"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

23 November 2016

The USHMM's Fatwa against Richard Spencer

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on Monday issued a poorly informed but nonetheless inflammatory statement about the speech that Richard Spencer had read to his organization, the National Policy Institute, on Saturday.  The result was that on Tuesday Spencer's Jewish neighbor, an editor of Politico, posted Spencer's home-addresses on Twitter and urged violence against him. Read more about it from CODOH.

20 November 2016

The Hoopla about the “Alt Right"

In recent years I have paid less and less attention to what goes on in White Nationalism generally, or what is now known as the Alternative Right. Whether White Nationalism and the Alternative Right are the same thing, or different things, I cannot tell. Some people think that they are the same thing. Others deny it.
I first heard the term Alternative Right a few years ago. For me the term had some connotations. The word alternative has a positive connotation for some people in a certain age-group, because of alternative music or alternative dance-music that some preferred to the music played on radio-stations in the 80s and 90s. This alternative music, incidentally, usually exhibited less Negro influence than the music in the pop-charts. Thus it seems that the Alternative Right was supposed to be a better form of right-wing politics, for the cool White kids.

But why invent a new term at all? Are there really any new political orientations that have not been labeled?

No, of course not. A new label is invented to escape stereotyping. It's the same reason that Blackwater Security keeps changing its name. Nobody wants to be called Racist or White Supremacist, because the mass-media always represent Racists and White Supremacists in a negative way. (Racism and White Supremacy, by the way, were not always universally considered derogatory terms.) Most people prefer to do things the easy way. So, rather than try to fight the stereotype, one chooses a new label.

I have never used the term Alternative Right to refer to myself, because I thought it was too vague. I have never been eager to participate in fads, which is how the use of that term appeared to me. Also, as a national-socialist, my position is a synthesis of what are normally regarded as left and right. To say that I am on the right would not be entirely accurate.

Most people are not going to know from the name just what the Alternative Right is. Because the term has no instantly clear meaning, its intended meaning is easily missed or distorted.

When Steve Bannon told a Jewish reporter for Mother Jones that Breitbart was a platform for the Alt Right, he offered a rather vague notion of what this might mean:

“Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.” [S. Posner, Mother Jones, 22 August 2016]

Mother Jones of course did not fail to inform readers of the term's inextricable association with White Nationalism. Bannon has subsequently declared that Breitbart had zero tolerance for “racial and anti-Semitic” views.

Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has recently said that her idea of the Alt Right is: teenagers who discovered that it is fun to be called racist.

This is not at all the impression given by Richard Spencer's panel of Alt Right luminaries -- Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, et al. -- at a press-conference on 19 November 2016. They are all uptight about being called racist. When a reporter asked if they were racist, instead of boldly saying, "Yes we are racists, they objected to it. Jared Taylor said that the word racist was pejorative (obviously not having read  René Binet's Theory of Racism). So, it is clear that these luminaries, who are supposed to represent the Alt Right, are in fact less radical than the teenagers that Ann Coulter thinks really are the Alt Right.

When a reporter mentioned Andrew Anglin and The Daily Stormer, Peter Brimelow (a former employee of National Review) felt obliged to stipulate that Anglin was not a member of the Alt Right at all, but a flat-out Neonazi, meaning that there was some important difference between Anglin and the Alt Right.

This really puzzled me, because it is not at all clear, from a strictly political perspective, that these Alt Right luminaries share goals not shared by Andrew Anglin. The differences between MacDonald and Taylor alone are huge. MacDonald focuses entirely on Jews, while Taylor tries never to focus on Jews. If they are in one boat together, it is a broadly pro-White boat. It does not seem tenable to assert that they are in one movement together while Andrew Anglin is in a different one -- if it is strictly a matter of politics.

It is obviously not a matter of politics. There are other reasons why they find the association with Anglin embarrassing. Basically he is running a sensationalist tabloid in the form of a blog, and he is catering to a young audience, and, perhaps most importantly, he does not avoid taboos that these respectable luminaries assiduously shun, starting with the very name of his blog. Just as these worthies fled from the word racism, they flee from that association. Pretending that there was a huge political gulf between the Alt Right and The Daily Stormer was a way of escaping this embarrassment. It is bourgeois respectability that is at stake here.

