996 words
Newt Gingrich’s surprise upset in the South Carolina Republican primary threatens to interfere with the party establishment’s coronation of Mitt Romney. His victory was not a squeaker like Santorum kinda-sorta pulled off in Iowa. Newt trounced Romney by just over 10% of the vote, which has taken his campaign off life support and given it some momentum going into the upcoming primaries.
Until now, Newt’s campaign has been an embarrassment due to his irresponsible and tempestuous mismanagement. He enjoyed a brief surge in Iowa despite a virtual absence of grassroots organizing, fundraising, or media management. This was due entirely to his showmanship at the debates, but be was beaten back by a tsunami of negative ads that reminded Iowa voters of his record.
Newts may be cold-blooded, slimy creatures who crawl out from under rocks. But they are also one of very few vertebrates that can regenerate its limbs, eyes, intestines, spinal cord, and even heart. Like the villain in a vintage horror film, HE JUST WON’T DIE. For any mere mortal, his effort to impeach Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, which ushered in the current age of mean-spirited tabloid partisanship, would have been his undoing. The fact that he was actually having an affair while doing that should have been his undoing. His central role in exacerbating the housing bubble while at Freddie Mac should have discredited him in the eyes of ideologues willing to overlook his moral failings.
Yet, the Newt abides. He’s now perched at the top of the polls despite lacking the record to distinguish himself from Obama in any major way, despite his chronic inability to hold together a coherent campaign, and despite his being a bipolar megalomaniac in the grip of a manic episode.
But not too much should be read into Gingrich’s South Carolina victory. Modern political campaigning has become extremely focused, with campaigns relying on media strategies which allow them and their attack dogs to deliver their messages to very specific audiences. When Newt gathered momentum in Iowa, Romney, Santorum, and Paul all trained their lasers on him, burning him to a crisp by informing likely GOP primary voters in the relevant coordinates of his actual voting record.
In South Carolina, Gingrich’s forceful response to media muckrakers understandably captivated the audience and inspired them to vote for him in a show of solidarity against the “liberal media.” It occurred too close to the primary, so his opponents didn’t have enough time to charge their lasers.
While it’s probably foolhardy to bet against Newt, given his unlimited capacity for regeneration, this most recent surge is likely to sputter out very rapidly. The lasers are charging as we speak, and they’re now set to Nationwide Mode. For Santorum, it’s moral. For Paul, it’s ideological. For Romney, it’s personal. Ron Paul cares more about Austrian economic theories than about winning votes on his sold-out farewell tour. When Newt tore into Romney’s record of vulture capitalism, he provoked not only Romney’s defense machine, but Ron Paul’s well-funded and more aggressive attack machine. Over the next few weeks, potential primary voters in several states will receive their anti-Newt inoculations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
The media make more money when there’s a dramatic and competitive race, so they’ll push the narrative that Newt’s in a two-man race with Romney for the nomination. That’s not really the case. Newt relied on dog whistling to racial resentments, witty debate performances, and timing to achieve what he achieved in South Carolina. His supporters have no idea who they’re voting for, but he seems like he would do well in a debate against Obama. That’s not really the case, as the context, audience, and opposition will be entirely different if he makes it that far. He won’t make it that far, fortunately, as a shameless huckster can only get so far before his various scams, angles, affairs, and bungled projects catch up to him.
When I speak of “dog whistling,” I’m referring to Newt’s decision to label Obama “the food stamp president” and Detroit as an example of a failed liberal policy. Newt wants to take advantage of bubbling racial resentments by implicitly feeding it while explicitly ignoring or denouncing it. Everybody viscerally knows why Detroit is a post-apocalyptic hellscape . . . and it has nothing to do with “big government.” If generous social welfare policies were the root cause of Michigan’s misery, then why is Finland, another frigid peninsular welfare state, the happiest and best-educated country on the planet?
