Category: theories of American politics

The Cold Wind of White Disaffection is Blowing

Some mainstream political writers are starting to get it (emphasis added in all cases).


And that brings us to the big lesson the GOP should take from the entire Trump affair: There is another side to the Republican Party, one that the GOP has tried to ignore, and can ignore no longer. It’s a side of the party that has learned to distrust its leaders on immigration, to be suspicious of a turbo-charged capitalism that threatens their way of life. And it may be a side of the party that is needed to return the GOP to presidential victories. It is the forgotten part of the Nixon-Reagan coalition. And by being ignored, it has turned angrier and more toxic.



But whoever eventually vanquishes Trump will still have to address the Trump phenomena. The billionaire has energized a large block of disaffected white voters who feel betrayed by the establishment of both parties and lost in an increasingly globalized economy. But he has also alienated huge swaths of the electorate with his angry rhetoric about immigrants and Muslims. Whoever gets the GOP nomination will have to figure out how to keep Trump’s supporters in the fold and get them out on Election Day to defeat Clinton in key swing states where the Democratic nominee is likely to dominate among women and other key demographic groups. 

A menu of supply side tax cuts that deliver huge benefits to the wealthy and big corporations won’t do it. It’s not clear what will. Even if Trump falls, Republicans will still have a big Trump problem.


If Whites want to stop being objectively worthless, they have to stop giving their votes away to Republican cuckservatives.  The Republican party must be destroyed.  White voters should take a long-term view, and stop being pulled into short-term “football game” views of elections. It’s not “their team” against “our team.”  It’s all about forcing the System to take White interests seriously – which will be the first step toward the collapse of the System.

There’s a cold wind blowing, cuckservatives. Do you feel the chill yet?
Advertisements

Predatory Capitalism Exploits White American Individualism

Manipulating middle class and working class White voters.

Individualism requires ethics and moral principles. Thus, it fails when invaded by ethnocentric tribalists. But it can also fail for other reasons – such as being exploited by fatcat capitalists and their rent-seeking behavior, to influence the political system to amass more wealth and power.

In America, a lot of the whole “individualism, libertarianism, small government” meme derives from the wealthy exploiting the natural tendencies of White Americans to favor such things, in order to establish big market capitalism, outsourcing, and mass migration. Chamber of Commerce cabals are “playing unfair” with individualism just as do, say, Jews. All this talk of “let’s make the country safe for the small businessman” really means “let’s make the country safe for the Koch brothers, let’s make the country safe for Gates and Zuckerberg, let’s ship the jobs to China and import Mexicans and Asians to do whatever jobs can’t be shipped out.”
When Democrats assert that the White middle class and working class vote against their own economic interests by supporting Republicans, they are right. But they betray their own racial interests even more by voting Democrat. 

Missing the Meaning of Trump

Even Buchanan does not get it.
The major issue is not whether he wins, but why is he getting so much support.  Putting aside all the girlish shrieking about “the Trumpening,” the reality is the Trump is a fairly lousy candidate: an obnoxious buffoon, a realty show star, ill informed, whose views on legal immigration are questionable, whose daughter is married to a Jew, etc.
But he is by far the best of the bunch, and the only one who can be called a “right-wing populist,” despite his pro-fatcat economic views.
Thus, the real meaning of Trump is that the GOP White voting base is beginning to stray off the reservation; the natives are getting restless.
Sure, the base is still stupid and feckless: see the support for Carson, and note that most of the base will rally to whoever the GOP nominee will be, even if Jeb or Marco.  But, still, the enthusiasm for Trump, which puzzles the Establishment, is a clear sign that the base is at least beginning to wake up, although this process may take altogether too long (and could become channeled in counter-productive directions).
Nevertheless, it is NOT business as usual in American politics. One wonders – if Duke was running this year, how much support would he get?  
And all the talking heads who assert that “the GOP could win the national election in 2016 by shifting left on immigration” still don’t get it. Yes, most of the stupid base may still come out to support that, but enough may stay home to ensure a Democrat victory.
At some point, even dumb Whites can’t continue to be fooled all of the time.

Pathetic Trash Douthat

Surprise!  Cuckservatives don’t like third parties. 


In certain ways this narrowing can be good for the republic. Elites can have wisdom that populists lack…

 

Wisdom about what? How to sacrifice national interests on the altar of elite interests?  How have these elites performed for America?  How are they doing for a Europe being invaded by the Third World?

…certain ideas deserve suppression…

And who decides what these ideas are?  You?  Elites? Jews? NGOs?  Who? One could imagine a KGB agent ripping up a Solzhenitsyn book while asserting “certain ideas deserve suppression.”  What a piece of shit thing to say. How about all the “good” ideas fairly compete in the intellectual marketplace with all the “should be suppressed” ideas?

…and multiparty systems are more likely to hand power to extremists or buffoons…

No worries!  Look at all the high-quality leaders our two-party system has produced! Clinton being fellated in the White House by a Jewess, Bush who started an unnecessary war with the insightful analysis of “Fuck Saddam,” and a purple-lipped mulatto who attended a Black radical church and then tried to defend that by attacking his own White grandmother.  No buffoons or extremists there!
(It’s a good thing for the country that neither Henry Wallace’s effectively pro-Soviet leftism nor George Wallace’s segregationist populism outlived their respective third-party bids.)

 

And how are we better off today that Wallace wasn’t elected President?