This is at the opposite extreme from Ann Coulter's impression of what the Alt Right is.

I was dismayed to hear Spencer say that the Alt Right is interested inthe conservative revolution in Germany. The Revolutionary Conservatives were a tiny political movement that had very little effect. Whatever useful ideas they produced were subsumed under National-Socialism. One of the better known Revolutionary Conservatives, Hermann Rauschning, became a traitor to his country. When people say that they are interested in the Revolutionary Conservatives, it tells me that they have some inhibition about showing an interest in National-Socialism, which was obviously a much more important movement. It is a way of maintaining distance from Hitler, which means that Richard Spencer is still under the influence of Holocaust-propaganda. Spencer's professed admiration for the French New Right -- he named Benoist, Faye, and Steuckers -- likewise  represents a retreat from taboo, because these men generally avoid discussing Jews. Bourgeois respectability, bourgeois inhibition, still at work.

It must have been like the Earth crumbling beneath them, therefore, when Tila Tequila and two young men at the conference were photographed giving a Roman salute. All those pains taken to avoid being called racist, and to avoid association with The Daily Stormer, only to have this happen. (It has since been determined that the two males photographed giving a Roman salute with Tila Tequila are Jews.)

This may vaguely resemble Ann Coulter's idea of the Alt Right.

If Richard Spencer and his friends are not even able to control the behavior of people attending NPI's conferences, they are certainly not going to be able to control the use of the term Alt Right.

Ultimately, because there is no control over what Alt Right can mean and who calls himself Alt Right, the term will continue to be stretched and distorted until it becomes entirely useless, or even a liability for some who have conspicuously applied the term to themselves. That process surely accelerated recently, when the term acquired importance as the object of so much attention.

Now, Spencer's National Policy Institute is a different matter. That is an organization. Its goals and membership can be defined by its leadership. Good luck to Richard Spencer on that. I just hope that NPI's proposals will be as radical and thorough as our situation requires.

16 November 2016

Is Breitbart now more radical than The Occidental Observer?

Donald Trump's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Stephen Kevin Bannon

In regard to the hostile reactions toward the appointment of Stephen Bannon, former editor of Breitbart, as Donald Trump's chief of staff, there is an interesting contrast between the treatment given by The Occidental Observer (ostensibly a White Nationalist blog), and by Breitbart itself (until recently at least, a Jew-friendly "conservative" blog).

TOO on 15 November ran an essay titled: "Political Assassination: The Smearing of Steve Bannon," by somebody called Marcus Alethia, Ph.D. The essay purports to defend Bannon by affirming that he is not a raging anti-Semite and not a racist as mainstream media have accused.

Wait a minute. Why would there be any interest for a White Nationalist blog to demonstrate that Steve Bannon is not critical of Jews and not loyal to the White race? Are these really smears? Who was supposed to read this? It would make sense if some "responsible conservative" publication "defended" Bannon from such charges, but from the White Nationalist perspective a defense is neither necessary nor desirable.

For Marcus Alethia, Ph.D., however, the desire to debunk these "smears" is understandable, since he is not a White Nationalist but rather, it is stated in the essay, "an American Jew." 

Ironically it is Breitbart, quoting Ann Coulter, that takes the proper White Nationalist attitude toward the enemy's statements about Bannon. In an appearance on Sean Hannity's radio-show Coulter said:

“We’ve just gone through 16 months with the media calling Trump ‘Hitler,’” she said. “I believe every single op-ed columnist at The New York Times at one point or another in the past year has a brilliant think piece on the comparisons between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. It didn’t work; so now they’re trying it with his aide. You know, I had never heard of, and I’m sure you haven’t, nobody had heard of this ‘alt-right until Donald Trump was running. But now having discovered these teenagers-- they’re really leading the way in taunting the media and the liberals. And their position-- I think they’re leading us the way out of this by just saying, ‘No, actually it is fun to be called a racist.’”

Coulter went on to add what she thought the appropriate response should be to those attacking Bannon.