Detroit’s problem is a racial problem. Americans in the Deep South realize this on a subconscious level, but have been indoctrinated against speaking or even thinking about it honestly. Opportunists like Newt use imagery and coded phrases to exploit racial anxiety while explicitly arguing in favor of globalist multiculturalism and supporting anti-White policies. Working class White voters will continue being cuckolded by the GOP in this manner until they wise up and begin thinking, speaking, and acting like serious adults in defense of their valid group interests. Why take a girl to Tiffany’s for a wedding ring when a wink and a knowing smirk will do?
Not that Newt’s much worse on the key issues than the other GOP candidates. He’s not. He does, however, offer a special opportunity to put the full sweep of neocon hypocrisy on full display in the upcoming election. Outside the Fox News echo chamber in which the primaries are taking place, Newt’s tawdry private life will make fools of the evangelicals who are supporting him. His being directly responsible for the cancerous growth of our government and its deficit while in power will make a mockery of the Tea Party costume clowns who are supporting him. His especially spiteful, inconsistent, and hypocritical personality reflects that of the Republican Party’s coalition . . . and it reflects poorly on it.
White Americans who aren’t plugged into the Fox News warmongering propaganda machine are weary of Barack Obama, but they’re not necessarily eager to replace a bad man with a madman.
29 Comments
I think this is a good assessment. Ron Paul is the only contender who seems at all interesting. Besides him, the others all seem to be varying shades of bland or crazy. In many ways we might be better off with Obama for another four years. He’s certainly been the most anti-Israel President we’ve seen to date – which admittedly isn’t saying much.
“If generous social welfare policies were the root cause of Michigan’s misery, then why is Finland, another frigid peninsular welfare state, the happiest and best-educated country on the planet?”
Oh come on, everyone knows that all White folks everywhere in the 21st century continue to reap enormous benefits from the hard work of enslaved farm equipment in the 19th century American South. OBVIOUSLY that’s the explanation. Reparations, unlimited in amount and time, are in order. Venceremos!
“despite his being a bipolar megalomaniac in the grip of a manic episode.”
The linked article would be an interesting read along side G. Johnson’s review of Nassir Ghaemi’s A First-Rate Madness
https://counter-currents.com/2011/08/nassir-ghaemis-a-first-rate-madness/
Good article but Finland is not the happiest country on the planet.
Best analysis of Newt I’ve read so far. I’ve commented on Newt and linked to this here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/01/newt-brute.html
A very good assessment Matt. I am somewhat surprised that this smarmy, glib-tongued, demagogic buffoon has got any traction at all. Must be the Fox propaganda channel, and their Amerikinder following, that is giving this bloviating jerk any kind of credibility at all.
The best outcome for the Presidential election would be an Obama win, with an even more racially polarized vote.
All that is left for the globalist elite is war (perhaps even a world war 3 scenario?), false flags, and police state actions. This is all they can do. They’ve already lost the philosophical and scientific debate.
The question I ask is who would I rather see in office when the globalist elites are implementing wars, false flags, and police state actions? I believe it’s more difficult (for the anti-White, globalist elites) to carry out these projects with Obama as POTUS, compared to Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum.
Therefore Obama is the pro-White choice for 2012.
Pro-Whites for Obama 2012!!!!
It is the political season again so naturally the question arises: what is best for Whites when they’re all bad?
It is a reasonable assumption, I think, that the establishment’s first choice will always be the candidate they perceive as the most reliably anti-White.
Therefore, if we treat establishment preferences as proxies for the candidate’s commitment to the anti-White agenda, this ranking of the candidate’s follows as most anti-White to least.
1) Obama
2) Romney
3) Gingrich
4) Paul
With Santorum omitted due to irrelevance.
By this standard, for reasons that are unclear to me, the establishment definitely sees Romney as more reliably anti-White than Gingrich. Both are of them anti-White of course. But the possibility of a Gingrich presidency clearly troubles them a lot more than an Obama or Romney one – which is scary given that Gingrich is one of the most virulently anti-White establishment figures there is.
