Not over yet…
My pre-election prediction. Will I be wrong once again? I hope so, and I will gladly admit it, repeatedly, for the next four years, if the obese retard Trump can pull out a victory. Unlike the prancing Quota Queens, I can admit when I am wrong.
I am writing my analysis this morning, November 4, when nothing is settled. My understanding is at this time:
- Biden has a narrow lead in established electoral votes.
- Trump has the lead in swing states, including Pennsylvania. I have read where the polls there in PA closed prematurely once Trump started racking up a lead; in any case, the “counting” of “late main-in-ballots” in PA is, of course, ripe for fraud, particularly there is an established history of mail-in-Trump-ballots being thrown away in Pennsylvania. The election is in the process of being stolen.
- Trump, being Trump, has (prematurely, but wisely) has declared “victory.” This can set the stage for refusing to concede if the election is stolen.
- It is seeming increasingly unlikely for the Democrats to flip the Senate, but given the mail-in-vote fraud, we cannot rule it out 100%. This is almost as important as the Presidential election.
- Arizona, which brought us the Far Left demagogue John McCain, is becoming “blue,” thanks to immigration, and, perhaps, due to the influx of High Trusters from California and the East Coast.
- The Left is already becoming violent. Does Trump – regardless of the election outcome – have any excuse not to crack own now?
- Given the closeness of the election – polling has failed again! – and the blatant Democrat attempts to steal the election, my advice to Trump becomes ever more important. IF THE ELECTION IS STOLEN, TRUMP SHOULD NOT CONCEDE.
- The EGI Notes view: Donald Trump is the rightful winner of the 2020 Presidential election, given his lead in swing states that are based on in-person voting and in on-time-main-ins. Therefore any change in that status is clear evidence that the election was stolen. Resist! Unlike the Left, our resistance should be legal and non-violent, but we must use all legal means possible to stop the stealing of the election.
Obviously, I will comment more in the coming days as things become more definitive.
But, hey, no worries, whatever happens, we can be comforted that Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents will react to the rapidly changing situation of modern day America by giving us – in his own words – “more of the same.” Whew! How can anyone beat that level of careful strategic planning, tactical flexibility, and adaption to contingencies? That’s one of your vaunted “movement” “leaders.” See any affirmative action yet, “Lovecraft’s Cat?”
See this. It is interesting that I, like Johnson, endorsed Trump and hoped for his re-election, and for many of the same reasons. Thus, I am well situated to criticize Johnson’s piece, since I am not doing in from an anti-Trump “wignat” perspective. Johnson’s piece is confused – are we talking about supporting Trump specifically or Republicans in general (like John McCain? Mitt Romney?). Are we talking about “wignats” only – a numerically tiny population that is not going to affect the election in any meaningful way – or Whites in general?
Excerpts, and responses:
In 2016, Donald Trump ran as a populist and won.
Remember when Johnson repeatedly insisted that Trump could have won on a Jeb Bush platform – his victory being solely based on his personality? I, of course, opposed that view. Now, the fundamentally dishonest Johnson admits that Trump won in 2016 running as a populist.
…Trump’s white base — especially the white, working-class swing voters who put him over the top in the Midwest — were basically taken for granted.
For race-conscious whites, it was infuriating. Naturally, a lot of us decided that maybe we should sit this election out and show Trump that we are not going to be taken for granted. The Republicans are going to have to engage in white identity politics if they are to get white votes. Maybe if we tank Trump’s reelection and deliver the Senate to the Democrats as well, they’ll finally take us seriously.
I was going to write that is a strawman argument, but, true enough, some other Quota Queens did take that position.
“Wignat” stands for “wigger nationalist” and refers to White Nationalists who are handicapped by low IQs and high time preferences.
Counter-Currents writers and commentators?
Why do Republicans pander to non-whites but scrupulously avoid addressing specifically white interests?…But wouldn’t Republicans gain even more votes if they followed the Sailer strategy and just focused on increasing their share of the white vote, perhaps by making explicit appeals to white identity politics?…The Republicans obviously think not. Why?…Republicans believe that if they don’t pander to minorities, they will lose more white votes than they would gain. Republicans, moreover, believe that if they explicitly appeal to white interests, they will also lose more white votes than they will gain. It’s all about the white vote in the end.
That’s Johnson’s major insight here. The problem though is that it doesn’t go far enough. Johnson views the situation as unidirectional – that the Republicans merely react to the sociopolitical and moral views of White Americans. What the limited-mentality Johnson fails to realize that it is bidirectional. The White electorate also are influenced by Republican politicians (just look at the effect of Trump’s 2016 populism in legitimizing certain aspects of Alt Lite civic nationalism among some fraction of the White population). Politicians have a forum, a bully pulpit, to influence the public’s sociopolitical and moral views. When the Republican Establishment rejects White identity politics that is not only a reaction to the opinions of the White electorate, it also influences those opinions; this is a positive feed forward cognitive and behavioral mechanism. Of course, there are outside sources – the whole Left/System – that infects Whites with anti-White memes. But the anti-White meme cycle, once started, is enabled and promoted by the fact that the GOP promotes it as well, erecting a cordon sanitaire around White identity politics, and, by rejecting those politics, delegitimizes them to the White public. Politicians should not merely be followers, drifting along with whatever the extant social currents are; they should be leaders as well. When Whites see the ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT, including the most conservative Republicans, rejecting pro-White interests, they themselves, as conformists, will also reject these interests. But if they see politicians speaking out in favor of White interests, that may embolden some of the White electorate, and create a virtuous cycle of, in selected districts, pro-White politicians emboldening rightist Whites, who may elect those politicians, giving more incentives for pro-White politics and giving these politicians more legitimacy and a bigger platform.