“The only reaction to this nonsense–- I don’t want anyone going on TV and somberly telling us that Steve Bannon is not an anti-Semite, he is not a racist,” she added. “How about, ‘Screw you’?” [Jeff Poor, Breitbart, 15 November 2016]

Exactly right, Ann. This kind of devil-may-care defiance is an important part of what the White majority of the United States has learned over the past sixteen months. "These teenagers" might be a reference to the "troll-army" of The Daily Stormer, or the cut-ups at MyPostingCareer who invented the term "cuckservative," but the Donald himself has exhibited a remarkably low level of concern about imputations of racism -- unlike every other politician. The example has steeled the spines of others.

Rush Limbaugh, himself a figure of enormous influence, is among those who have been at least somewhat emboldened. Limbaugh's typical pattern, in the past, has always been to try to turn every racial issue into something else, often an economic issue, and to argue for what he apparently regards as White racial interests in that guise. The words "White people" were very rarely heard from Rush Limbaugh. On the Wednesday and Thursday after the election, however, Limbaugh spent considerable time talking about the fact that White people as a group have interests, and asked rhetorically why it should be wrong for White people as a group to vote according to their interests. This is unprecedented from Limbaugh. This is the effect of Trump's presidential campaign and the victory that followed.

What a shame that The Occidental Observer apologizes for racism at precisely the moment when many White Americans have outgrown such apologies.

14 November 2016

Jews Caught in False-Flag Church-Desecration to be blamed on Trump

Morales, left, and Kafker, right, from the Chicago Tribune.

On 11 March 2016 Matthew Kafker and Anthony Morales, both freshmen at Northwestern University in Illinois, were caught on video vandalizing a Christian chapel at the university, leaving graffiti calculated to reflect badly on Donald Trump.

The two were charged with institutional vandalism, hate crime to a place of worship and criminal damage to property.
The graffiti included a swastika, drawings of male genitalia and the word “Trump.”
Both Morales and Kafker pled not guilty at their arraignments. Spector told The Daily Kafker was “incredibly intoxicated” when he allegedly vandalized the chapel, stressing that this was out of the character for the former NU student. [F. Rahman, The Daily Northwestern, 24 June 2016]

The claim that it is "out of character" for a Jew to commit false-flag vandalism and graffiti to advance a political agenda is ridiculous. It is in fact typical. There are many examples.
In this case, since the Jews were caught on video, they could not pretend that they did not do it. Yet they pleaded innocent! That's some chutzpah. Kafker hopes that claiming to have been rip-roaring drunk at the time of the crime will get him off the hook. It will be extraordinary if it works, since such an excuse never works for anybody else.
In any case, what they did was not at all out of character -- for a Jew.

10 November 2016

Don't Celebrate Too Much Yet


The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States represents a temporary reprieve for the United States of America as a majority-White country. It could become much more than that, but it is not yet evident that it will.

While Trump represents a move in the right direction, he has given no indication that he will take adequate measures to deal with the biggest fundamental problems in the United States:

  1.  demographic shift; 
  2.  the embedded anti-White elite.

Trump talks about keeping illegal aliens out entirely, and has mentioned deportation, with priority given to those who commit crimes beyond simply being here illegally.

Of course the government should be doing this! How did this ever become controversial?

However, if President Trump deports every illegal alien and prevents all further illegal immigration, that will not be enough to preserve the White majority in the United States for very long. 

In the first place, as Ann Coulter has been saying, legal immigration is an even bigger problem than illegal immigration, but Trump has not proposed to curb that.

Apart from any question of immigration, there is the differential birthrate between the non-White and White populations. There is no way for the government to address this problem without taking actions that would presently be considered unconstitutional.

The hour is very late, in regard to this demographic problem in the United States. The direness of the situation is reflected in the fact that Trump (according to current widely acknowledged figures) lost the popular vote and won only through the quirks of the Electoral College, due to the fact that Hispanic populations are concentrated in a few states and not evenly distributed like the White majority.