On an unrelated point, I don’t think this essay is a particularly good assessment of Gingrich, the conservatives, or the dynamics of the GOP primaries that might be somewhat relevant from a nationalist perspective. For one thing, the tone here is mean spirited not analytical, and not just mean toward Gingrich himself who deserves it but also gratuitously mean toward his supporters as well. His supporters are no better and no worse from a White perspective than the people who support Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and other mainstream candidates, so the hostility toward Gingrich’s supporters displayed here by calling them clowns and so forth is just gratuitous — insults without purpose or logic.
One way to look at the dynamics of these primaries is the way it is presented here. The idiot mainstream conservatives are voting for an anti-White globalist again who blows the dog whistle. Certainly this is a founded interpretation.
On the other hand, the other way to look at it is as evidence that the GOP base is dissatisfied with their leaders, and their support for Gingrich with all his flaws reflects the intensity of the dissatisfaction and discontent pervading the GOP side of mainstream politics. This might be a slightly positive sign from a nationalist perspective. They’re clearly not ready or willing to break with the GOP paradigm to support Ron Paul in large numbers, much less even a very mild or tepid form of racial nationalism. But they do seem willing to reject their own leaders and elites, at least at this time, and they have consistently done it all year.
Romney has never polled above 25%. This means that 75% of their voters are demanding someone other than Romney, and guess who the GOP elite’s first choice is? It’s Romney.
The fact that they’re lining up behind an establishment globalist is less interesting to me than the fact that they’re lining up not lining up behind the establishment globalist their own elites want.
It’s a tiny step, maybe temporary and possibly meaningless, but at least it’s a step.
It seems to me getting these people to reject their own elites is a necessary first step in breaking them away from and undercutting their faith in the mainstream entirely. The next step would be getting them to move slightly beyond the mainstream paradigm to someone like Ron Paul, and the last step would be getting them to move outside of the mainstream completely.
I would be more bothered if they were mindlessly lining up behind Romney because Romney is who their elites want, and he is just as bad as Gingrich. So the best outcome for Whites in my view would be this. Obama wins in a landslide over Romney because GOP voters stay home rather than support him. It would keep the Black guy in the White House, and possibly destroy the GOP.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Full marks to Lew for seeing the issues strategically, from a (White) nationalist perspective. The issue we have not addressed is, “What will we see on January 20, 2013?”
Lew in blockquote:
From the Elite perspective, Romney is better, because Romney is rational. He’s smart enough to know One Party runs the country, and can work with them to hold it together while it is being turned into a Second World Country, with First World enclaves and Third World regions. The Reconquista is a demographic fact, and not ONE candidate has supported effective steps to reverse it. There is a reason for that.
I see the Gingrich supporters as older Whites who vaguely suspect things are getting worse, and can only be made better by going back to Ozzie and Harriet America. They are his target – look at his continued references to Hitler, and Stalin.
In twenty years, they will be gone, replaced by the Sons of the Sun.
GOP supporters staying home on Election Day – SULKING, as they give the election to Obama by default. I can see that happening.
The most insightful comment yet.
The Second Obama Administration would guarantee that, demographically, the Republican Party would have the life expectancy of the Whigs in 1856. It would guarantee – I repeat, guarantee – that the Republicans would be reduced to a Southern rump, useful as a prop, in the “Punch and Judy Show” of American politics.
I have been talking to friends of mine who do serious political demography. They say the election is Obama’s to lose.
I have worked with them to describe America in 2050. Given the collapse of the industrial sector, and the financialization of the rest of the economy, they describe “pockets of excellence, surrounded by regions of Hell.” As one put it, “Think of ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ Think of ‘Galt’s Gulch,’ surrounded by a South Central Nation, with vast, empty spaces in between. Megalopoli, at a safe remove from ‘Galt’s Gulch.”
