Sun Tzu famously advised leaving a line of retreat to your enemies even when you have them surrounded. After all, you don’t want them fighting to the bitter end. You want them to see there is an alternative to death.
Hillary Clinton has provided us no such option. Her recent comments should not be a subject for laughter or mockery. They are a deeply ominous warning to every one of us.
Everyone’s having a good time snickering at her speech about half of Trump’s supporters being a “bucket of deplorables.” It’s so awkward and cringe-inducing it reminds you of Mitt Romney complaining about “trickle down racism,” another case where a politician tried to express moral indignation through a term obviously conjured up by a committee of political consultants. Clinton can’t even be outraged without seeming utterly fake.
Yet Hillary Clinton has a soul of a sort. We got a glimpse into the black pit residing within this infernal crone when the cameras caught her laughing about the torture and slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi, who was stupid enough to trust the word of the U.S. Government. The consequences of Clinton’s policy in Libya have been an utter catastrophe, unless it really was her goal to deliberately destabilize the Middle East and flood Europe with mass Third World immigration.
Where Hillary really showed her hand was in characterizing “some of those folks” as “irredeemable.” “Irredeemable” means there is nothing they – we – can do to be regarded as part of American society, to be citizens like everyone else with certain inherent rights. As Clinton put it, we are “not America.” We are simply an enemy to be destroyed.
At some level, we already know this. The National Press Club is willing to host anyone in the entire world, except White people who don’t hate themselves. To the American government and the corporations which control the Internet,we are on par with the Islamic State. Throughout the “free world,” patriots are arrested for what they say online or attacked in the streets by pro-System thugs. Stating the fact – the indisputable, undeniable reality that race is real and that people are not equal – is career ending, regardless of your prestige or accomplishments.
We are hated for who we are, for our immutable, unchangeable characteristics. We aren’t just the Alt Right, we are the only alternative to the entire System, the one group which can never be assimilated or accepted by them. Unless you consciously decide to work for your people’s destruction, you are an enemy, a kulak, an unperson. All Whites are racist, all non-white failings can be blamed on racism, and there is no salvation in this new theocracy. That is the essence of what it is to be “irredeemable.”
Owen Diaz
But there’s a contradiction at the heart of this new anti-White American creed, the rot which threatens to break apart the whole System. The one group characterized as “not America,” Trump supporting European-Americans, are also the group which keeps the whole failed experiment limping along. The group most likely to support Trump, the Scots-Irish, are also the one group who identify simply as “American.” Those whom the elite call “not American” are the most American in any meaningful cultural sense. And the non-white “new Americans” fetishized by Hillary and her media don’t want any part of the historic American nation.
Even with a black president, outrageous government benefits, and an all but official state ideology of multiculturalism, nonwhites feel less patriotic towards America than whites. Whites disproportionately bear the costs of America’s wars. Whites are not the ones offended by the American flag, who want the Founding Fathers’ names taken off schools, who see American history as a long Narrative of shame and oppression.
As the white majority decreases, nonwhites will feel less pressure to make even token gestures of solidarity with the American nation. Increasing black and Hispanic political power won’t increase American unity, but further the centrifugal process already underway.
Xavier Ward
Even if American founding principles are defined entirely in terms of the “struggle towards equality,” it’s not going to win anybody over. Why should blacks or Hispanics feel loyalty towards a Republic founded by men who today would be called “irredeemable” by Hillary Clinton? It makes far more sense for them to feel loyalty to their own race and to pay rhetorical tribute to some universal ideal of equality which transcends American identity. They also have more to gain in terms of material benefits by claiming continuing oppression. If a specifically American identity survives, it will be because the “new America” of non-whites will be framed as a victory over the old European-America. Black South Africa is the obvious model for what is on the way.
Rotted as we are by both spiritual and material poisons, our people could probably be coaxed to acquiesce to our extermination, as long as it was done gradually. But it’s unclear the American Left can allow this. The only thing holding the Democrats’ coalition together is hatred of the core European-American population. This hatred has to be kept at a fever pitch to ensure black and Hispanic voter turnout and support for the Democratic Party.
Thus, White identity is a political necessity not for the American Right, but for the Left. It will be forced on Whites whether they like it or not. Issues like reparations, apologies for slavery (and, someday, immigration laws), demands to remove “problematic” historical symbols and memorials, alleged racial bias in law enforcement, and racial disparities in income and education will constantly be sources of agitation. They will always be portrayed in frankly racial terms, with whites pressured for more redistribution of wealth and resources even as the American economy grows more unstable and debt dependent.