Of course it will be a disaster even for many non-Whites in the United States if Whites cease to be the majority. Rush Limbaugh refers to the White population as "the people who make the country work." We can only hope that Trump, or somebody, will recognize the compelling need to preserve a White majority, and find a way, despite restrictions of the Constitution as currently interpreted, to preserve the country's future.

The fact that there are already anti-White tantrums against Trump's election is a hopeful sign. It was similar leftist tantrums in Germany (the Reichstag Fire being one manifestation) that facilitated Hitler's assumption of emergency powers so that he could do what needed to be done. Let that anti-White rabble keep up its disturbances. Let them become more and more outrageous. There is hope for us in their irrational behavior.

Meanwhile you will see the anti-White elite and their lackeys like George Will scream bloody murder if Trump even presses the limits of executive power as much as Obama has done already. George Will explicitly stated this position immediately after the election, in anticipation of Trump's not behaving like a typical Republican.

On the bright side, even before he won the election, Trump's candidacy was very educational for the American public, in terms of shifting the range of acceptable public discourse, and bringing hidden problems to the surface. 

Most notably there is the conflict between the interests of the White majority and the "Neoconservative" Jews like Krauthammer and Kristol, and crypto-leftists like George Will and the Bush family, who had embedded themselves in the Republican Party and hobbled its potential for representing White interests. Such infiltrators are now widely recognized as enemies of the White majority because of their reaction to Trump. 

This lesson needs to be kept in mind, because just as they tried to prevent Trump's election, they will now try to prevent Trump from making any significant permanent changes to stop the country's decline. Their attempts to make nice and to pretend once again that they are really on our side of course should be rejected.

For the country's survival, these people really should be removed from the body politic, "as a physician would purge a bacillus," in the words of Mussolini. But it seems highly unlikely that Trump will do any such thing, as long as these subversives cannot be shown to have committed any statutory crime.

Trump's enemies have called him a "racist autocrat" but that seems to represent what those anti-White subversives fear and expect, rather than Trump's actual positions. We can hope that he will grow in that regard.

Meanwhile, the greatest good accomplished by the election of Donald Trump may be outside the United States. Of course it will be good for Russia and Syria if the USA ceases its saber-rattling and covert support for religious lunatics, but it also happens to be the case that US influence operates behind the scenes in the politics of Western Europe, especially Germany. It was US pressure that induced Germany to begin reparations payments to the State of Israel, and later to import unnecessary Turkish guestworkers. It is a good bet that behind-the-scenes manipulation has something to do with the current flood of non-White immigrants in Germany, and especially the inviting hospitality of "Mama Merkel." Trump's election will give Europe the possibility of  taking necessary actions to recover from this.

In regard to the United States however, if Trump does not greatly alter the country's demographic decline, it seems practically inevitable that he will be succeeded, before long, one way or another, by a real autocrat.

07 November 2016

Roots of Trump's Revolution

I wrote this after the defeat of Mitt Romney in the presidential election of 2012, when the Uniparty Establishment of Plutocrats and Zionists was proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future could win elections only by abandoning all semblance of representing the interests of the White majority, and should instead pander to Hispanics by embracing illegal aliens. "Neoconservative" Jew Charles Krauthammer in particular advocated this, with Jew Dick Morris (who pretends to be an expert on how to win elections) seconding, and many weak-kneed Republicans followed their lead.

Rush Limbaugh was the most prominent dissenting voice. Limbaugh said that if the Republican Party tried to be like the Democrats it would cease to exist. 

Limbaugh however did not articulate a viable alternative for the Republicans. Although Limbaugh recommended rallying the party's base, his conception of how to appeal to the base was circumscribed by his commitment to "conservatism," while the really powerful appeal to the Republican base, and the way to expand that base, was in populism (which Limbaugh had explicitly opposed when Pat Buchanan represented it in 1996). 

Subsequently, in 2014, Limbaugh made a significant shift in the direction of populism, openly admitting, after decades of shilling for plutocracy, that what is good for the rich may not be good for ordinary Americans after all. In 2016 Limbaugh is still saying this.

Not being hobbled with Rush Limbaugh's commitment to "conservatism," I articulated a populist future for the Republican Party with this essay in 2012. Although Donald Trump has not gone as far as I proposed in terms of moving the GOP to the left economically, broadly speaking what I suggested is what he has done, notably proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future would be a workers' party.