To such thinkers. who were the first to notice the middle class in America is GONE, this election simply ratifies the ongoing trends. The anger the Gingrich supporters feel is supporter by feelings of helplessness, and it is usually an inchoate helplessness. IT HAS NOWHERE REMOTELY PRODUCTIVE TO GO.
Except, of course, Northwest.
One way, or another.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Lew,
The Tea Party revolt against the GOP establishment has been organized and active for several years, now. Very early on, it was effectively uprooted from its paleolibertarian and paleoconservative origins and has effectively been redefined within a thoroughly mainstream and neocon framework. Despite its promising origins, its dissolved into something within the historical pattern of aggravated opponents of the sitting president.
Remember all those people on the right livid about Clinton? Remember all those people on the left livid about Bush? Despite its promising origins, the Tea Party has atrophied and slunk into that historical pattern.
I got very excited about all the angry White people getting fed up five years ago. But it’s been five years with perhaps only Rand Paul’s election to show for it. I’m sorry, but if the scope of the rebellion is them being fed up enough to consider Newt instead of Romney, then that’s nothing. Hell, Pat–a WN mainstreamer–won the Iowa straw poll long before the Tea Party even existed. And it’s not as if this decline can be pegged on the rising tide of minorities in the Iowa GOP.
The Tea Party movement has been around long enough to establish a record for itself and be held accountable for the parallax between its rhetoric and that record. They’re clowns.
OK; but I don’t get the value of using pejoratives to describe the various subsets of Whites who don’t think like us. It is after all almost all Whites who don’t, not just them. I really don’t know what’s more clownish, responding to Gingrich’s Detroit dog whistle or hearing the whistle and bleating “that’s racist!” The latter reaction was the standard reaction outside the Tea Party.
Lew
“The fact that they’re lining up behind an establishment globalist is less interesting to me than the fact that they’re not lining up behind the establishment globalist their own elites want…It seems to me getting these people to reject their own elites is a necessary first step in breaking them away from and undercutting their faith in the mainstream entirely.”
Spot on.
Incidentally, the snide anti-Paul crack in this essay is not accurate. It’s not true that Ron Paul only cares about Austrian economics. Paul just said on national television during a presidential debate that an American blockade on Iran would be an act of war. He added that it would be the most foolish thing in the world to take on Iran. This in a GOP primary debate for president, on national TV, and in the face of two hardcore interventionist, globalist, Israel Firsters (Romney and Gingrich). Whatever Paul’s problems, he is without a doubt the bravest and most honest man to hit the national political scene since Charles Lindbergh and Father Coughlin’s time.
Lew,
While Gingrich masquerades as a populist conservative, it turns out that just this morning that billionaire Jew Adelson dropped another $5,000,000 USD into Gingrich’s Death Star Super PAC. The money is intended to give Gingrich a chance to compete with Romney in the Florida propaganda wars. Adelson has donated almost $10,000,000 USD to organizations aligned with Gingrich in just the last few weeks. Mind boggling numbers. Romney’s Death Star Super PAC is heavily funded by Wall Street, and Obama is expected to spend USD 1 billion this year through the the Democrat organizations and Super Pacs.
It makes me question a basic nationalist premise: the idea that national elections represent the establishment’s periodic rotation of fungible front men who all carry out essentially the same agenda. That’s a lot of money for a meaningless Kabuki performance. I doubt even a Jew billionaire wants to spend $10,000,000 USD for no reason and get nothing. It seems like who ends up in these positions matters to the financial elite, as the elites spend vast sums contesting these positions. For what, if Obama will just do what Romney will do and vice versa? It suggests thar where we see no differences, they do.
Matt Parrott: “I got very excited about all the angry White people getting fed up five years ago. But it’s been five years with perhaps only Rand Paul’s election to show for it. I’m sorry, but if the scope of the rebellion is them being fed up enough to consider Newt instead of Romney, then that’s nothing. Hell, Pat–a WN mainstreamer–won the Iowa straw poll long before the Tea Party even existed. And it’s not as if this decline can be pegged on the rising tide of minorities in the Iowa GOP.”
