Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the least horrifying among the current crop of Democratic candidates — but who won’t get the nomination.
1,832 words
Open borders is no longer a meme; it’s the official stance of most Democratic presidential candidates.
During last week’s debates, which were held over two nights, most Democratic candidates said they want illegal immigration decriminalized. Nearly every candidate thinks illegal immigrants deserve free healthcare. The only debate in this area was over who was the most favorable toward open borders of them all. The few Democrats who have previously demonstrated common sense on immigration have now capitulated.
The Democratic field is a clear and present danger to white America.
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro took the lead on immigration during the first night of the debate. Castro emphasized he wants to get rid of Section 1325 of the American legal code that makes illegal entry into the country a criminal offense. He believes this act should only be a civil offense.
Castro attacked former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke for not addressing Section 1325. O’Rourke demonstrated reluctance at the prospect of decriminalizing illegal immigration. “I just think it’s a mistake, I think it’s a mistake, Beto, and I think if you truly want to change the system, then we got to repeal that section,” Castro said. “If not, it might as well be the same policy.” O’Rourke insisted his plan would also be easy on illegal immigrants and touted a bill he proposed “that would ensure that we don’t criminalize those who are seeking asylum and refuge in this country.” Castro mocked this proposal as insufficient.
Castro clearly got the upper hand on O’Rourke, a white guy who constantly apologizes for being white. At least two prominent candidates who shared the stage with Castro – Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker – agree that illegal immigration should be decriminalized. Even Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, a supposed moderate, said she would consider decriminalization. “Immigrants, they do not diminish America,’’ Klobuchar declared. “They are America.”
Castro also called for a Marshall Plan for Central America, ignoring the fact that America already annually contributes millions of dollars in foreign aid to these countries.
There were many other cringe-inducing immigration moments from the first night. Senator Warren lamented that the economy doesn’t work for “Latinx” people. O’Rourke, Booker, and Castro spoke Spanish at random times. The entire stage expressed outrage over the viral photo of drowned migrants and blamed President Trump for their deaths.
Every Democrat insisted that it’s not “our values” to turn anyone away who wants to come to our border. O’Rourke tried to defend his position on immigration with a vow that the drowned father and daughter would not have been welcomed under his asylum policy. The problem is that the drowned pair were clear economic migrants, not legitimate asylum seekers. It is known that the father fled to America for financial reasons. (Then again, Democrats may soon consider poverty a valid claim for asylum.)
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio argued that immigrants aren’t causing any problems for Middle Americans; it’s all the big corporations’ fault. While there is a point there, big corporations deliberately encourage mass immigration to drive down wages and disrupt white communities. Immigrants may not be the root cause, but they aren’t a non-issue, either.
The second night was even worse. Only one Democrat did not raise a hand when asked if they think illegal immigration should be decriminalized. Every Democrat raised a hand when asked if illegal immigrants deserve free healthcare.
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg said it was un-Christian to criminalize illegal immigration. The openly gay Episcopalian said:
The Republican Party likes to cloak itself in their language of religion. We should call out hypocrisy when we see it. For a party that associates itself with Christianity to say that it is okay to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages, has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.
According to Buttigieg, the only way to do away with family separation is to treat illegal immigration like a parking ticket.
The three candidates on stage who were once somewhat sensible on immigration cucked out. Bernie Sanders once called open borders a Koch Brothers idea. Now it’s part of his platform. Bernie also called Trump a racist, and said diversity is what America is about. Kirsten Gillibrand once ran as an immigration hawk. Now she supports free healthcare for illegals.
Most disappointing of all was Andrew Yang. Yang also raised his hand for free healthcare and decriminalization. Just a few months ago, he captured the attention of the Dissident Right with his fresh proposals and acknowledgment of white America’s plight. He seemed different from the rest of the Democratic herd. On the debate stage, he only differentiated himself by his lack of a tie. He even insisted that Russia is our greatest geopolitical threat, a considerably dumber Resistance take than those of his fellow candidates who said it was China. In his closing address, Yang claimed he could win over disaffected Trump voters and conservatives. His performance shows that’s a lie. He’s about as appealing as Reddit.