The key to Trump's popularity is that he enables White working people to vote for their racial interest and their personal economic interest at the same time. In the past, the Republicans and the Democrats, as if by a deliberate plan to keep the White majority divided, consistently forced them to choose one or the other.

A Party of Plutocrats Has No Future
by Hadding Scott

The Ideal vs. the Possible

First I want to explain that White advocacy and electoral politics are two distinct matters. There is some relationship between the two, but they are different with their own guiding principles (especially in this winner-take-all electoral system, which rewards inscrutable blandness). To the extent that one is guided by the principles of the other, it is done less than optimally. Electoral politics must be approached with a readiness to accept some tolerable compromise rather than demanding the full realization of an ideal: “Politics is the art of the possible,” said Bismarck. But at the same time the ideal has to be maintained.

White advocacy and general political discussion must not be degraded to the level of rhetoric that is calculated to win an election. We must not internalize the limits of electoral politics as the limits of our own thinking and discussion. Those of us who might choose to engage in the grubby business of electoral politics must not become creatures of this corrupting system but remain White people with White interests, despite whatever compromises might be required by circumstances.

By maintaining consciousness of the difference between what is actual and what is ideal, our people should always realize that whatever they have gained is not all that they want, so that progress will not stop and will not be lost through a relaxation of efforts.

How the Republican Party has Failed and Succeeded and Failed Again

Many White people, especially in the South, support the Republican Party because they perceive it as the Implicitly White Party. This affiliation of racially conscious White people with the Republican Party was induced by the so-called Civil Rights movement, which had its main base of support in the Democratic Party. The South had always been solidly Democratic until the Truman Administration and its support for “Civil Rights.” This provoked a rift in the Democratic Party in the form of the short-lived States’ Rights Democratic Party, or “Dixiecrats.” A decisive shift occurred when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. That was when Senator Strom Thurmond became a Republican. Many other Southern segregationists, like future senator Jesse Helms, followed.

Before the Solid South turned Republican, the Republicans had been known as the party of big business. In other words, it was a plutocratic party. The Republicans were blamed for the Great Depression, and for not doing enough to meliorate its effects, such as unemployment. The fact that the Democrats were willing to address those effects of the Great Depression made them the dominant political party from 1933 until 1981. It was the fact that the Democratic establishment’s racial policies had offended White Southerners that enabled the Republican Party to become dominant again, beginning with Ronald Reagan.

The politics of the rejuvenated Republican Party therefore represented a synthesis of muted White racialism and plutocracy. The 19th-century notion that dog-eat-dog capitalism was somehow eugenic became attractive as a meeting-point between the two motives. However, although budgets were cut, the effects on the underclass were far from drastic. (Nor did Ronald Reagan turn Iran into a glowing parking-lot.) There seemed to be a strong anti-social impulse in all this; not infrequently the supporters of the less-government ideology will express it in terms of owing nothing to the government or to society.

Unfortunately, as it turned out, the established plutocratic motive in the Republican Party forced the recently introduced racial motive to take a back seat. Instead of concentrating on pro-White politics (such as restricting immigration), which is the most fundamental form of conservatism, the Republicans, with an ideology of free trade, deregulation, and less government, concentrated on dismantling the economic and social adjustments that had become necessary by the time of the Great Depression.

The fact that the Republicans had become the party of unnecessary wars also did not help. Barack Obama was able to beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination because she had supported war in Iraq and he had not. This consideration also surely had some bearing on Obama’s victory over John McCain, who repelled people with talk of 100 years of Middle-East war.
The combination of dishonest wars and a wrecked economy caused the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Republican attempts to exploit some presumed amnesia on the part of the voting public, so as to blame Obama for the resumption of the Great Depression, had little success. Unemployment also became worse during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term than it had been under Herbert Hoover, but somehow that did not make people forget under which party the crisis had begun.

Why did three-million Republicans not turn out to vote for Mitt Romney?

Rush Limbaugh characterizes movers and shakers in the Republican Party as a bunch of elitist snobs who despise many of the ordinary people that vote Republican.