Not only that, but Buchanan actually won the New Hampshire primary in 1996. Won it.
Whatever criticisms one wishes to level at Buchanan, the reality is that his worldview is highly informed by race and culture – and more importantly his audience understands this to be the case.
The point is that WN Lite could still do well at the polls in the not too distant past, though even then it required some serious serendipity. Not like it happened every day. You’d have to go back to the 60’s for that.
Despite some headline grabbing success for WN Lite in the 90’s, from the Buchanan Brigades to Duke’s impressive vote totals in Louisiana, nothing came of it. The non-white demographic tide that is swamping our people was not reversed by so much as a single locust. The international rodents (HT Renner) remain firmly ensconced in power, miscegenation has only increased, etc.
By virtually every conceivable metric, our position has worsened since the relative electoral strength of the 90’s. And even that “strength” was a pale shadow of a generation earlier when avowed segregationists could still routinely win office in significant stretches of the country.
At the end of the day, Buchanan did not receive the nomination of the Republican Party. Duke did not win at the statewide level. Despite the impressive vote totals, it didn’t seem to alter the trajectory of the nation by so much as a whit. It wasn’t a matter of “slowly” turning the ship of state. The ship continued forward on its anti-white course without being disturbed to the tune of a mere millimeter.
Here we are in 2012 with Ron Paul, and this time it is going to be different. LOL!
One can only shake one’s head, the same delusions over and over again. And what’s worse, Ron Paul isn’t even WN Lite. He’s not even close. His message is raceless and cultureless, one of atomized individuals pursuing consumption and not paying taxes. At root, his philosophy has nothing to with ours. It’s true that most of us are sympathetic to low taxes and a relatively free market, but these are incidentals. The survival and development of our people, culture and civilization is far more important.
And then there is this: despite his raceless and cultureless message, Ron Paul STILL can’t win the nomination. There is zero chance of that.
To some, this post might appear to be defeatist. It is not. I’m actually fairly optimistic in a lot of ways, it’s just that salvation isn’t coming through the ballot box. We’ve got to hammer, again and again, that the ballot box cannot and will not work. We may be able to employ it for very specific purposes in limited ways (opposing amnesty, for example, which would at least buy us a few short years, though it won’t change the ultimate outcome).
The ballot box can no longer turn this country around. We either go a different direction, or we’re toast. It’s that simple.
This will be a major theme of mine in this election year of 2012. Denigrate the ballot box, denigrate the ballot box, denigrate the ballot box.
Yes, I plan on being annoyingly repetitive.
If I’m talking to a Tea Partier, it’s going to be “You can’t turn this country around at the ballot box anymore. At most you’ll elect the occasional fluke politician here and there, which is fine, but they will never even get close to majority status. The new demographics of the country simply won’t allow it. Maybe a generation ago people like you(us) were the silent majority, but that’s just not true anymore. They’ve filled the country with people who will always vote against us. We’re going to have to go a different route. Maybe it’s time to start thinking about a divorce.”
Something along those lines, anyway, depending upon relative sophistication and context.
Point is, it’s time to start actively undermining the so called “democratic” system. Presidential election years are a perfect time to do this. And if Obama wins reelection, which seems likely to me at this point, then that is an opportunity to make it clear to our target market that they simply can’t win. All the outrage, all the Tea Parties, all the Ron Paul energy – and the sucker still wins. That’ll be a bitter pill indeed, but its one that white America has to take.
They aren’t the Silent Majority, as they have typically thought of themselves in these past decades. Not anymore. And all their non-white tokens that they put up on stage isn’t going to change this. You didn’t fool anybody when you supported Herman Cain.
Only when our target market gives up on the ballot box can this thing of ours move into high gear, or move much at all. I’m optimistic because I believe this process is in fact playing out. It’s inevitable. No matter how hard the Tea Partiers work, or how much of a splash the Ron Paul movement makes, ultimately both are doomed in a multiracial United States. The sooner the more promising ones among their number figure this out, the better. Another Obama victory will be the perfect teacher of that lesson. That combined with spending fifteen minutes in virtually any public space in the United States should make the reality of our situation plain to all but the dimmest of bulbs.