Trump Hits the Sweet Spot

Donald Trump: Right-Wing Populist.
Contrary to the Beavis-and-Butthead onanistic fanboys and their girlish shrieks of “Trump has tight game,” and contrary to the pathetically self-interested “awkward squad” miscegenators and their claim that Trump is the “HBD candidate,” the ultimate reality of Trump is that he is running a campaign of unabashed right-wing populism.
Some time ago, on a Counter-Currents podcast, Greg Johnson asserted that “right-wing populism is the sweet spot of American politics,” and Trump’s popularity has proven Johnson correct. In fact, the American voter is hungry for any kind pf populism, including the left-wing variety (Bernie Sanders), but it is right-wing populism which is the more potent force and which has the Establishment, particularly its Levantine corner (“the goy mobs have their pitchforks out”), so worried.
Thus, whatever happens with Trump’s candidacy, even if he collapses into cuckservatism, his value is in unleashing the genie of right-wing populism from the constipated bottle of American politics. Trump is therefore the Bringer of Chaos in American politics, and for that we should all be grateful.
The mettle of White Americans will be demonstrated if the Establishment is unable to get that genie back into the bottle. After all, the Republican Establishment can manipulate things to make sure that a Bush or Rubio is nominated, but can they be confident of a high turnout of the White base (what the Bush family calls the “extra chromosome crowd”) to ensure Election Day victory?  And if Trump runs as a third party candidate (which he should, if he is not nominated and if he really is “alpha”), then the chance that the GOP Establishment comes out of all this a winner is ZERO.
Bring on the chaos!

Is Trump Mainstreaming?

In a word: no.
Before mendacious “movement” mainstreamers start pointing at Trump’s current popularity as a validation of their approach, let’s take a closer look at what’s going on.
All of us, including the mainstreamers themselves, will I think agree that what the mainstreaming debate is about is public perception.  Very well. What then is the perception of Trump?
Trump is no racial nationalist. He has not even been much of a “Republican conservative” before this election – he has contributed to, and socialized with, leading Democrats, he has praised legal immigration, he has previously denounced the idea of “self-deportation” as too tough.  He’s befriended Negro celebrities on his TV show, and currently has Negro supporters. These things are known to the public. His Republican opponents have publicly pointed out Trump’s past political “promiscuity,” public love of pop culture has made them familiar with Trump’s persona on “Celebrity Apprentice,” and the mass media is recently focusing on Negresses supporting Trump (perhaps in a sly fashion to chip away at Trump’s support in “implicit Whiteness”). Thus, despite leftist hysteria to the contrary, according to public perception, Trump is merely a boisterous, egocentric businessman and celebrity, at most a “Republican conservative,” certainly no racialist or far-right nationalist.
Thus, Trump must be judged according to the public perception of him as some sort of Republican conservative (which is more or less correct, at least as of now if not in the past).  Trump cannot be judged according to the standards of racial nationalists, since he is not such and is not perceived by the public as being such.
In the context of “Republican conservatism,” what is Trump? Mainstream?  Hardly!  Mainstreaming in the GOP is best represented by Jeb Bush, whose tepid campaign and centrist platitudes have alienated the base and failed to excite or even interest the general public. Within conservatism, within the GOP, Trump represents a more extreme, populist, “radical” fringe.  Indeed, as Trump has moved further “to the right” politically, become more “extreme,” as he has peddled in boisterous “speaking his mind” rather than careful mainstreaming, his popularity has increased. Within the context of conservatism, within the context of public perception of Trump as a Republican candidate, his current popularity is a refutation of mainstreaming, and is more supportive of a public who values radical plain-speaking.  Now, since America is an oligarchy ruled by special interests, and these interests are strongly opposed to Trump and favor Bush, it is very possible that the 2016 GOP candidate will be Bush or some other unexciting mainstreamer whose boring campaign will result in low turnout of the base and another electoral loss. That outcome is irrelevant to the main thesis here, which is that, given context and perception, the rise of Trump is a clear repudiation of mainstreaming and is more supportive of an assertive radicalism. One can note also the enthusiasm, on the Democrat side, for the left-wing populist Sanders, which mirrors that of right-wing populist Trump in the GOP.  The Establishment may eventually get its way, but the populist undercurrents are highly visible nonetheless.
Another point: it may be “illogical,” but the importance of public perception means that two different candidates, coming from two different political pedigrees, can promote exactly the same policies but be perceived and received by the public in completely different manners.  Thus, it will not serve mainstreaming nationalists to mirror Trump’s aracial rightist populism.  When a Republican conservative comes out strongly against illegal immigration, that is perceived as radical, cutting edge, populist, and exciting. If the same policies and talking points are expounded by a far-right racialist/nationalist, the perception will be of weakness, mainstreaming compromise, unexciting centrism, and being untrustworthy.  It is not only the political positions that matter, but the public perception of how a candidate is moving towards those positions.  If a candidate sticks with their principles – that’s great.  If a candidate moves in a more radical direction – great too. However, if those same positions are taken by a candidate moving towards the center – that’s not good at all, that’s the “beta/omega male” attitude toward politics – it will disgust and alienate the candidate’s base of supporters, make the candidate lose the respect of friend and foe alike, and also most probably fail to win over many of the targeted centrist voters, who may not at all trust this sudden lurch to the center. Indeed, one often sees the opposite, as centrists like Sarkozy and McCain win elections or primaries by moving to the right (which is more successful since rightist voters are more naive and/or desperate and believe that these shifts to the right are real, in contrast to centrist or leftist voters who are more mature and skeptical. Is Trump feinting to the right as well?).