Race hung over the debate. Most Democrats championed immigration with the implicit assumption that it would transform America’s demographics to the party’s advantage. Most candidates signaled their belief that diversity and immigrants make America great – and we need more of both. There was an underlying sentiment that Barack Obama, the first black President, failed to transform America enough with his deportation policies. One debate moderator, José Díaz-Balart, claimed that Obama deported three million “Americans.” It’s not clear if Mr. Díaz-Balart misspoke. Nevertheless, the candidates probably would have agreed that those illegals were Americans, and none of them challenged his assertion.
The one dissent from racial orthodoxy came from the bumbling frontrunner, Joe Biden. The former Vice President defended his past opposition to busing, the practice that sent black kids to predominately white schools for the sake of racial justice. He did this in response to an attack from California Senator Kamala Harris. Harris began her attack by saying, “As the only black person on this stage, I would like to speak on the issue of race.” She criticized Biden for praising his work with segregationists and busing opposition. “You also worked with them to oppose busing, and you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools,” she recounted in her dubious sob story. “And she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”
To his credit, Biden didn’t capitulate to Harris, and insisted he did not oppose voluntary busing. Journalists declared Harris the clear winner of the exchange, and her campaign began selling “That Little Girl Was Me” shirts right after the debate. In reality, busing was a total failure that was overwhelmingly opposed by the whites who had to endure it. When Biden last ran for President in 2008, he could have proudly pointed to his opposition to busing. Now, it’s a liability for him. We’re expected to believe that all government-sponsored racial experiments are good. It wouldn’t be surprising if Harris called for the return of busing in her platform. Senator Warren has said it’s a good idea to bring it back.
Though many of these candidates have previously expressed support for reparations, only one candidate touted the idea during the debate: New Age author Marianne Williamson, who entertained the Internet with her plan to harness “love” against Donald Trump.
Besides immigration, Democrats evinced other signs of a far-Left turn. Pretty much every candidate said he wants to put America on the path to single-payer healthcare. The only difference between candidates on this issue is whether they want to do it immediately or gradually. Democrats, both men and women, competed to see who could be the most pro-abortion. It was quite jarring to see so many white men insist they were the ones who truly respect women. Most candidates likewise favored a Left-wing turn in economics, particularly Warren and Sanders. Only one Democrat, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, (ineptly) warned about the dangers of socialism.
The only area where some of the candidates showed a bit of sense was on foreign policy. As stated above, most Democrats named China rather than Russia as America’s greatest geopolitical foe. That’s more sensible than what the past three years of Russia hysteria has brought. Senator Gillibrand said her first foreign policy priority would be to reach out to Iran to calm tensions in the Middle East; a more reasonable suggestion than Trump’s current attitude toward the country.
The one who really stood out on foreign policy was Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard denounced the “chickenhawks” in the Trump administration, attacked Saudi Arabia, and flayed Ohio Representative Tim Ryan for his idiotic support for the forever war in Afghanistan. She was the one solid non-interventionist on stage, and won the Drudge Report poll for the first night of the debate. Unlike Yang, Gabbard demonstrates independence, and has fresh ideas when it comes to foreign policy.
The debates clarified where the Democratic Party stands. It supports open borders and wants to redistribute white wealth to non-whites, whether through free healthcare for illegals or reparations for blacks. Single-payer also fits this racial redistribution model. It should not be seen as a benefit for all Americans, but rather as just another way to take away white wealth. Being a white guy is a liability, as Biden and O’Rourke learned. No amount of contrition can compensate for that deficiency.
Democrats are the best argument for Trump to stay in office. Despite his many failures and disappointments, Trump does not want to redistribute white wealth or allow the whole world to come through our southern border. Indeed, Democratic extremism may very well be enough to keep Trump in office for another four years.