Having said all of that, I will most likely vote for Ron Paul in the primary. It’s still probably in our interest that he do well. His hammering on the neocon wars and the Federal Reserve is a plus, and just showing that the much vaunted newsletters of 90’s aren’t the kiss of death is probably worth a few minutes at the polling station.
And whenever it comes up in conversation, I’ll be able to position myself as a guy who is more than willing to vote, but recognizes that something else will ultimately be required. “Surely, friend, you agree?”
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Trainspotter makes some excellent points, many of which deserve expanding upon.
Again, the importance of the metapolitical project comes to the fore. Their participation at the ballot box is simply a useful sideshow. I try to address their issues in one phrase: “What will the world your grandchildren live in look like?” That at least plants the seed for their thinking beyond their magically declining standard of living. The process IS being played out. What we must do make sure the inevitable disappointment is met with an Opportunity – literally, the Opportunity of lifetimes.
As it stands now, an Obama victory is all but assured. Ron Paul’s going Third Party would guarantee it, and make his departure from electoral politics much more effective. Think of the Whigs in 1856, with the Republicans being a mere fringe group. See the dramatic transformation of the country following the next election, won by a Republican with a plurality. Regardless, demographically, the political impotence of the Bible Belters was on display in their vote for Gingrich. It was actually on display sometime earlier, when the Bush Administration sent no one – not a Cabinet Secretary, no one – to Jerry Falwell’s funeral.
The more we play by THEIR Rules, the Rules, THEy have chosen for us, the more they win. Charlie Brown keeps trying to kick the football, when he should leave the field.
That’s what the quiet withdrawal of the active participation of the governed, followed by the active consent of the governed, comes in. The entire authentic evangelical movement – look for home schooling as their demographic signature – is positioned to lay the groundwork for the living foundation of a new nation.
THAT takes us, fortunately, to a Mr. Harold Covington, who was the first among us to recognize the nature of the System made in anathema to the highest and best that our Posterity, our Children and Grandchildren, deserve.
That “something else” that will ultimately be required is a Racial Homeland, a Northwest Republic – something to live FOR, for a change.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Regarding the two party fraud, that is the political reality in the U.S., I always stress during the election cycles, to all and sundry, that “It’s the best ‘democracy’ that money can buy”. It does kind of make the clueless stop and think a little.
The “elites” are not unified or in agreement in some “Elders of Zion” sort of way. My take is that they’re anxious about Mitt’s allegiance to and support from a relatively autonomous–if thoroughly controlled–oligarchy. Newt has no such impediments…but he’s Newt.
In the unlikely event that Mitt has the courage and conviction to lean on his micro-elite, and that micro-elite has the courage and conviction to resist (in some assuredly limited way) the Jewish and military-industrial oligarchies, White Americans could stand to benefit from the influence of an elite which (deluded as it may be) is more aligned in its core interests with White Americans than any other coherent hierarchy operating in the US.
I don’t believe the elites are unified in any Protocols way either. It’s obvious they’re not based on how these factions split on the candidates and on national politics in general. Like Obama and Gingrich, Romney has plenty of Jewish and Wall Street support behind him too. Romney also enjoys support of the conservatives elite intelligentsia (and I use that word loosely) and of luminaries such as John McCain. Jonah Goldberg’s National Review published a harsh denunciation of Newt Gingrich in December to help Romney win in Iowa. The National Review’s editors endorsed Romney for president in 2008 and will do so again in 2012.
