Any worthwhile political movement or campaign needs a compelling mission or animating purpose of some kind, and it has to go beyond getting elected. The mission does not have to explain the minutiae of ideology or policy implementation, rather it must encapsulate them. No matter how vague or platitude-laden this mission statement is, it has to resonate with people and it has to be a future-state. “I like how things were yesterday” has rarely been good enough in the battle of ideas.
For liberals in the United States, a mission statement is easily produced and promulgated. Formally, it is to promote equality and inclusion among Americans of all backgrounds. In practice, it is building a coalition of ethnic minorities and leftist Whites to outvote a former conservative White majority, but that is beside the point. Today, some debate exists over the implementation of the liberal mission in the United States, but not the principles of the mission itself. It is a debate over means, namely whether the vehicle of liberalism will be a corporate-supported, bureaucratic enforcement of social liberalism and ‘anti-racism’ via federal institutions, or a European-style social democracy promoting those same policies via left-wing populism, with which they can run through the minoritization of Anglo-Americans and the dispensing of more gibsmedats.
On the other hand, mainline conservatives have a much harder time articulating their mission. In general, the formal mission probably sounds like to support freedom and limited government. In practice, we see something much more confused and convoluted, and which relies on reaction rather than ambition. Freedom means anything and therefore nothing; seldom can tangible results on freedom be delivered by conservatives, with firearms ownership being the most notable exception. Limited government is a relative term and is just taken to mean that policy initiatives championed by liberals should be opposed long enough that conservatives can claim credit for opposing them. It is all a show, one in which conservatives are roped to the back of their own stolen car and taken for a ride down Cuckold Boulevard.
Another major problem for the mainline conservative mission is that it isn’t really a competitor to the liberal one. No matter who wins in the short-term, the country will move left in the long-term and become browner. Just what are we conserving exactly? The conservative mission is not an existential threat to the liberal one, but an annoyance. Liberals will repudiate the conservative claims about ‘freedom’ and limited government because those make it harder for the state to provide equalizing services to target populations. And liberals are essentially correct in saying that a smaller government respecting property rights more literally would be bad, bad for the available pool of gibsmedats necessary for liberals to be elected by their coalition. The liberal response assumes there is bite to the conservative bark though; there is hardly one since in practice most of their disagreements outside of guns, abortion, and same-sex marriage are on paper only.
What do mainline conservatives have to say about the liberal mission of equality and inclusion (which will lead to White minoritization)? Jack shit, that’s what. This is not only a pity but treachery considering most conservative voters are, have been, and will likely continue to be White. Cuckservatives are shooting themselves in the foot by doing nothing to counter their opponents. They fear taking too extreme a position relative to the liberal mission, either because they don’t want to be challenged by their enemies or would genuinely side with them when it comes down to the wire.
The common saying, “If you aren’t with us then you’re against us,” decently describes the relationship between the liberal and conservative missions. An impartial observer would conclude they are not that different. A conservative mission that provides nothing to people beyond the formula to stand for the current year minus one is a de facto subsidiary of the liberal mission, which is to make sure every White oppressor knows what year it is. The key difference is that it is aimed at a different market, and with less alienating rhetoric. Don’t worry about changing demographics; all those brown people will become just like you, i.e. English-speaking taxpayers. Too bad you won’t be around to see it.
This is the true power of the hegemony afforded by our occupation: the choice for the despised White man is fast-tracked destruction or a slower progression. The mission of both parties has nothing to do with the health and prosperity of the founding and majority stock of the country. There is no choice C to slam the brakes and search the train for your assailant. That mission is yet to be taken up.