Some Democratic candidates are aware of this weakness and want to obscure their America Last agenda. Castro, the very guy who proposed decriminalizing illegal immigration, declared the day after the debate, “Nobody has called for open borders. That’s just a Right-wing talking point.”
Self-awareness is not his strong suit.
After the first debates, Warren and Harris appear to be the strongest candidates from a Leftist perspective. They’re both women who can appeal to the establishment as well as the progressive grassroots. Both had the highest ratings in live polling. So did Biden, in spite of his poor performance. Democratic voters are apparently desperate enough for Obama’s return to overlook Joe’s flaws. Bernie looks far weaker now than he did in 2016. Yang is a disappointment who should no longer receive any Dissident Right support.
Only Gabbard (and maybe Willamson, for content purposes) should receive our praise. But Gabbard is definitely not going to win the nomination. It will be someone more anti-white and more acceptable to the globalist establishment.
24 comments
Rep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.
People with far more solid and genuine stances (especially in Europe) have capitulated relatively soon, whether through personal acquiescence or coercion (it is immaterial to us, and this can’t be stressed enough). I’ll go so far as to say that this will be the case in Italy, too.
When you consider how robust elite control over American politics is, and what a mixed-bag this woman is, it is perhaps for the better that she will not be nominated.
Then who SHOULD be nominated? We should be thinking strategically, not in terms of ideals. There isn’t anyone coming to “save America.” However, some politicians are better than others.
It was namely for pragmatic/strategic reasons that I suggested it was better for them to put forward a candidate that is truly representative of their character, rather than someone that will bring false hope to people. I don’t want the system sustaining itself that way.
Mitigationism on the part of the establishment (either side) will start sooner than we expect, and it will be our worst enemy, especially given how de-platformed and censored we are.
Note that in no way am I advocating for accelerationism on our part.
Gabbard made a speech to Christians United for Israel and posed for a photo op with Miriam Adelson and Rabbi Shuley Boteach. She volunteered to serve in the criminal 2003 invasion of Iraq. She receives campaign contributions from the Defense Industry. She is nothing to tout for.
Gabbard publicly opposed the Iraq War, as well as the wars against Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad (she visited Assad in 2017 and called for an end to US intervention there). That’s a pretty strong record. As for the Israel stuff, that’s par for the course nowadays. We can’t have unrealistic expectations.
In April 2003 Gabbard enlisted in the Hawaiian National Guard. In July 2004 she deployed to Iraq to serve as a specialist in a medical unit for a 12-month tour. Years later she was commissioned and served in Kuwait 2008-09 in a Military Police unit. Source Wikipedia.
Regardless of her public expressions, she has voluntarily served in the Middle East.
CAGES? CAGES? THIS FROM THE PARTY THAT MURDERS CHILDREN AND THEM IN DUMPSTERS AS MEDICAL WASTE!
The “cages” remark reminds me of something from Diversity Chronicle.
Just read her Wiki entry. A real poster girl for multikulti ‘New America’, and ticks all the critical boxes from which there can be no dissent. A member of CFR, that should interest us.
Yang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.
Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.
There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.
I like Trump! I didn’t jump on the bandwagon like everybody else did back in 2016, because I was skeptical about his efficacy, and sincerity–and I was right. Over the last four years I have learned to like Trump, the maneuvers in the last month in which Mexico was forced to police their southern borders were sound politics, all countries south of Mexico must be forced to police their borders. We can’t solve our illegal immigration with just a wall, all countries south of Mexico must be forced to police their borders. Unfortunately Trump is too little, too late! I also know that Trump will be elected again, because he gives the jews everything they want; why would the jews trade horses in mid-stream. The fact that all the democratic candidates are degenerates, also ensures Trump will be reelected. What I am curious about is after Trump is reelected will he show us a new face, will he drop his immigration stance, or will he become more fanatical. Remember what Obama did in his second term, he orchestrated all those gun control psy-ops. Only we can save ourselves, only a grass roots movement in which millions of whites start a revolution to take back this country can succeed, no single person is going to get into the white house, and save us–that is jewish territory! Trump is like King Kull in “The Shadow Kingdom,” he is surrounded by snake men!
what would happen if Dem candidates stopped espousing lax immigration and anti-white ideas and instead talked about universal healthcare, workers’ rights, more vacation time, lower college costs, unions, etc?