How many times have I told you this story? Early 90s, in the Hamptons. Dinner party, mostly establishment Republicans. And major figures, you’d know the names, big donors, fundraisers, come up to me, point their finger in my chest, actually jab my chest, “What are you going to do about the Christians?” “What do you mean, what am I going to do about the…?” “This abortion’s killing us! We’re never going to win a damned thing! They listen to you. You’ve got to get them to shut up about this!” I said, “They’re only 24 million votes. You can’t win anything without them.” “We don’t want them! It’s embarrassing!” Well, that’s 1992, 93. We’re now at 2012. That’s 20 years. That’s how long it’s been building. That is something that existed then; it existed during the 80s with Reagan. There was embarrassment over Reagan. (Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound)

While this anecdote gives a useful insight, Limbaugh seems to tell only part of the truth, probably the part that he can tell without getting into really serious hot water. Abortion is clearly only one, perhaps the least of the issues dear to some Republican voters that the bigwigs find abhorrent. Other such issues are control of legal and illegal immigration, opposition to free trade, and opposition to wars for Israel. The fact that Limbaugh managed to discuss the conflict over the rules-change at the Republican National Convention at length without mentioning Ron Paul, whose movement was at the center of the conflict, demonstrates that with Rush Limbaugh, while some things are revealed, much is suppressed.

A large part of the cause for three-million registered Republicans staying home on election day, no doubt, is the treatment given to Ron Paul’s genuine and enthusiastic (if ideologically wrongheaded) grassroots movement. The abuses include what seems to be rigging of results in some primaries, and a rules-change at the Republican National Convention that rankled not only Ron Paul’s supporters but Tea-Partiers and anybody that was not strictly with the plutocratic Republican establishment. The behavior of the Republican establishment during the primaries and at the convention represents the contempt of a plutocratic party for ordinary people who do not heed their supposed betters.

Limbaugh describes a key event at the 2012 Republican convention:
Essentially, the establishment Republicans, the RNC, the GOP, the Romney campaign, want to change the rules of delegate-selection. They want the presidential nominee in future years to be able to choose the actual delegates to the convention so that he owns them, so that they do what he wants.
And what it really is, is an effort to eliminate grassroots people from the Republican convention. That’s really what this is all about. And what that means is that the party has decided it doesn’t want to have to put up with a bunch of conservatives showing up, affecting the platform, and all other things that happen at the convention, including influencing the party. [Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound]
Limbaugh speaks cryptically about “conservatives” when it was mainly a matter of Ron Paul’s supporters. That was not the only offense against Ron Paul’s supporters at the convention:
Prior to the rules vote, there was also a contentious vote on the report from the committee’s credentials committee, which prevented half the delegates from Maine — many of them Paul supporters — from being seated after ruling that there were problems with their selections.
The credentials report also passed by voice vote, prompting chants of “Seat Maine now” from Paul supporters in the crowd. At one point, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus had to gavel them back into order as they chanted over the next speaker. [Aaron Blake, “Ron Paul supporters come up short in rules fight,” Washington Post, 28 August 2012]
Ron Paul’s opposition to war and foreign entanglements generally would have represented a real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and a change of direction that many people favor, one that would have attracted many who favored Obama in 2008 because of what appeared to be his disinclination for war.

The question for me is not why Obama was re-elected, but why anybody is surprised about it, given  what the Republican establishment really represents, and the contempt with which it treats the people whose support it seeks.

The Overemphasis on Demographic Change and Why they are Doing It

Fox News commentator Bill O’ Reilly made this dire assessment as exit polls suggested that the Republican Party’s White male challenger Mitt Romney would lose to the mulatto incumbent:

The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.

And whereby twenty years ago President Obama would be roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the White establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff.

You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming Black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way.

People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things.

O’Reilly tries to cast the problem in terms of the old saw about how democracy cannot last because the people will vote largesse for themselves until they ruin the state, but he ends up interpreting that largely in racial terms (which is probably what really concerns the average Fox News viewer anyway, so that we probably should not consider this a slip but intentional pandering).

