Category: implicit vs. explicit Whiteness

What If Trump Was Not a Moronic Jackass?

Saying it in a different manner.

Could Trump have run an implicitly White, right-wing populist, civic nationalist campaign and still be in the lead in the polls now, with a strong chance of winning?

Certainly yes, if the man was a serious thinker, rather than a crude Beavis-and-Butthead type jackass.

Having already outlined how he should have answered the Brown Star family, and how he should answer Ms. Girdle Fats’ attack on the Alt-Right (his Manchester speech being interestingly similar to the advice), I now move on to broader perspectives.

Immigration.  Here is where Trump has had his greatest problems, re: policy.

He should have outlined his policies as follows:

1. A zero-tolerance policy for any further illegal immigration.  But, instead of bloviating about a “big, beautiful wall” that “Mexico will pay for” he should have stated, calmly but firmly, that a border wall is a necessity, that we must do it regardless of the cost, that Israel has managed quite well with their wall, that since the wall is a national security priority it will come from the defense budget, and since Mexico bears much responsibility for the problem, we will recoup part of the cost through a tax on remittances, a tax on Mexican commerce, and – tying immigration to outsourcing – a punitive tax on American companies that move overseas (or to Mexico).

2. The illegals already here have to go.  But rather than blustering about a “deportation force” he should have endorsed the reasonable policy of “self-deportation.”  By enforcing immigration law internally in the strictest degree possible, by raising it to the level of a national emergency and investing the necessary resources, we will take away from the illegals everything that makes life in America worthwhile.  They will be forced to go back where they came from, since all opportunities and benefits and necessities of living will gradually be withdrawn from them.  Gradually over time, their numbers here will decrease as they return home.  Absolutely no benefits for “dreamers” and no “in state tuition” and no looking the other way as companies hire illegals and no drivers licenses and no anything.  

3. Birthright citizenship should be abolished. Legal immigration should be cut sharply, if not ended completely.  No H-1B visas.  No “high skilled” immigrants needed.

4. Muslim immigration: what he should have said here was: “as part of my plan to cut legal immigration, there will be no immigrants or refuges from any area that constitutes a terrorist threat.”  Same effect, less “threatening” language.

Other issues:  You know, when asked about the “nuclear triad” you should not say “the devastation is important to me” but rather: “given the security threats to America, including a nuclear-armed China and Russia, who are modernizing their nuclear forces, as well as North Korea and the long-term uncertainty about Iran, it is prudent for America to maintain all three parts of its nuclear triad.  Indeed, we should be modernizing and expanding our arsenal, including bringing back high-yield multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons and MIRVed warheads for our ICBMs, and we should look into making at least part of our ICBM force mobile.  Even in the absence of any immediate external threat, America should maintain the triad, as a hedge against any future, heretofore unknown, threats to our national security.”

And, also: no Twitter feuds, or comments about gushing blood, Mexican judges, or hand size.

But what do I know?  After all, Trump is an alpha male of vastly superior racial stock, so let’s all follow the God Emperor – as he merrily cucks away right off the proverbial cliff.

George P Bush and Trump

What’s all that about?

In the headlines: George P Bush urges support for Trump.

What is that about?

The Bush dynasty is clever.  They may see the handwriting on the wall, that right-wing populism is the long-range future of the GOP,  But given White worthlessness and White tendencies to “cuck,” the populist voters will always feel guilty about being “racist.”  In rides the “vibrant” George P, who will meld – in other words, co-opt – right-wing populism with diversity, big business interests, globalism, etc.  It’s all right to be a populist, George P says so!  We’re not racists!  The grown-up “little brown one” will provide a safe cover for Establishment cucks to take back the GOP from the populists.  Oh, well, the cucks need now to talk about “Americanism” rather than, say, pounding the drums about abortion or transgenders in bathrooms, but, hey, whatever works!  A nice brown face leading the populists back to the cuck reservation, with a thin veneer of “Americanist red meat” to keep them happy. It’s all worked before.  But to be credible, George P has to support Trump in 2016 (while the rest of the Bush clan undermines Der Touchback). Oh, those White rubes, they’ll buy it every time.