Supporting Trump was prudent. But we should convince Whites in general to withhold support from Republicans in general if those Republicans will not support White interests. Yes, that will require metapolitics – I do not argue against that. But those metapolitics will have an effect only if Whites stop voting for anyone and everyone with an “R” next to their name.
The point is not Trump. The point is Republicans in general. The point is not “wignats” but Whites in general. The point is not politicians purely reacting to the electorate but also setting the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
There may well be Republican politicians who will reject White identity politics under ALL circumstances. Very well. These need to be weeded out, selected against. And let’s not underestimate the power of Whites who are – if not WNs – at least are pro-White in attitude. Many political races are decided narrowly; if those Whites refuse to vote Republican, Republicans lose. Would they lose anyway – and by a larger margin – if they repelled “woke” White Republicans in the electorate? Maybe. But how many “woke” Republicans are “woke” because they sincerely believe it (they could vote Democrat after all), or because they have internalized the idea that White identity politics are off limits? How can we ever know if the GOP refuses to test the waters? If pro-White Whites vote Republican no matter what then there will NEVER by any incentive for Republicans to take up pro-White talking points and to leverage pro-White metapolitics into the political realm.
…the Alt-Right cost Trump more votes than it gained him, both by turning off Republicans and energizing the Left. You know damn well that’s what Republican campaign strategists told Trump. They might have even told the truth.
But then he later says that the Republicans don’t have enough information to calculate the net effect of WNs.
Obviously, the only way to change Republican behavior is to attack the anti-racist moral consensus that lies behind it. But changing the moral consensus of society is a metapolitical task, not a political one. Until anti-white racism loses moral power, racially-conscious whites will not gain political power.
Why make this distinction between metapolitics and politics? Why can’t the latter be used to influence the former (and of course vice versa)? Is it because that will divert money and other resources away from Counter-Currents and its fundraising?
Talk of a race-conscious Whexit seems to be premised on the claim that “the Alt-Right memed Trump into the White House.” If we managed to elect Trump, they reason, then we can also defeat him. This argument is a tissue of delusion and puffery. The proper response came from Innsmouth Elle Reeve when she told Richard Spencer, “I think you’re a fraud.”
We really need to analyze the sources of Johnson’s hatred of Spencer. I do not believe it is solely because of the Hungary meeting or ideological and strategic/tactical differences. There likely must be some sort of personal basis for this fixation.
The claim we put Trump in the White House is not based on any factual analysis of the electorate or the actual election results. We don’t know how many White Nationalists are out there, where they are located, or how politically active they are. We are an unknown quantity, so the Republicans can hardly factor us into their calculations.
I thought they are calculating that “we” are damaging them?
But they can very plausibly claim that we were a net detriment to Trump because we turned off some Republicans and energized Democrats to vote against him. They may even have data to support it. Until we do actual studies of the electorate, we cannot refute them or make any plausible claims about our electoral clout.
That takes money. Hey, but keep on sending money to Brimelow instead.
The only thing that will change that is a moral revolution. Until then, all white political organizing will be impeded by a gale-force moral headwind, and wignat talk of Whexit is just spitting into it.
The moral revolution will be brought to you by The Hero of the European Men’s Room Urinal.
Race-conscious whites are not going to change Republican voting patterns by staying at home and pretending they are “exercising power.” Again, we are not going to gain political power without overthrowing the moral consensus that white racism, and only white racism, is the wickedest thing in the world. That’s a metapolitical task. It requires changing people’s minds. It is an educational project, which requires that we stay online and able to reach the public.
First, what plan to you have for leftist censorship other than “more of the same?” Second, why can’t electoral politics, including third party races, be used as a “metapolitical“approach to educate the public? How is voting for the likes of Mitt Romney “exercising [real] power?”
The other crucial reason is that Trump has slowed white demographic decline, which buys us time. We need to convert anti-whites to pro-whites.
By talking about The Age of Aluminum and The Men Who Can’t Tell Time. By running juvenile essays accompanied by crude anti-Negro racial cartoons.
If we can get enough people on our side, we can save our race in America. Trump gives us more time to do that…
Der Movement, including Johnson, wasted the last four years of Trump. What makes you think they wouldn’t waste another four years?
Don’t be a chump. Vote Trump.
Don’t be a chump. Never forget what Johnson wrote about the election and about Donald Trump. Never forget, as Johnson would put it, “no matter what.”
Posted November 3, 2020 at 10:44 am | Permalink
1. Criticizing people on the Right with bad ideas is a necessary part of metapolitics.
Thus, my criticism of Greg Johnson is a necessary part of metapolitics. With failed “leaders” like him filling up “movement” niches, we will never make any progress.
Question for MacDonald. On the one hand, your recent HBD-Nordicist work tells us that Nordics are Inner Hajnal High Trust northern hunter gatherers and individualistic steppe peoples, with a disinterested lack of ethnocentrism and pathological altruism. On the other hand, you hope that Jeff Bezos will suddenly become a rightist and support Far Right causes – thus becoming highly ethnocentric – because he is of “Nordic ancestry.” Can you explain this inconsistency?
Question for Der Movement’s rank-and-file: Was MacDonald’s comment about Bezos any less ludicrous that Roissy predicting a “hard turn right” for Bezos because Jeff has been working out?