There would be a mad stampede of working class whites away from the GOP and towards Dems…the Dems would control white house and control congress by a huge supermajority…and that would create a huge problem for the rich–because then Dems would have no excuses to not pass the populist legislation they promised…
ergo, it is logical to assume that the Dems adopt their SJW stances because the media makes do it..and the media does that because their corporate advertisers want them to do it..because they want a balance of power so that the politicians have an excuse for not doing what they promised.
and here is the most interesting aspect of this–I appear to be the only person in the WORLD to point this out!
Wow..this is one big reason why I have pulled back from political activism online…it’s all just too stupid by far to tolerate any longer..
Not quite the only person to raise such points, but well spotted. Try to manage your pessimism, it’s important that those who can think through what’s happening stay engaged.
You’re not the only person to notice this; it only reinforces the hypotheses that there is (((something else))) going on.
When the dissident right supports Yang, they do so as one-issue voters… and that issue is the Freedom Dividend. I would’ve been interested to hear your take on that.
This current crop of candidates seems engineered. Two possibilities present itself:
1) Another candidate swoops in at the last possible time to ‘save’ the party.
2) They have accepted their 2020 defeat and are just throwing sh*t against the wall to see what sticks and use that as a platform for 2024.
I think this is right. Trump has done Their bidding with regard to the Middle East and borders, and he will be rewarded with a second term. This go round, They are letting the crazies and old faithfuls of the Democratic Party have “their chance.” In 2024 the dems will get serious, and Michelle Obama will announce.
It’s so perfectly and symmetrically diverse: a white boy, a black, a Hispanic, a Chinese, an injun, a gay boy, a woman. It smacks of being engineered, doesn’t it?
I submit that Tulsi Gabbard is the only one who can beat Trump. She would get all the Democratic voters and enough Independents, Republicans, and Ron Paul Libertarians to win. I think she would make a great president and this is coming from someone who has never voted for a Democrat in his long life.
Gabbard needs, of course, to be on the debate stage since she is the only prominent politician of any stripe either party who takes principled anti-war stance.
That said, she in no way would make a great president. She is a strident anti-White feminist of color (part Somoain IRRC). She was given affirmative action advantages over more qualified White men in her ascent through the Army officer ranks.
Furthermore, on principle alone, no woman of any race shoule ever occupy a position of authority or outright command over Aryan men in combat, most especially as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
I’m not sure that being a beneficiary of affirmative action should be held against someone. There are far more compelling reasons to oppose Gabbard than the fact that other people most likely promoted her on the basis of her sex and/or race. The system and those implementing it are to blame.
Gabbard also supports slavery “reparations” for blacks. I suspect she is for amnesty and open borders, affirmative action and all the rest. Better Trump, even though he has been a disappointment.
Warren pretended to be American Indian to get affirmative action.
Harris pretends to be African American to get their votes even though she is really half Tamil Brahmin Indian and half Afro-Carribean.
Beto pretends to be Mexican even though he’s white.
I see a party of middle to upper-class whites and hand-picked high IQ non-white immigrants trying to rule over incompetent blacks and Hispanics by pretending to be them or be like them. This is how it’s going to be for a while.
I can’t wait for them to start issuing “me too” attacks against each other by having one of their supporters who went to high school with the candidate engage in a “civic act.” Old Uncle Joe Biden will get some karma for doing it to Clarence Thomas.
Demographics are against the Republican party but diversity is against the Democrat party. Remember folks, diversity is not a strength but a weakness. Counting Jews as non-white, the Democrat candidate’s electorate will be 45% non white in the next election and the GOP’s will be 15% non-white. The Democrat party has a lot of problems. Three times as many if you ask me.
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.