Of course, if Trumpism was explicitly White, this co-opting could never be attempted.  But furtive implicit Whiteness can always be controlled by cuckservatism.  And, after all, young “vibrants” like George P are the future. Old Trump is the Dead White Past.

Get with the program, all you budding White cucks!

Taylor’s Advice For Trump

Good advice but will the Negrophile listen?

That’s all good, and there is nothing there to disagree on.  Unfortunately, I’m skeptical that Trump will follow such advice.

Trump is a committed Negrophile, on record as being a supporter of affirmative action. And he has so far been too incoherent in his campaogn to focus on a clear “implicitly White” message of sufficient power to enable ti grant White turnout envisioned by Taylor.

Trump can of course change, and I hope he does.  He’s backpedaled before, let him do it this time – but in the right direction.  I just would not count on it.

Cuck’s America

Cuck’s America: “conservative” Rush panders to brownster visions of America and of American history.

First, (before getting to the main point of this post) let me start out by denouncing the stupidity of democracy, of giving the average drooling retard the same vote as the rare informed person. I’m always fascinated by such concepts as the “post-convention bump.” Now it appears that Hillary is “six points ahead” after the DNC. And, we also know that the polls for candidates go up and down dependent upon trivial matters, such as Trump criticizing a Mexican judge.
Let us consider together. Contrary to most US elections, in 2016 there is a real choice. Not much of a choice, not what I would want as a choice, but at least there is some difference there – particularly on issues of immigration, law and order, and foreign policy, as well as the contrast between Trump’s “implicit Whiteness” and Clinton’s “explicit Coloredness.” There has not been an election in recent memory (at least not since Ronnie Raygun), where there has been such a significant difference between the candidates.
Very well. My point: who exactly are these morons who would switch their preferences between such drastically different candidates merely based on who was the last one to host a convention, or based upon a single passing remark? Who exactly are the imbeciles who would make an important voting decision based on such shallow, superficial reasons? Who exactly are these idiots with no grounding in any philosophy or worldview, or even a sense of self-interest, that could drift between a Trump and a Clinton from day-to-day based on trivial events and on passing whims?
Well, these would overwhelmingly be Whites (non-Whites are voting for Clinton, 100%, with no doubts or wavering), these are White American voters. God (or whoever) help us all.
And, second, then we have this (the main point):

And part of what we show in the movie is that the Democratic Party is actually the party of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow, of the Ku Klux Klan, of lynching, of forced sterilization, sympathy for fascism in the 1930s.

Those are bad things? Oh, wait, to cuckservatives and alien brownsters, they are.

The Democrats are the ones who interned the Japanese-Americans after World War II. So unbelievably, this Democratic Party has been implicated in the most sordid and heinous acts of history, and yet in a move of unbelievable Jiu-Jitsu what they do is they take all their crimes and blame them on the south or blame them on the Republicans or blame them on America, as if America did this or America did that, but America didn’t do it. The Democrats did.

Thus, conservatives view segregation and sympathy for fascism as “the most sordid and heinous acts of history.’

RUSH: Well, now, you ran through that list pretty quickly, and I know you don’t want to give away the entire movie here, but there’s a couple things I don’t want to gloss over. You link the KKK to the Democrat Party. You link segregation, Jim Crow laws to the Democrat Party. Do you realize if you took a survey of the American people, that would stun them, and most people wouldn’t believe that. I’m curious to know how you figured that out, where you went to learn that, how it’s documented in the movie, and what your audience’s reaction to this is. Because that’s big; it’s huge.

Yeah, Rush, huge, just like your stomach and your ego.