The chance that Mitt Romney will serve White American interests is zero. There is no evidence that he might. His connections to the Mormon elite strengthen the case that Romney would be aggressively anti-White. The Mormon elites themselves are anti-White. While it’s plausible Romney’s connections to the Mormon elite might trouble that billionaire Zionist Jew supporting Newt Gingrich, many more wealthy Jews, Wall Street banks, neocons, factions and parties within the establishment don’t seem troubled by the Mormon connection at all. The only possible explanation for this is that they are 100% sure the Mormon elites are on board with the globalist multicultural agenda.
To sum it up: In a contest of which GOP candidate has the most anti-White supporters, it’s Romney by a mile over Gingrich. Romney’s supporters are far more hostile to White interests than the confused rank-and-file White people you denigrate as “clowns.”
“It makes me question a basic nationalist premise: the idea that national elections represent the establishment’s periodic rotation of fungible front men who all carry out essentially the same agenda.”
Iran.
The common agenda can be boiled down to two main points
– Israel-first foreign policy
– mass immigration and balkanization aka white genocide
The conflict is over priorities.
The bulk of YKW money and support in 2008 went to Obama but he won’t attack Iran, hence the buyer’s remorse from that quarter.
Romney’s foreign policy team is wall to wall neocon so he’s a safe bet from that point of view *if* he wins. He gets the bulk of the YKW neocons and a lot of ex-Obama support.
Gingrich’s YKW support is coming from those for whom knowing someone’s foreign policy team are Israel-firsters isn’t enough. They want the candidate himself to be aggressive and snarly and spell it out in public so they can be certain they’ve bought the right frontman. It’s not a coincidence that Gingrich’s support is coming from individuals associated with casinos and all that that entails. They don’t like subtle.
Who’s best from a WN point of view? As an attack on Iran is likely to be the last nail in the coffin of the global economy maybe that’s best, in which case Romney or Gingrich. On the other hand a non-attack is liable to provoke the Israel-firsters into a very public screaming fit in which case Paul – or even Obama is best.
Hard to say.
If it makes any difference, I denigrate and despise the elites in even more harsh language. I’m simply not going to say nice things about a group of people who are rallying behind a key architect of the Reagan-era amnesty who is openly plotting the next round of amnesty and another increase in the legal immigration quota.
I reject the strategic subtext implied here, that we’ll make progress by ingratiating ourselves to the latest mob of White people enraptured by anti-White ideologues and their anti-White ideals.
Sure. I know you denigrate the elites too, and in harsher terms; I’ve read it in your work countless times over the last couple of years since I found your stuff. I wasn’t implying an ingratiation approach, although clearly denigration and ingratiation are not the only possible approaches when dealing with these people or anyone else. The problem with broad denigration is that it does not add anything useful to WNist analysis of mainstream political behavior. About 120,000,000 mostly White voters will pull the lever for an anti-White candidate with either an R or a D next to his name in November. Labeling them clowns (or sheep, lemmings, etc.) is intellectually sloppy when the majority will actually be well accomplished, productive people just trying to get through the day (workers, business owners, teachers, professionals etc.). At any rate, it’s not a big deal, and I have only disagreed with maybe 2 or 3 of your articles out the dozens I’ve read. I’m likely the only CC reader who doesn’t support denigrating the mainstream voter.
Remember that Newt initiated the showdown with Clinton and the subsequent government shutdown. He actually got ZOG shut down for a short time. Maybe that’s what the voters are gunning for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996
Ron Paul is milquetoast. He is the conservatives answer to Jimmy Carter. A candidate can say anything he wants. Supporting this guy is only siphoning off votes from someone who can actually win.
Romney may not be able to defeat Obama. I don’t know much about him, but he seems like he would make a great used car salesman.
Newt might not defeat Obama either, but seeing an old, clever White guy in a debate with Obama would be priceless. The contrast would be striking.
Trainspotter said:
“The ballot box can no longer turn this country around. We either go a different direction, or we’re toast. It’s that simple.”
That’s true. The “Democratic system” (which we don’t really have) will undermine itself as it is unable to deal with today’s problems, which are just being pushed forward. The present ruling elite are truly out of ideas and yet not able to accept that their liberal paradigm is seriously outdated at this point. This includes the so called “conservatives.”