Eli Allen
And this is, gradually, inevitably, turning into hatred for Whites as such. The undercurrent of Hillary’s “irredeemable” comment, something now explicitly defended by the media, is that racially aware whites deserve no political representation, no place in polite society, nothing but contempt and hatred. At the same time, the racial identity of every other group is to be praised. Nothing is even offered to defend this double standard anymore except snark and signaling.
This is a suicidal strategy. It increases the expectations among nonwhites to unrealistic levels. As we see with the carnage in the cities and attacks on police officers, it constantly threatens to spill out of control into violence and rioting. There’s also the threat White and Jewish leftists will lose political control of their black and Hispanic pets, who will refuse to vote for the likes of Hillary Clinton much longer. If not united by a common foe, the militant left cannot coexist with Clintonian corporate liberalism for long, as we saw in the 2016 Democratic primaries.
The only tactic they have is to double down on incitement against the European-American population. What Raspail called the conflict between “the Fatherland and the Republic” in France, the contradiction between the egalitarian premises of the System and the reality that whites created and sustain the West, will define the politics of the next century in America and Europe.
Cooper Bell
The foundational principle of the modern anti-West is the idea you can replace the entire population of a country without cost to its institutions, social stability, and level of civilization. This principle, as we see every day, is wrong. And just as failed socialist regimes turn to outlandish theories about “wreckers” and saboteurs to explain the failure of their system, so will Cultural Marxists turn on us. The more “White racism” is pathologized, the more unhinged and hysterical will be the witch hunts for the racial dissidents ostensibly ruining everything.
Some Whites will cuck, some whites will collaborate, but an ever greater number will begin to realize they have no choice but to fight or die. As we are seeing with the current media surge for the Alt Right, we are ideally placed to take advantage of the Left’s strategic necessity for a White boogeyman. We will serve their short-term interests until the precise moment we can either take power or break free of their filthy System.
Brayden Davis
We face an opportunity, but also a terrible danger. Leftists used to bemoan the so-called “eliminationist” rhetoric of the American Right as inherently immoral because characterizing electoral opponents as enemies to be destroyed is a sanction for political violence. Now, characterizing half of all Trump supporters as de facto enemies of the state is taken as a self-evident good, and the only quibbling is about just how many undesirables need to be purged.
Even the “redeemable” half of Trump’s supporters are, according to Hillary, desperate for change but it “doesn’t really even matter where it comes from.” Their views are also not really worth consideration. Do not underestimate what is coming if Hillary Clinton is president. As “Decius” predicted in his widely circulated “Flight 93 Election” piece, an extreme policy agenda “will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.”
The law is always just a reflection of power, not power itself. The First Amendment or the Constitution will not save us.
Hillary has put us on notice. From the street level antifa to the shitlib journalists, from the plutocrats to the current President, we are the enemy. No tactics are off the table.
Yes, it is White genocide. Yes, they really do want to destroy us. And yes, you are going to have to decide which side are you on.
The midterm election was the “revenge of the white male voter,” according to the professionally offended Amanda Marcotte of Slate. When it comes to the numbers, she’s right. Sixty-four percent of white men voted for Republicans; 34 percent voted for Democrats. Whites overall voted 60 percent for the GOP and whites made up 75 percent of voters, as opposed to 72 percent in 2012.
Despite the spectacle of black Republicans Mia Love and Tim Scott, and giggling from National Review about how the GOP is going to win over non-white voters, the Republican Party is actually growing more dependent on the white vote. This is what underlies the emerging liberal claim that the elections were somehow illegitimate because insufficient numbers of non-whites voted. However, even though the GOP won because of white voters, the Republicans’ share of the white vote is comparatively low to the margins won by Presidents Nixon and Reagan in 1972 (67 percent) and 1984 (64 percent).
Jose Phillips
If the Republican Party isn’t quite the “white party,” it’s certainly the party of the white majority. In the South, whites vote as a bloc for Republicans the same way blacks do all over the country. The most extreme example is Mississippi, where 89 percent of whites voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. This election, progressives were stunned to discover that the “war on women” failed to inspire white women to vote Democrat, leading journalists to charge that racist white women had “failed” females everywhere.
However, it’s worth asking why whites should vote for the Republican Party. After all, Republicans have hardly been defenders of white interests and were stopped from helping Barack Obama amnesty millions of illegal immigrants only because of outrage from their own base. Republicans are simply less awful than Democrats.