D’SOUZA: So, Rush, I think this is the power of the movie. It completely interrupts and discombobulates the Democratic narrative. Now, it is a fact that it was a Democratic delegate to the Democratic National Convention, Nathan Bedford Forrest, who founded the Ku Klux Klan. It is also a fact that the Klan had a massive revival in the early twentieth century due to a progressive Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, screening a pro-Ku Klux Klan movie in the White House. 

It is also a fact — and here I’m quoting the progressive historian Eric Foner — that for 30 years the Ku Klux Klan was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party in this country.

OK. Even IF we were to agree that this was all bad and horrible – who gives a damn about any of this today? How is any of this relevant to the Democratic Party of today? Do you think your average Negro is going to reject the Dems giving away “free stuff” and is going to reject Democrat pandering and Black identity politics because of things that happened decades ago? It has as much relevance as the Whig party. Stupid brownster and his cuck enabler.

D’SOUZA: Rush, I’m, as I say, a person of color. I’m a brown-skinned immigrant to the United States. I was born in Bombay, India. I grew up in a country that’s ruled by gangs. You saw a hint of it in Slumdog Millionaire. This is a country with corruption running all the way through it. You can’t get through the day without paying bribes. It makes you feel dirty at the end of the day. 

I came to America to live a different kind of life and to experience the American dream.

That’s great. But you know, Mr. D’ Souza, maybe Americans – native-born White Americans – have dreams as well, and those dreams and aspirations do NOT include having brown filth like you in their country.
We do not need alien Desis – with faces that could launch a thousand autisms – pontificating to us about their interpretations of American history, or lecturing us on how their unwanted presence in our country is part of the “American dream.” Your “dream” is our nightmare, D’ Souza. 
I cannot denounce this pro-brownster cucking strongly enough.
And if any naive reader thinks I’m being too hard on D’Souza, then remember this. Surprise! An anti-White colored liar. In other words – an Asian.
Trump wants America to be “great again.” Unfortunately, America is a dead country with no future, and one look at D’ Souza’s leering brown countenance is all the proof you need of that. Rush’s pandering only makes it worse.

Hillary’s America? No, it is Cuck’s America.

The Nazi Next Time

After Trump, the deluge?

