First, I would like to thank you for standing up to leftist academics and the Black Lives Matter crowd over the “white privilege” canard. It was indeed a pleasure to see a mainstream, if somewhat vilified, pundit like yourself smashing a precious liberal trope in such a public and humiliating way. White nationalists, white advocates, and other race realists, I’m sure, all watched on with approval and enjoyed a sort of vicarious thrill as you quite literally spoke Truth to Power. But it was only vicarious because, unlike you, we are not even afforded a seat at the table. If we were to attempt spreading our ideas at universities or BLM meetings, we would be met promptly with mob violence. While they barely tolerate you (for now), they truly hate us.
Which leads me to the point of this letter: your vocal opposition to Donald Trump and the #NeverTrump movement you champion. Of course, you offer many arguments to support your position, and I plan to go through them here in order to debunk them and show you how you are missing the bigger picture on The Donald.
- Donald Trump is not a consistent conservative. You prove this by pointing out his previous support of Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood, the Stimulus, campaign finance reform, the Assault Weapons Ban, and other non-conservative policies.
- By saying no to such a disingenuous candidate, conservatives can shape the GOP so that it will field true conservatives in the future. You support this by drawing a straight, cause-and-effect line from the defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the GOP’s rebellion against Gerald Ford in 1976 to the ascendency of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
- Therefore, true conservatives should never vote for Donald Trump lest he “destroy” conservatism and the hope for a conservative GOP in the future.
While point A is for the most part correct, you err with point B. First, Ronald Reagan won in 1980 because he was a fine statesman, a charismatic leader, an excellent debater, and was going up against a weak opponent in Jimmy Carter who had overseen some pretty rough economic times. Had any of these conditions been different, Reagan might not have won.
More importantly, America is much different demographically now than it was in the time between 1964 and 1980. I’m sure you have noticed that the proportion of whites in this country has decreased significantly since 1980. In 1980 the proportion of non-Hispanic whites was 79.6%. In 2014 it was 68.8% and shrinking fast. Given that the US government predicts that the Hispanic population will grow at the fastest rate (from 13.0% today versus 25.5% in 2060), that the Asian population will more than double (from 2% to 5%), and that the black population will hold steady at around 13%, we will have a significantly different future than what the Bill Buckley’s of the world could have dreamed of in 1964. In order for the GOP to be politically viable in this future, it will have to attract enough of these “brown” people to compete with a Democratic party which simply imports its constituencies. In the future, relying on the white vote just isn’t going to cut it.
What indication do we have that a return to conservativism would even be possible in such a landscape? And by “conservatism” I am using your definition of “small government and free markets and religious freedom and personal responsibility.” If we look at the Hispanics, the blacks, and the Middle-Eastern Muslims in their own parts of the world, nowhere do they share the same fealty to conservative principles that you do, Ben. In the vast majority of cases you find corrupt governments, crushing poverty, rampant crime, and unfathomable human rights abuses. In some senses, these people are more conservative than you are in that they seem to support strong, centralized, pre-Magna Carta-type governments that basically serve to enrich those who take part in it. Either that, or they are outright communists. From a distance these may seem like modern governments. They have constitutions, separate branches, court systems, elections, and the like. But really, these are only superficial similarities.
Your mistake, Ben, is to assume that large numbers of Hispanics, blacks, and Middle-Eastern Muslims will take to your brand of conservatism and reliably vote Republicans one day. To put it bluntly, Ben, they will never get it. They never have in the past and, given their present nigh-socialistic voting record here in America, they never will. To people like Locke, Burke, the Founding Fathers, and other great political thinkers, government must allow for the most prosperity and provide the most safety for the most people. To the people who will one day inherit the Republican Party, government is mostly a tool with which to attack one’s opponents, bribe one’s constituency, and make one rich. That’s how it is in the Third World, and that’s how it will be when the Third World comes here.
So this #NeverTrump business is a killer, Ben. You say you are willing to risk a Hillary Clinton presidency in order for the GOP to spend another eight years in the wilderness finding its soul. But what will the Democrats do with the power you are so willing to cede them? They will invite even more brown people to immigrate to the US and they will grant amnesty to the ones that are already here illegally.
Democrats, liberals, leftists, whatever you want to call them, always rig the game in their favor. And the more “brown” people they bring in, the better. To them, we are the enemy. They understand that if diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means, then politics is the continuation of civil war by other means. And in politics, like in war, there is no substitute for victory.