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
In partial reply to Jim Stark:
No.
More than half of the voters are directly funded by the Federal Government, one way or another.
As for the support for Newt’s “shutting down” the government? With that act of consummate hubris, he handed the ’96 election to Clinton, hands down.
One more such “victory,” and we shall be destroyed.
To those who want to “shut down” the Federal Government, I ask you a Covington question: “What would you replace it with?”
If Ol’ Granpa wakes up tomorrow to discover his Social Security checks aren’t coming – ever – and his Medicare is lost – forever – what do you suppose he will do?
If an admiral is told he needs to refuel his fleet, and has to put it on his American Express card if they want to get home, what do you suppose he will do?
Far better to abandon this fantasy of the ineffective, the idea that the Federal Government can be wiped away with the stroke of a pen as people repudiate the social safety net in favor of pathetic libertarian models of governance. On Day One, “ZOG” would be replaced with pure corporatism. It will not get any better from there.You will simply repeal the Twentieth Century, and work your way back to, say, 1880 – 1890.
Better still to develop effective local alternative governance, starting where you are, starting with you, and your family. Home schooling would be a good idea. After all, the only key to effectiveness is responsibility.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
This is what we want
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1
“More than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow.”
The next stage isn’t white people all voting republican – given that the corporate GOP are just as anti-white as the democrats – it’s white people no longer voting Democrat but only voting Republican reluctantly and for the least corporatist candidate they can find and *identifying* with neither.
so the movement of white voters we want to see is
democrat -> independent
republican -> independent
independent -> least anti-white candidate
(then if we ever get this far)
least anti-white candidate -> pro-white candidate
I notice that the Tea Party was kicking ass until the media started focusing on the fact that it was composed of nothing but White people and then the NAACP jumped in and started yelling about racism.
Instead of ignoring them, the Tea Party was distracted by purging anyone and everyone they thought could actually BE racist, i.e. White nationalist patriots. Of course, the Tea Party quickly became dominated by and controlled by Israel Firsters and then, surprise, surprise, all charges of racism seemed to dissipate like a nasty fart in the room.
Many White people quietly left the Tea Party in total disgust altogether, which begs the question IF the Tea Party was supposed to be a grassroots, leaderless resistance, why didn’t the Tea Party break into smaller tea parties who all did their own thing independently the way they allegedly started?
Methinks that someone quickly jumped in and made sure that no one else could call themselves a tea party, like incorporated the name or something. I think that would be worth investigating.
Romney and Gingrich savaged each other last night over who was more pro-immigrant.
After Gingrich called Romney an “anti-immigrant” candidate, Romney responded by saying (paraphrased) “How dare you! I’m not anti-immigration! I love immigration!”
In reality though, Romney’s stance on immigration is pretty strong by mainstream standards, at least at the level of words and rhetoric. Romney wants to encourage “self-deportation” by cracking down on employers, while Gingrich favors total amnesty.
What’s genuinely tragic about Mitt Romney is that in a different cultural context a man with his immense talents could have a been a great champion for White interests.
At some point, there will be a big national conversation about Mormonism after Romney locks down the nomination on Tuesday. At this point, Romney will no doubt remind the country Mormon leaders have repudiated their erstwhile healthy attitudes on race.
I am not Israeli. The uniform that I wore in the military, unfortunately, was not an Israeli uniform. It was an American uniform, although my wife was in the IDF and one of my daughters was in the IDF … our two little boys, one of whom will be bar mitzvahed tomorrow, hopefully he’ll come back– his hobby is shooting — and he’ll come back and be a sniper for the IDF,” Adelson said at the event.
All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart.
– Sheldon Adelson (financing Newt Gingrich)
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/a-plainly-true-idea.html
The brazen shamelessness of this Jew won’t a surprise anyone here. But Andrew Sullivan has millions of readers; I wonder if it will open a few eyes.