Welcome to Southern Nationalist Network

Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Losers, eunuchs & wingnuts

April 13, 2012

This is a particularly interesting time as the debate online and in the media over ideas relevant to Southern nationalism has intensified. The old guards of the PC Right are being blasted for their weakness, pandering and failed ideas. A more genuine Right, youthful and radical, is increasingly changing the discourse. Leftists and Rightists alike have noticed the shift. The old guard is pushing back by firing anyone (such as Pat Buchanan, John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg) who deviates from the PC Right’s line. This only serves to make the PC Right even less relevant and appealing to an increasingly radicalised public. On the Left, a militant, minority-oriented agenda is also being radicalised, as we see from the Trayvon Martin affair. The New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton and Touré have emerged as spokesmen for that side and are pushing the agenda. These are indeed exciting and polarising times.

Let’s look at the two broad ideological groups on the Right, as labeled by their detractors, out there discussing these hot social issues.

'Eunuch' Glenn Beck vs 'wingnut' John Derbyshire

The ‘eunuchs‘ are the weak-kneed PC Rightists. Rich Lowery, National Review editor and author of ‘Al Sharpton is Right,’ is the best example of this sort of spineless creature. The attacks are happily piling on Lowery and this term ‘eunuch’ may actually stick as a description of those of his ilk. Another of such persuasion is the Abe Lincoln and MLK-worshiping Sarah Palin. Yet another ‘eunuch’ is Glenn Beck. Like Palin, Beck also adores Abe Lincoln and MLK and frequently uses the language of the Left in demonstrating his commitment to underlying Leftist premises and social values. Lowery, Palin and Beck are the safe, controlled opposition to ‘the liberals’ as put forward by the Establishment. They are safe because they accept the social values and premises of the PC Left, they just have slight disagreements on how to achieve these goals. The Establishment media daily concentrates on these minor disagreements, inflates them into ‘heated controversy’ and thereby controls the public discourse. At least, that is how it has worked up until now. This appears to be changing though. Notice the lack of enthusiasm for any of the PC Right’s presidential candidates. They have a difficult time filling rooms and there is no excitement for Mitt (‘I wish I could claim I was Hispanic‘) Romney, Newt (the Latino lover) Gingrich or Rick (MLK voting rights bill) Santorum. The only GOP candidate who can fill up stadiums with excited young voters (the future of the party and any conservative movement) is the far less conventional Ron Paul. Though Paul has pandered a bit too and is certainly not strong on the important issue of immigration, he is willing to take on sacred cows of the Establishment like the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Reserve and Abraham Lincoln. Anther non-eunuch is paleo-conservative author Pat Buchanan, whose books and commentary are hotter now than ever and are actually relevant to the present and future. Paul Craig Roberts is increasingly hot online because he too is challenging sacred cows and taking on the hard issues. These are the kinds of people who are increasingly leading the debate.

‘Losers’ (‘timid pack of losers’ or ‘faction of losers’ in expanded form) is another term for the PC Rightists. John Derbyshire, fresh off being dumped by Rich Lowery from the National Review, spoke about the weakness of the PC Right and his desire to see the emergence of a real Right in an interview for Amren.com:

At a panel discussion on an NR cruise last year I pooh-poohed something Rich Lowry said about the achievements of conservatism. The movement (I said) had started out with the ambition to stand athwart History crying “Stop!” It had degenerated into a pathetic, timid pack of losers running along behind History calling out “Would you please mind slowing down just a little?”  (Roissy expresses the same idea somewhat more . . . pungently in this comment thread on one of his pieces.) That got good applause from the hall, which ignited a flicker of hope in my breast.

My hope is that this timid, careerist conservatism that scurries to obey when some bigfoot leftist cracks the whip, will soon come to be seen as a faction of losers, which of course they are. Americans hate a loser, so that will be the end of them. I do think this will likely happen, and that there’s some creative destruction up ahead in the conservative movement.