So, why are you recommending a substitute for victory, Ben?
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz right now are the only candidates willing to hold back the brown tide (and, yes, that pun was intended). These two are the only ones that understand that unbridled immigration from the Third World is a bad thing. Maybe not from a race-realist perspective. But who knows? Maybe so. I understand that you like Cruz, but he is not the front-runner. He hasn’t captured the hearts and minds of Americans the way Donald Trump has. The voters just don’t want him as much as they want Donald Trump. And by disavowing Trump, you are not only expressing contempt for the millions of people who support him, you are also depressing the enthusiasm the remainder of the GOP may have on election day. Many of your readers and followers will either stay home or vote libertarian, with both outcomes making it easier for Hillary Clinton or (God help us) Bernie Sanders to win the election. And from that point, given our projected demographic changes, it will only be a matter of time before conservatives like yourself will lose all hope in winning the GOP nomination, let alone the White House.
Another question I would like to ask you: who is your counterpart on the left? What well-known and influential liberal pundit is out there saying #NeverHillary for her lies about Benghazi and her email scandal? What big shot left wing blogger is calling for #NeverBernie because he is a rabid socialist who wants to give away the store in order to bribe his constituency? Yes, these hashtags are out there, but they are tended to mostly by centrist Republicans or nobodies, and not by liberal pundits of your stature.
Now, why is that? It is because liberals aren’t stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot. In their minds, a bad Democrat excels a good Republican always.
So why are you shooting us in the foot, Ben? Why are you trying to sabotage our best hope to maintain a white majority in this country? Why can’t you realize that Donald Trump at his worst is still preferable to any Democrat at their best?
And I get that The Donald has flaws. I agree with your litany of them, so there is no need to recapitulate here. In many ways, a vote for Donald Trump is like a vote for Sonny Corleone. He’s a hothead; a big, swinging, d*ck, as it were. In a world in which the white majority in this country were not under threat, I probably wouldn’t vote for him either.
But as a thought-experiment, let’s analyze the Trump fiasco you predict. Suppose in the worst possible scenario, President Trump gives us higher taxes, higher unemployment, increased inflation, increased debt, increased Obamacare, reckless spending, unbalanced budgets, ham-fisted trade policies, greater restrictions on gun rights, and more funding for Planned Parenthood. If, in the face of such a catastrophe, President Trump were to simply follow through on his promises to 1) deport illegal immigrants, 2) build a wall between the US and Mexico, and 3) begin a precedent of banning Muslim immigration, it would be a net gain.
It will be a net gain because it will be the first step in stemming the tide of nonwhite demographic dominance. After a certain point, this tide will be irreversible. It will also be a net gain because it will issue a new age of mainstream white identity politics. It will signal the time when whites can once again be proud of who they are and what they have done to make this country great. And that includes contributing much to conservatism.
I implore you to dissociate yourself from #NeverTrump. Perhaps you should also apologize to the millions of people you have offended by not acknowledging even one good reason to support Donald Trump. Seriously, by not tipping your hat to any of The Donald’s good qualities, you’re basically saying that his millions of fans are idiots. This is what you’re supposed to do to Democrats, not Republicans.
What particular statements have you made that were so offensive? Here is a particular ripe one:
And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism. Conservatism will become the crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, toxic brew leftists have always accused it of being.
“Crypto-racist,” eh? You find that worse than the overt anti-white racism of the left? You’ve experienced it yourself, Ben. How can you equate a few insults David Duke throws at you over Twitter with the near-riot that ensued at CSULA in which a mob of liberals tried to shut you down? And make no mistake, Ben, that happened because they see you as white, and you had the temerity to say things liberals disagree with.
“Quasi-tyrannical?” What does that even mean? Are you saying that, once elected, Trump will just take over and become a tyrant? Are you willing to stand by such a claim?
“Pseudo-strong?” Really? Are you not aware that Bernie Sanders is more concerned about fighting “Islamophobia” than fighting Islam? Are you not aware of Hillary Clinton’s humiliating apology tour after Benghazi? Our current president can’t even name our enemies as militant Muslims. Does this speak strength to you? At least Donald Trump stands up for the truth when he says the Muslims hate us. At least he promises to ban at least some Muslim immigration. At least he says he’ll “bomb the sh*t” out of ISIS. Can you imagine any Democrat having chutzpah to speak like that?