The hysterical angst of the Republican Establishment concerning the rise of Trump is glorious to observe.  Of course, the interesting thing is their complete lack of self-awareness, their lack of understanding that they themselves are responsible for the predicament they find themselves in.
One reason is that the GOP has been complicit in the demographic changes that have put them “in between a rock and a hard place,” politically speaking. On the one hand, Republicans look at America’s growing colored population and see the need to appeal to that demographic. On the other hand, the GOP base of support is conservative White Americans, particularly right-of-center White men.  To pander to minorities runs the risk of alienating the base; to secure the base runs the risk of alienating the coloreds. Up to this point, the GOP strategy has been to pander to the colored minorities, while throwing “bones” to the base in the form of phony “implicit Whiteness” and “dog whistling” rhetoric with no real-life political consequences. Heretofore, the GOP has mastered feinting right during the primaries, running centrist in the general election, and, in the rare cases of GOP Presidential victories (since Ronnie Raygun, we have had only the two failed Bush men being elected), governing from the left. Base anger has been silenced by “they have nowhere else to go” “lesser of two evils” electoral considerations.
But now, the rise of Trump is an ill wind blowing in the direction of the GOP elites: the base is starting to awaken and will not be forever willing to “vote for lesser of two evils” and support anti-White leftist Republican candidates.
But there is something else. The problem with Trump is seemingly not only his ideology of right-wing populism (real or fake), it is also because the Republican Establishment – with some justification – see Trump as an ill-informed, vulgar, obnoxious, childish buffoon, with no self-control and an embarrassing lack of gravitas.  Very well, but in response to those concerns I have two words: Pat Buchanan.
Like Trump, Buchanan ran for President as a right-wing populist Republican. In fact, there is considerable overlap in overt ideology between the two men’s campaigns. While lacking Trump’s “alpha jerk-boy” charisma, Buchanan has certain advantages that you would think would endear him to the GOP elites: Buchanan is a well-informed, articulate, religious man, with strong Establishment connections, and prior political experience in previous Republican administrations. Buchanan has always been an “inside-the-Beltway” man, and is not an obnoxious buffoon.
And how did the GOP elites deal with the more polished and political Buchanan?  With the same disdain and hysteria that they now reserve for “Der Trumpening.”  The Elite made it clear that they would never accept Buchanan as the nominee, they panicked over his early successes, they sabotaged his campaign (as I recall, they even prevented him from being on the ballot in some states), etc.  So, the case of Buchanan proves that the problem with Trump is not so much his repellent personal aspects, but his core of right-wing populism. Anything that appeals to Whites is anathema to the GOP, which is of course self-destructive given the nature of the GOP base (it is not for nothing that Sam Francis labeled the GOP “the Stupid Party”).
The point is that the GOP lost anyway with Bush and Dole in 1992 and 1996. While it is understandable that the incumbent would be favored in 1992, there was no excuse for favoring the “living mummy” “civil rights Republican” Dole over Buchanan in 1996. Favoring Buchanan would have solidified the GOP base and could have put the party in the direction of a right-wing populist track that could have genuinely benefited White Americans.
But, no. The elites sabotaged Buchanan and they suppressed right-wing populism for several electoral cycles. Now it has erupted in a more “virulent” form with Donald Trump. Instead of learning their lesson and understanding that the base cannot be taken for granted, instead of understanding that they need candidates that appeal to the base, the GOP elites are hell-bent on sabotaging Trump and suppressing right-wing populism for another couple of electoral cycles.
They may succeed but they are playing with fire. Who will come after Trump?  Who will be the next right-wing populist?  As even worthless and weak Whites become more aggressive out of sheer desperation, who will they turn to next?  Someone more extreme and firebrand-populist compared to Trump to the same degree Trump is compared to Buchanan? 
It won’t be “the fire next time,” but it may well be “the Nazi next time.”  The GOP elites had better hope that their country clubs are well fortified indeed.