Finally, the ‘wingnuts’ – that’s us. This is what we are called by Leftist, anti-Southern journalists like Jim Thompson and anti-White media personalities like Ed Shultz. It’s a rather silly word and if the Leftists wish to call us this, more power to them. If it can distinguish between us and the controlled opposition of the PC Right then it works in our favour. If someone calls a PC Rightist like Rush Limbaugh a ‘wingnut’ I think our response should be, ‘No. That’s us, not him.’ The more recognition we get and the more attacks pile on the Lowerys, Palins and Becks of the world, the better for us. Ultimately, we want to emerge as the force which leads the dialog, sets the agenda and defines terms. This is already happening. Kyle Rogers’ work on the Trayvon Martin case is an example of what is happening. It’s part of a positive trend. The blog Mindweapons in Ragnarok, exactly the sort of alternative Right outlet that in the past would have been of no consequence but which today can reach many thousands of people and help shape the debate, wrote on this subject of the eunuchs versus the wingnuts:

We are called “wingnuts,” and I’ve never found it insulting. Wingnuts are ahead of the curve, time and time again. The eunuchs of the mass media Left still make fun of us for our “obsession” with gold, even though the price has quadrupled in 5 years.

The sort of people who use the term “wingnut” pejoratively against conservatives/right wingers/survivalists/white nationalists are the sort who watch 2.5 hours of television per day. Eunuch is a good term for them. Eunuchs watching eunuchs.

…The eunuchs — they are content to be provided with restaurants, hair salons, concerts, movies, pro-sports games, airlines, canned vacations to certain places, plastic surgery, and service to the International Banksters.

They rule us… for now. Their rule is coming to an end, because they mismanaged it, and it will go decentralized. And the wingnut survivalists and rural religious fanatics, and there are millions of them, will inherit the earth.

Before we can ‘inherit’ the earth, we will lead the dialog, set the agenda and define terms. This is the path to re-establishing a healthy intellectual hegemony of the sort we envision for a restored South in a restored Western world.

Tags: , , , ,

  • mindweapon

    Hey Michael!

    Thanks for the quote! Glad you liked it. I linked you, will you link me?

    It’s kind of funny how the wingnuts like us are better prepared, and we know things that the eunuchs don’t know or scoff at. and lookee here:


    The Bernank says We’re Much Closer to Total Destruction Than You Think

    Sounds pretty serious to me!

  • Michael

    Mindweapon, thanks for the link. I just linked you back. You have a lot of good material. Just found your blog but I like it.

  • The New Silence Dogood

    I don’t know if you ever feel this way, but I hate it when people put “labels” on everyone else. Wingnuts, eunuchs, neo-whatevers, etc.

    It’s all nonsense and kind of goofy.

    People believe what they believe, period. You either see them as right or wrong.

    Otherwise is just sounds silly.

  • Michael

    Yes, it’s silly. But it does work. It has worked for a very long time.

  • The New Silence Dogood

    I do know what you are saying Michael, however, I guess I live (And work) in a system that uses labels all the time. I guess I’ve also come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter if you belong to a group called “Donald Duck” or “Mickey Mouse” or whatever. Like the old saying “You treat other people the way you want to be treated”.


    When I hear someone say to me “Watch our they are a________” (Fill in the blank) I really don’t want any preconceived labels attached to someone, especially when I don’t even know them. I want to formulate my own opinion on them individually, and so I try to ignore anyone elses “labels” until I know them as a person first.

    I will grant you it’s tough when you look at the world around you and see all the craziness and having a label helps you to sometimes know “how” to approach someone. I guess I want to formulate my own opinion on people if I am meeting with someone I’ve never met before.

    I don’t know if I’m making any sense or am explaining myself very well on this piece. I do understand what you are saying because, heck, we all do it on this sight whether we realize it or not! :-) It’s just that some labels look and sound silly to me.

    Maybe I’m still trying to figure all this out and formulate a better opinion, I don’t know! :-)

  • The New Silence Dogood

    2nd reply: I reread the article, and again, maybe I’m being too harsh on this one because, overall, it is a good article.

    It’s just that certain labels sound silly to my ears. I guess that’s just my own issue I’ll have to deal with.

    It’s like the terms “twitter” or “texting” and the whole genre that surrounds that stuff. The terms sound silly to me (Plus I think from a technology standpoint “twittering” and “texting” are kind of goofy in and of themselves and unecessary but that’s a whole other issue.

    I guess I’m somewhat of a Luddite (Another goofy label :-)) when it comes to certain technologies, and besides, “twitter” sounds like something “Tweety Bird” would say on cartoons!


Feds out of Florida footer