717 words
Let me be clear that I do not support Bernie Sanders. I just happened to attend a rally out of curiosity.
“I think Trump is pretending to be right wing to appeal to the Republican base and that he’ll swing toward the center once his campaign is over,” said a young Asian man standing in line behind me. It was amazing how so many attendees for the Bernie Sanders event were millennials. The majority of them, however, were white. As I sat down, literally every audience member in sight was white. At least 95% of all present had white skin, but only 80% on the stage behind Bernie did (56 out of 70 to be exact). In other words, nonwhites were about four times more common in the background of his speech. Perhaps he felt the need to advertise his nonwhite supporters, lest his support be thought of as “too white.”
Bernie’s message at times sounded exactly like Donald Trump’s. He complained of workers losing their jobs as factories moved out of the country. He mentioned several specific factories from the local area that had done so. Trump has also mentioned specific factories, most notably the Carrier plant in Indiana. Both are good at framing issues in concrete terms to which the average person can relate.
Bernie had a way of priming the crowd with various popular stances and then ending with a sort of catharsis as he affirmed his record in the congress and senate as having been in support of them. Like Trump, he interacted seamlessly with several excited supporters who yelled out answers to his rhetorical questions.
Much of his speech involved stoking envy in the hearts of the audience members. Well, it was either envy or rightful indignation, depending on one’s opinion. His arguments ran something like “if A can have B then why can’t C have D?” For instance, he said “if the Waltons of Walmart can be the richest family in the nation, then why shouldn’t Walmart pay its workers a living wage?” Some of his statements, such as that the current economy makes it too difficult for parents to raise children, seem to be very relevant to whites, whose collective birthrate is well below replacement level. While he referred to climate change, the drastic ongoing demographic implosion of whites was, of course, never referenced.
The white women present were on average feminine and dainty. Unfortunately, so were the men. In terms of fashion, there was a wide spectrum from smartly dressed hipsters to colorfully adorned hippies to frumpy older women.
Near the end of the speech Sanders gave a shout-out to various pet groups of the Left. Gays and women were mentioned. The latter group’s reference provoked a higher pitched tone of cheering. The abject poverty of many black Americans was bemoaned, but of course its hereditary causes were never explicated. “Undocumented” immigrants were cast as victims forced to live fearfully in the shadows, but Bernie never admitted the obvious fact that they prefer living in majority-white nations illegally to living legally their home nations. American Indians, though a relatively small minority, seemed to garner the most enthusiastic applause. The fact that most white Americans have never encountered an American Indian leads me to believe that whites are best able to idealize a group with whom they have never had any mundane daily interactions. Whites have had the most experience with their own race, so maybe they view it as rather ordinary as a whole and are only recognize the individuals in it as good, bad, or average.
Even if some in the crowd wanted to cheer for their own race, this 95% white audience was never given the chance. To utilize Bernie’s favorite form of argumentation, if “undocumented” citizens, Amerindians, blacks, women, and gays, are all worthy of shout-outs, then why not whites? Especially when they constitute the vast majority of the audience?
Hopefully Sanders supporters will discover that white identity is no less evil that of any other. It requires neither victims nor victimizers, but only racial existence. If persons like Bernie can conquer a civilized people in the middle east, ethnically cleanse them, and set up a state, then whites are justified in peacefully establishing a white nation of their own somewhere in the world.
9 comments
The jobs issue contains an underlying premise – namely, that with the correct policies, sufficient employment can be created. To put it differently, it is implicitly assumed that mass unemployment is the result of failed economic policies (such as free trade, outsourcing, over-regulation, etc….)
However, it is worth asking if another explanation of the unemployment problem may be more accurate – namely that technological development has made it possible to satisfy demand with less and less labour – which, given our current economic system, must invariably entail greater unemployment.
If the second explanation is more accurate, then efforts to generate enough employment – be it through government spending, protectionism, deregulation, etc.. etc.. will prove futile – and other options may need to be considered. Two that come to mind are a reduction in working hours, and Major Douglas’s proposal of a National Dividend.
The last of these is particularly interesting, given that whilst creating jobs appears increasingly difficult, creating money is easier than ever…
It’s true that we can get a lot more done these days thanks to labor saving tools and machines and innovation. We really don’t need to work 40 hours per week. This was implemented so workers will have some money to pay usury. “I owe, I owe, Off to work I go!”