Who is the “White establishment” that O’Reilly says is now the minority? He cannot mean all White people, because White people are not a minority yet, nor did all White people vote Republican. O’Reilly is implying that the Republican Party got as much of the White vote as it could possibly get, which is simply not the case. The thesis here is that a less plutocratic Republican Party would draw a larger share of the White vote and be able to win elections at the national level.

After O’Reilly made his statement, Jewish political pundit Dick Morris stated on Fox News, “If this candidate, in this economy, against this opponent, couldn’t win … nobody ever can.” Morris specifically mentioned immigration as a position where the Republican Party would have to change. Morris and certain others seem far too eager to embrace the conclusion that demographic change is the reason why the Republicans lost, and overly determined as to what should be done about it.

Neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer was one of the first notable voices after the election to call for the Republican Party to embrace amnesty for illegal aliens:
The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.
For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. [Charles Krauthammer, “The Way Forward,” National Review, 8 November 2012]

King-Neocon William Kristol expresses himself a bit more timidly. He advocates that the Republican Party should continue to be the enemy of “big government liberalism” but should exhibit “fresh thinking” in other regards. Then he cryptically suggests that a change of the party’s position on immigration might be in order: “If a senator or a representative has a good proposal on immigration or monetary policy or education or tax reform, he or she should introduce it (William Kristol, “Losing Can be Liberating,” The Weekly Standard, 19 November 2012)

The Zionist owner of Fox News and funder of the Project for a New American Century, Rupert Murdoch, tweeted that the United States “must make sweeping, generous immigration reform.”

The dominant theme in Neoconservative propaganda at present is that the Republican Party must become even less the party of White people while remaining the plutocratic party.

The Neocon position was echoed by Sean Hannity, who has always seemed weak-kneed on matters of racial importance, claiming that he had “evolved.”

Among elected politicians, while Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner came out for amnesty, other Republicans, who depend on the support of White constituencies, disagreed.

Rush Limbaugh: Demographic Change is not the Immediate Problem

Limbaugh denies the premise of the Neocons’ rhetoric, that amnesty for illegal aliens would significantly win Hispanics over to the GOP. He points out that 75% of the Hispanic vote is more interested in the social safety-net and progressive taxation, than in immigration. (8 November 2012)
Rush Limbaugh says that that the Republicans did not lose because of demographics, but because the party had alienated the three million registered Republicans who stayed home on election-day.
It wasn’t an election lost because we didn’t get the women’s vote, the Hispanic vote. We didn’t turn our vote out. It’s just that simple. Could it be, ladies and gentlemen, three million Republicans sat at home because they didn’t see enough of a conservative campaign?
These are the things that have to be pondered, why all the party beats itself up over amnesty and single women and contraception. But I’m just going to tell you, if you think that the only reason why you’re not winning presidential races is because you’re not for amnesty, and because you’re not for abortion, if you change to that, if you moderate, modify your positions, you are going to cease to exist, because those who are with you are going to abandon you. (Rush Limbaugh, 8 November 2012: sound)

Beyond Limbaugh

Limbaugh says that if the Republican Party tries to cater to the Hispanic vote by embracing amnesty for illegal aliens, the party will cease to exist. That is very likely. However, it does not mean that the Republican Party will survive if it does not do that.

If the Republican Party is defined by opposition to the social safety-net and progressive taxation, then indeed it will cease to exist, whether it pursues non-White support or not, because these are adjustments that the conditions of late capitalism (where efficient production, exacerbated presently through offshoring of jobs, causes massive unemployment) make indispensable.

As with O’Reilly, Limbaugh’s rhetoric loosely ties plutocratic thinking with racial thinking by associating the desire for a social safety-net and progressive taxation with Blacks and Hispanics. The listener is given the hint that the Republican Party’s policies are a good way to give a relative advantage to Whites over and against non-Whites. The downside to this is that the White working class is put in the position of choosing between an impersonal racial interest and personal economic interest. Of course many choose the latter, especially outside of the South.