Julian Taylor
As Thomas Jackson pointed out in his recent review of The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind, European-Americans are unrepresented when it comes to the two most prominent issues affecting our people: racial preferences and immigration. Political leaders generally support more affirmative action and immigration despite widespread opposition. Perhaps an even more important issue is freedom of association–something briefly defended by Senator Rand Paul before he decided betrayal was a better way to serve his ambitions.
Therefore, while white votes are still enough to determine the political landscape, and white politicians are still overwhelmingly in power, this doesn’t translate into white representation. This is especially true since any white politician who acted explicitly in defense of white interests would quickly lose power. On the other hand, non-whites are rewarded for acting on behalf of their people.
Hunter Anderson
Although Republicans rely upon white voters and use coded racial appeals to win their support, a Republican politician will find himself disowned by his own party if he attempts to champion white interests. The Republican Party’s attacks on its own candidates in the cases of David Duke and Pat Buchanan show that the GOP would actually prefer electoral defeat to the charge of being “pro-white.”
The Republican Party could win a greater percentage of the white vote by supporting popular causes like ending racial preferences, establishing English as the national language, and cracking down on illegal immigration. They could also make a concerted effort to win over the white workers, many of whom, as Mr. Jackson pointed out, do not vote.
Jace Perez
But what white advocates think the Republican Party should do bears no resemblance to what the Party will do. After all, if the GOP was interested simply in winning elections by appealing to whites, we would not be in the current mess. Therefore, what is likely to happen?
Despite the Republican Party’s traditional cowardice and corruption, Democrats may be creating a unified white political consciousness. As Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailer have both observed, the Democrats campaigned on the politics of grievance in 2014 by talking up a “war on women,” championing Ferguson, and accusing Republicans of passing voter ID laws to suppress non-white voters.
Carter Foster
Combine this with Barack Obama’s determination to push through an executive amnesty, and the racial battlegrounds will become clear. If there is to be a mass amnesty, we want it to come down unilaterally, illegally, and at the hands of a black President whose administration seems to be driven by anti-white animus.
The Republican Party will benefit from white outrage in the short term, even if it doesn’t do anything. In fact, we can expect that they won’t do anything. But the Republican Party is not what is ultimately important. What is important is that permanent racial tension and imposed diversity will continue the progression of America towards a Lebanon-style political culture of tribal head-counting. The fact that whites will continue to migrate towards Republicans, who don’t have whites’ best interests at heart, is less important than the long-term trend of whites consolidating as a unified political force. The anti-white media ensure that even a relatively small white majority (like the GOP’s sixty percent vote) will be defined in racial terms.
Lucas Mitchell
Democrats can try to counter some of this through economic outreach to white workers, as some progressives are urging. The problem is that anti-white identity politics are now so central to progressive ideology that it has overwhelmed issues of class and income inequality. Even the Occupy movement quickly collapsed because it insisted on Byzantine discussion about racial privilege rather than focusing on issues that could rally white workers. And the Democrats’ dependence on black turnout will necessitate more Ferguson-style race-baiting, which will result in the kind of rioting and violent rhetoric that will force European-Americans to take a side in the racial Cold War, even if they don’t want to.
A deeper problem is that the Republican Party may try to prevent itself from becoming the de facto white party. This is in fact the party’s intention as laid out by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who has aggressively pushed for openness to illegal immigration and a greater effort to win non-white voters. The trajectory of presidential contender (and possible front runner) Rand Paul speaks for itself.
Nolan Davis
The Republican base already reflects a powerful implicit white identity and an increasing impatience with Democratic minority politics and anti-white posturing. While white advocates are used to hearing the old saw about whites “waking up,” it’s striking that the Republican base forced the Republican Party to oppose amnesty in spite of itself. Even Rand Paul ultimately voted against the Gang of Eight amnesty bill.
Slowly, painfully, and against the wishes of both the Democratic and Republican leadership, a white political consciousness is developing. It is most forcefully expressing itself on the issue of immigration. Barack Obama’s upcoming amnesty will escalate this process. Even though whites don’t want to think of themselves as a bloc, they are subject to a government that increasingly insists on treating them as one.
Landon Jackson
The 2014 elections were good for whites not because the Republican Party is worth supporting, or because it will do anything substantial protect white interests, or because it is becoming a white party. It’s good because it is setting up a conflict between what Peter Brimelow calls a Minority Occupation Government and a Congress that is perceived by a hostile media and by the Republican base to be “white.” It is furthering the development of a white political consciousness by forcing a conflict that can be interpreted only in racial terms. And as the progressive movement in this country justifies the redistribution of resources and power chiefly along racial–not class–lines, white political consciousness will develop further in the years to come.