Consider what Stephen Goodson has written in his book History of Central Banking (there is a book review here in Counter-Currents), pg 26-28 (emphasis on the bold and underlined words below):
THE GLORIOUS MIDDLE AGES
With the banishment of the moneylenders [when England’s King Edward kicked jews out in 1290] and the abolition of usury, there were hardly any taxes to pay and no state debt, as the interest-free tally stick was used for government expenditures. England now enjoyed a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity. The average laborer worked only 14 weeks a year and enjoyed 160 to 180 holidays. According to Lord Leverhulme, a writer of that time: “The men of the 15th century were very well paid,” in fact so well paid that the purchasing power of their wages and their standard of living would only be exceeded in the late 19th century. A laborer could provide all the necessities his family required. They were well clothed in good woolen cloth and had plenty of meat and bread.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Anglo-German philosopher, confirms these living conditions in his The Foundations of the XIXth Century.
“In the 13th century, when the Teutonic races began to build their new world, the agriculturist over nearly the whole of Europe was a freer man, with a more assured existence than he is today; copyhold was the rule, so that England , for example – today a seat of landlordism – was even in the 15th century almost entirely in the hands of thousands of farmers, who were not only legal owners of their land, but possessed in addition far-reaching free rights to common pastures and woodlands”
During their spare hours many craftsmen volunteered their skills in building some of England’s magnificent cathedrals, which reinforces one of the basic tenets of Western civilization that without leisure time, the fostering of culture is not possible. George Macauley Trevelyan, the English social historian, describes these accomplishments as follows:
“The continuous but ever-moving tradition of ecclesiastical architecture still proceeded on its majestic way, filling England with towering forest of masonry of which the beauty and grandeur have never been rivaled either by the Ancients or the Moderns…In the newer churches the light no longer crept but flooded in, through the stained glass, of which the secret is today even more completely lost than the magic of the architecture.”
Bernie is simply like all leftists. He’s strong on environmental issues, jobs, free or low cost college, etc.etc. ALL OF WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH OPEN BORDERS, which he also wants.
Bernie has criticized corporations for using and supporting immigration for low wages. But he’s not of course going to build a wall and would want to legalize those already here. I remember reading somewhere earlier in the election year where Bernie had said or was quoted as saying that he didn’t want to talk too much about race because he believed the issues were important to everybody. Since then, however, he has gotten far away from that. I think because he’s had to compete with Hillary for the minority vote which he has largely lost despite all of his attempts and because he wanted to signal against Trump who wasn’t making statements about Mexicans.
And yeah there are some things with Bernie I agree with but I could never support him.
It is interesting that Sanders has tempered and toned down (maybe even shifted) his position on immigration. He started the campaign with some speeches that in substance were essentially anti-immigrant in that he (rightly) saw them as a threat to the American worker. He was not calling for specific measures such as blocking Muslim immigration or building a wall with Mexico, but his emotional stance was anti-immigrant. It is clear that he has toned down that message, but why he has done so is not clear. Perhaps he was concerned that his overall message was sounding all too similar to Trump’s: economic populism combined with isolationism / immigration restriction.
In the general election, many of Sanders’ working class supporters could well go over to Trump. The millenial hipster types, probably not so much.
A sound article. But here are my two cents of opinion:
1. “Hopefully Sanders supporters will discover that white identity is no less evil that of any other.” It rather will be hopeless. The Whites being Sanders supporters are collectively and typically too mired in self-guilt and self-abnegation to have any racial awareness of identity and assertion.
2. “His arguments ran something like “if A can have B then why can’t C have D?” For instance, he said “if the Waltons of Walmart can be the richest family in the nation, then why shouldn’t Walmart pay its workers a living wage?”
This sounds to me a formula of “If A can have B then why can’t C have A?” rather than what author presented which seems somehow illogical to my humble understanding.
A point well taken. Maybe a better way of stating it would be “if A can have an excessively large amount of B then C should be entitled to a modestly sufficient amount of B”. If the small minority of his fans who are black or American Indian are worthy of time spent praising their group in a speech then why shouldn’t the 95% majority, ie whites, receive at least the same time spent praising their ethnicity, albeit less time per capita? Moreover if people like Bernie support Israel’s right to exist in spite of its past and present aggression then an equally strong plan of ethnic assertion which is more peaceful held by white nationalists ought to be granted at least the same amount of moral legitimacy.
The MSM wont mention that Bernie wins in majority White districts and states. But Hillary has paid off the people who owns the black VOTE and that’s why she will get the Democratic nomination. Hopefully this will be the last Presidential election and the end of Necrophiliac White working class people snuggling up to the long dead corpse called the Republic. America is done. Get over it. Its time for a Whites ONLY homeland.
“The white women present were on average feminine and dainty. Unfortunately, so were the men.”
Haha! Glad I wasn’t drinking when I read this. The line of the whole campaign so far!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.