The Non-Southern White Working Class

A new report on the White working class by Elisabeth Jacobs of the Brookings Institution indicates that the White working class was the key to Obama’s victory in Ohio. White working-class voters everywhere tend to be more culturally conservative than other White people, but outside of the South White workers are more influenced by economic policy. A movement away from the plutocratic less-government ideology would bring the Republican Party closer to being the party of all White people. Here’s a chart from Mother Jones showing the White working class vote in various regions of the U.S.:

Since the Southern White working-class voters who now vote Republican were once solidly Democratic, and have adopted plutocratic rhetoric as a (perceived) sneaky approach to racial politics, we can say that these voters are not really wedded to the less-government ideology and, if they can remember why they started mouthing that rhetoric in the first place, will abandon it when they see that the racial interest is better served in some other way.

What about the Black vote?

It must be recognized that White people are not the only population in the United States that suffers from a false leadership that despises it. The Blacks also have their Judas goats, most notably Ben Jealous of the NAACP and Al Sharpton. The NAACP was created by Jews and is essentially controlled by Jews today, through funding. (When the NAACP started to take an independent course under Ben Chavis in the 1990s, it suddenly ran into funding problems.) Al Sharpton, who has a daily radio show and a television show on MSNBC, supports the cause of illegal immigrants, to the detriment of Black people in the United States.

Despite the effect of these Judas goats, about half of the Black population understands that illegal immigration adversely affects Black people, and they oppose amnesty.

Jealous and Sharpton together were prominent in stirring up irrational anti-White rage among Blacks regarding the Trayvon Martin case. This irrational hostility hinders understanding and cooperation for the common good of Black and White as natives of the United States, and helps the Neocons and others who want non-White immigration to continue.

While the false Black leaders try to maintain racial animosity, the false White leaders try to overcome that animosity using inducements that are transparently bogus.

The arguments that the Republicans have been using to try to get the Black vote are ridiculous. Those arguments are (1) that the Republican desire to take away the advantages that Blacks currently enjoy is really good for Blacks, and (2) that the Republican Party happily puts on display token successful Blacks and other non-Whites at its convention and even appoints some of them as figureheads in the party.

The reason why Blacks are not impressed with the Blacks who speak at a Republican convention or are made titular head of the RNC may be that they understand something that Whites should also understand. Those people speaking at Republican conventions do not represent any racial identity: they represent a cosmopolitan bourgeois identity. Bourgeois Republican Blacks no more represents the Black community than Mitt Romney represents the White community. They are simply money-people.

Here’s the real argument, which some Blacks should find convincing: if non-White immigration continues, if the United States of America cease to have a White majority, it will be very bad for Blacks. It’s a genuine argument, not an attempt at fooling them with empty symbolism and slick talk.
About half of Blacks are already hostile to immigration. What is needed is an effort to make Blacks think about immigration more and to treat it as a key issue in coming elections. This can be done through publicity that emphasizes the conflict between Black interests and immigration, and by getting Black preachers, who exercise considerable influence, to support that position. They need to understand that they are on a ship that will sink if they do not limit their demands and cooperate with others who want to prevent an incipient disaster.


The Democrats’ period of dominance from 1933–1981was based on addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, but they spoiled that with anti-White racial politics. The Republicans’ recent period of dominance has been based on being Implicitly White, which even now should be enough to win a presidential election, but they are ruining that by not addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, White and otherwise.

It is clear that the Republicans must change something to broaden their appeal. The Neoconservative answer is that the Republicans should try harder to appeal to Hispanics by embracing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and become in that respect a copy of the Democratic Party. There is a respect in which the Republicans should become more like the Democrats, and even go far beyond them, but immigration is not it.

Non-White immigration is the main threat to all of society in the United States today. There happens to be a ready constituency for curbing immigration, but to win it the Republicans must abandon plutocratic economic and social thinking. That constituency consists of White working-class people everywhere (many of whom have not been voting Republican), as well as about half of the Black population.

What I propose is that the Republican Party should continue being Implicitly White and culturally conservative but take away from the Democrats their main source of appeal, the social state. Given the economic conditions of late capitalism and the post-colonial period, it is in any case inevitable that the party that makes this adjustment will in the long run defeat the one that refuses it.