And really, Ben, who would you rather have in the White House if there is another 9-11 attack? A Democrat who would respond with focus groups, hashtags, and James Taylor concerts? Or a guy like Donald Trump who won’t hesitate to go medieval on medieval people and get real vindictive about it too.
Oh, and you expressed concern that Donald Trump might order our military to commit war crimes. Would you consider 9-11 a war crime, Ben? How about the London bombings or the Madrid bombings or Boston Marathon bombings or the San Bernardino bombings? Were they war crimes? If we want to win this war on Islamic terror, sooner or later we are going to have to adopt the ruthless tactics of our enemies. Our enemies don’t seem to care too much about war crimes. So why should we? It’s not like ISIS is a signatory of the Geneva Convention. So if this means overdoing it in some cases, good. It will save more lives in the long run. The point is never to prolong a war but to end it as quickly as possible.
Why are you trying to prolong the war on terror by opposing the one candidate not afraid to end it?
Anyway, I hope you come away from this letter knowing where you went wrong. Please reverse yourself and admit your mistakes. We will forgive you, I promise.
And yes, I understand that as a Jew you have been the recipient of a large amount of anti-Semitic attacks ever since swearing off Donald Trump. I know David Duke has given you a hard time. I am sorry you had to go through that. I have been condemned by liberals for being white, male, and straight enough times to sympathize. I am not going to call you a kike, Ben.
But I will remind you that for every Aaron Copland composition or Yehudi Menuhin recording out there, there were Jews from the Frankfurt School who worked for decades undermining traditional American values. For every successful Jewish department store chain, there were Jews behind the formation of the NAACP and other radical organizations that promote the poisonous lie of racial equality. For every polio and hepatitis B vaccine, there have been Jews dominating major Left-wing political organizations for over a century. For every Jewish high-tech entrepreneur, there have been Jews in government like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein and countless others who want to strip away our rights to defend ourselves and make it easier for us to abort our babies.
I could go on with both the good and the bad, Ben, and I recognize that Jews in America have enhanced our culture in many positive ways. But I think it is reasonable to assume from all this that Jews in government, the media, and academia tend not to like white Americans very much. We get scorned, ridiculed, and maligned by Hollywood. Our traditional values are constantly under attack by our own government. Whenever we have a conflict or altercation with nonwhites, we are treated with extreme suspicion in the mainstream press. We are forbidden to speak the truth about race and act in our own racial interests. And many of the people opposing us are wealthy, influential Jews. Is it anti-Semitic just to notice this, Ben?
So when another political pundit like yourself publicly disavows the first presidential candidate in recent memory whose promises actually coincide with the racial interests of white people, it makes perfect sense that some whites would respond by saying, “Here we go again. Another smarty-pants Jew in the media who hates us and wants to shove us into a corner.” I can’t go to bat for David Duke. But I can go to bat for the millions of Americans who share his pain and are too afraid or powerless to confront you about it.
So, I think there are two ways to solve this. You can recant your Trump bashing and dissociate yourself from this #NeverTrump business (and I hope that whatever anti-Semitism you have experienced coming from the right won’t impede your decision to do this).
Or you can do the following:
In forty years, when all the Muslims brought in by the Democrats you helped usher into power make it too hot for you, as a Jew, to live in America (as is currently the case for Jews in France), and you are forced to make the reasonable decision to flee to Israel, why don’t you take a few million of us white gentiles along with you? Because if it gets too hot for you, it will sooner or later get too hot for us as well.
Oh, what’s that you say? You can’t do that? Israel has walls to keep out illegal immigrants and laws to preserve its racial Jewish majority? Oh, right!
So, remind me again why we shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump?
Americké prezidentské volby 2020 — zhodnocení dosavadního vývoje
An Ethnographic Guide to Political Groups in America
On Right-Wing Primal Urges (or, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Debating with Yourself over Politics in the Wee Hours of the Morning, and Forgot to Ask)
Bidet Said Something
The Fall of the Neoliberal Order
They Can’t Help Themselves:
From Mar-a-Lago to Dark Brandon
Lenders Should Lose:
Why Biden’s Student-Loan Forgiveness Is a Bad Idea
A Tale of Two Speeches, Part 2