics.
Instead, a good conspirator will focus on local politics. The county level is the optimal level for WNs. But the second mistake is focusing too much on politics itself. If you ever do get involved in local politics, you’ll find it’s like a football game. It can be interesting watching the election contest itself. It is entertaining discussing various get-out-the-vote strategies, and “issues” but you miss the really interesting parts that way. Because it’s not the politicians and the elected officials that matter, it’s who they work for.
Of course, they work for the voters, since they need a majority of votes to win. But always remember the best argument against democracy: a five minute conversation with the average voter. Voters tend to be Americans, and watch a lot of TV or read a lot of YKWspapers, so they can be brainwashed with a few million in advertisements.
Instead, it’s the people who own the politicians – the donors – that matter. Whether they pay the politicians directly through campaign contributions/bribes, whether they influence the politicians by being influential public figures, businesses that employ many voters, professional lobbyists, or shadowy behind the scenes players, they either influence the politicians, or they run their own politicians who will do what they are told.
So, thinking at the county level, who are those people? Or, at least, how do you identify them?
It’s surprisingly easy. First, find out the major employers in your county. The CEO, directors, and local management of those corporations are some of the most influential people in your county. Second, go to zillow.com and find the most expensive real estate in your county. Those are likely to be the top level power players generally, however they got their money. These are the people that likely pay the top legal contributions to the county politicians. Perhaps $5,000 each to every county commissioner, to every elected sheriff, and to every mayor – every election cycle.
You’ll find the powerful and wealthy classes, at least at the local level, are not monolithic. There is especially a sharp contrast between the local wealthy – often in real estate or local business and especially reliant on some natural resource the locality has a comparative advantage in – and a sort of globalized wealthy not particularly dependent on the local population – or even the local geography itself.
The old aristocracy knew the importance of using marriage – sex – children – to bring dynasties together. A young man and a young woman – regardless of their particular personal ideals and whims – were regarded as official members of a Family – a Clan – that was expected to “do their duty” and even – gasp! – put some personal things aside for the greater good. Even, controversially, devote their entire lives – even their reproductive capacities! – to the greater aims of their family and tribe.
It’s almost heresey to even mention it these days in the era of individualism.
Any young man out to lobby for the business of an older, powerful established man knows he’ll have to get through his secretary. As said in the previous installment, very successful men tend to keep the same secretary over the course of their careers. Good secretaries have their asses kissed all the time. She’s on everyone’s Christmas card list, she’s called “ma’am” and given every courtesy. No one ever makes the mistake of condesending to her in lieu of giving her her proper due; at the most, they make that mistake once.
Officially, a secretary has no power. She is merely an assistant. Yet it’s common for a corporation’s org chart to represent a highly ranked executive’s secretary at the same vertical level as the executive, her box right next to his, connected by a horizontal line. Officially, her name only appears on the chart for convenience sake. Officially, she has no power in the organization. She does not get paid a salary as high as all the men trying to get through her to her boss. Yet it’s almost as if the less official power she has, the more unofficial power she is assumed to have – rightly or wrongly.
A stereotypical wealthy white couple in modern America has the husband as CEO of some business, and his wife as the Director of the local charity. They are, in the main, “equal” in the class sense. Yet they never compete with each other, as each has a sphere of influence proper to their sex; the man, business, politics, or war (same difference) – the woman, civil society.
An interesting variation on this appears in European peoples in the case of scientists; there are many examples of husband and wife scientists where it’s difficult to isolate the man’s contribution from that woman’s. Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace perhaps being one of the most celebrated examples.
Traditionally, there is a male hierarchy, and women stand completely outside of it. Regardless of her intelligence, beauty, or general disposition, she is never directly “in the line of fire” among men. Instead, her place – among men – is wholly dependent on the rank of her man.
Her place among women seems entirely up to her. Hence, feminism. In theory, feminists wish they were making up the hierarchy, or at least half – that’s why they want women in the military, shooting guns at enemy men (and women.) In reality, no one – man, woman, or feminist – actually want that of course.