The Bunker Syndrome

Lack of political maturity.
I was recently reading in the news about a group of English soccer fans who, while chanting “we’re racist,” refused to allow a Negro to board a train in Paris. This was, as one can imagine, inflated into an international incident, plastered across newspapers and websites, certainly more important to the System than those mild shenanigans in Rotherham (completely forgotten about by now).  Let us for a moment forget that a Negro has no business being in Paris to begin with, and consider the deeper meaning of this incident.
When such things occur, I wonder about the perpetrators.  Of course, we do not know who they are, but I very much doubt that these are any sort of real racial nationalists or ethnonationalists. I wonder who they vote for back in England, who they support. Maybe the Conservatives. Maybe even Labour (do you doubt it?). Maybe – “at best” – some support the UKIP.  If Nick Griffin was running for office how many of those “racist” soccer fans would vote for him, as opposed to the mainstream conservatives?  Most likely, not a single one. The “bigotry” of these soccer fans is personal, not political. There may well have been alcohol involved. Typical of the juvenile and feckless creatures Whites have become, displeasure over race replacement does not manifest in practical political action, but in carefully hidden disquiet that will rarely erupt in a silly display of (drunken?) hooliganism.
There used to be a TV show popular in 1970s America, All in the Family, with one of the most famous characters in television history: the blue-collar White bigot Archie Bunker.  This being a Jewish-created show, Bunker was of course shown as ignorant and buffoonish, no surprises there. But, that said, he did – and still does – represent something about Whites that remains a serious problem for nationalist progress.
Despite all of Bunker’s anger and frustrations toward minorities (and also White ethnic Catholics), he was – what?  A neo-Nazi? No, not by a longshot.  Bunker was a supporter of Richard Nixon, the Republican President who promoted affirmative action and busing. Bunker gave his ardent support to a politician who enacted policies that were complete anathema to Bunker’s fundamental racial beliefs.  Thus, the problem: Bunker’s racialism never expressed itself in practical politics, it never manifested in a manner that could influence public policy or in any way modify the historical currents to which he objected.  Like White “bigots” the world over, Bunker’s racialism was private, manifested in “venting,” and bluff displays of “politically incorrect” verbal bravado (and even that is forbidden today), not in any sort of useful activism, not even in making the right choice on election day.  
White “bigotry” is childish, useless, sterile.  It accomplishes nothing but to energize the anti-White Left, and give more ammunition to the forces of White dispossession.  I’ve had Bunkers in my family; I’ve known their behavior well.  You the reader may have had the same experiences in your family. Folks who sputter with venom about “the niggers and the spics,” and yet go on to vote for Nixon or Bob Dole or George “Open Borders” Bush or John McAmnesty or any of the others.  These are folks who are deeply upset about illegal immigration and who will rail against “dem wetbacks crossin’ the border” but then they’ll flock to the polls and eagerly vote for a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio. Their bigotry is all “hot air,” it is “sound and fury signifying nothing.”  And as their world crumbles around them, they begin to find that even this harmless venting, this juvenile name-calling, even that is no longer allowed. it is “hate speech,” and they has better learn to just “shut up” and vote for whatever White-hating, immigrant-loving, far-Left GOP candidate is being championed by FOX news.
There are some who would make excuses for the Bunkers. Why, they say, there’s no choice on the ballot!  Better Nixon than McGovern!  Putting aside the issue of why the Bunkers allowed their nation to be stolen from them, so they are constantly presented with such non-choices, the fact remains that, even why a small level of choice is in fact presented to them, they don’t take advantage of it.  David Duke ran for President several times. He did very poorly. What fraction of “White bigotry” supported Duke?   A small fraction indeed.  Pat Buchanan is a moderate paleoconservative and no racialist, and it is true he was part of the Nixon administration. But compared to other Republicans, Buchanan at least represents a sliver of difference compared to the neoconservative juggernaut.  How did Buchanan’s Presidential aspirations fair?  Also poorly.  Republican primary voters, far more “conservative” than the general White population, favored the likes of Bush Sr. and “civil rights Republican” Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan.  If even someone like Sessions, a System Republican who takes a hard line against immigration, were to run for President, do you doubt that the Archie Bunkers would still vote for Jeb and Marco, all the time muttering under their breath about the “illegals stealing our country?”  
Europeans are not much better.  Significant fractions of Europeans express strong opposition to mass immigration in opinion polls, and then these same people cheerfully go to the ballot box to vote for a Merkel, a Sarkozy, a Cameron, or worse. I have no doubt that in, say, Greece, the fraction of the population vehemently against immigration is significantly larger than the fraction who vote for Golden Dawn.  But these “bigots” will instead vote for pro-immigration conservatives or even for Syriza. 
The problem is not just that we need to “wake more White people us,” it is that those who are at least partially awakened refuse to act upon their beliefs and upon their “awakened” status.  Like Archie Bunker, they’ll mutter and complain, shout racial slurs at soccer games, prevent Negroes from boarding trains, leave comments on Internet blog threads, but they won’t even vote the right way in the complete privacy of the ballot.
This “Bunker Syndrome” represents a major impediment to progress: even when Whites know,  they do not act.  Even when they know, they will not vote for the far-Right.  Even when they know, they remain complicit in their own dispossession.  So, the “movement” had better be aware that it is not enough to educate and “awaken,” one must somehow instill political maturity and seriousness into a population that behaves like a bunch of semi-retarded children. That will not be an easy task.

Racial Polarization in Politics

We need to increase, not decrease, racial polarization.

What we need to do is study the work of these leftist “researchers” and just flip the script and do the opposite of what they suggest: hammer home the demographic changes therein, as Dr. MacDonald advised.
And we need explicit White politics: “implicit Whiteness” is a bitter enemy of White racial interests.