2,515 words 
This year, the Trump train has been more like an emotional roller-coaster. My decision to vote for Trump has flip-flopped almost as much as Trump has. Recently, I re-read my endorsement of Trump from four years ago, “Trump: Without Illusions or Apologies.” I feared that I would want to eat my words. But, much to my surprise, I ended up convincing myself to vote once again for Orange Man.
Still, a lot has happened in the last four years, so I thought I would expand a bit on my reasoning.
First of all, I am under no illusion that my individual vote in a deep blue state will change anything, but to the extent that people listen to me, explaining my rationale might influence enough people in swing states to make a difference. I also want to add to the popular vote tally, for symbolic reasons.
Second, I am under no illusion that Trump will actually fix America. He doesn’t understand what needs to be done, and if he did, he wouldn’t want to do it. No, it is up to White Nationalists to fix America. It always was. I voted for Trump in 2016, 2020, and again now in 2024 because I think it is more likely that, on balance, he will make our work easier than harder.
If you want this election to be a referendum on Jewish power, then you might as well sit this one out. In fact, you can stop reading here. Jews have bought and paid for both major parties. Thus their interests are safe no matter who sits in the White House or Congress. I call that “Hegemony.” Wouldn’t it be nice if the interests of white Americans were as sacrosanct as Jewish interests? That’s my idea of victory. White hegemony will dawn someday. But in the meantime, Jews have out-thought, out-fought, and out-bought whites, and there’s no point in deluding ourselves about it.
If you want this election to be more than a binary choice between Republicans and Democrats, you can also sit it out and stop reading. That’s not the world we live in. I am tired of people claiming that that Donald Trump is an impediment to white identity politics—while Harris somehow isn’t. If you think that Trump is bad on any issue, you need to show that Harris would be better. If you can’t or won’t, then you are not engaged in an adult conversation. You belong at the kiddie table.
If you don’t see any difference between the two parties, you might want to get your eyes examined. For decades, there was no real difference between the parties on issues like immigration and globalization. Trump changed that.
He changed it in 2015, on the day he announced his candidacy. None of his broken promises, none of his waffling, none of his contradictions, none of his Boomerish retreats to “legality” have changed the fact that there is now real political competition on immigration, which is the most important thing that white Americans need to get under control if we are to save our country.
Trump’s messaging on immigration in this campaign has been frankly alarming, but it has improved since Springfield. Beyond that, Trump has also normalized talk of “mass deportations” and immigrants with bad “genes” who are “poisoning the blood of America.” But even if Trump does keep his promise of mass deportations while importing record numbers “legally,” that would still be an improvement over the current situation.
The worst-case scenario is Trump selling the Republicans on an amnesty that they would fight if it were proposed by Harris. But is that likely? Given the choice between the certainty of a worse immigration situation under Harris and the remote possibility of a Trump amnesty, I am willing to roll the dice on Trump.
From a White Nationalist point of view, the only thing worse than a dysfunctional multicultural dystopia is a functional one. Basically, Trump and the rest of the Republicans are committed to the latter. They don’t envision reducing the number of nonwhites. The best they can promise is to police them heavily, call it a color-blind meritocracy, and tell blacks and Hispanics that endemic inequality is “fair.” But, as Jared Taylor pointed out to me, we needn’t fear it will work, because it can’t work. He has a point.
Beyond that, Trump doesn’t have the brass to even try to make it work. Remember that the months of George Floyd riots happened under Trump. Does anyone seriously believe that he would put down such riots with fire and blood in a second term? If not, then the racial polarization will continue, and ethnonationalism will remain the best way forward.
The Republicans are also hoping that a return to economic prosperity and opportunity will blunt racial polarization, but economics is not the driving factor here. Race is. And racial differences will not disappear in a free and prosperous economy. In fact, racial achievement gaps are likely to increase, unless one contemplates handicapping the more enterprising races.
I honestly prefer that America be flooded with low-IQ criminals and welfare parasites than hard-working, high-IQ immigrants, because the more obnoxious the immigrants, the easier it will be to convince people to send them back and close the borders. But as South and East Asians make inroads in white-collar fields, the same college boys who used to defend them as hard-working and high-IQ are turning astonishingly racist. Frankly, the tsunami of “Pajeet” hate offends even me, since I tend to find South Asians to be interesting and agreeable people.
Again, we needn’t fear that the multiracial, color-blind, meritocratic space capitalism favored by people like Elon Musk will actually work. A business or a sports team are not models for a workable society. An ethnostate is. Indeed, ethnonationalism is the best system for technological utopians like Musk. They’ll come around eventually.
Immigration is my main political issue. It was better under Trump than it is under Biden-Harris. Given the certitude that immigration will be worse under Harris and the reasonable hope that it will get better under Trump, I decided to vote for Trump.
There are other important issues at stake as well: freedom of speech, “DEI” and other anti-white measures, economics (including foreign trade), and foreign policy.
Trump and the Republicans have a spotty record on defending free speech. But given the certitude of more censorship under Harris and the reasonable hope of better conditions under Trump, Trump is the obvious choice. The same basic argument applies on DEI and economic issues.
In terms of foreign affairs, things were much better under Trump than Biden-Harris, but things have gotten so bad that I am unsure that Trump could actually improve the situation. This is particularly the case in the Middle East. Thus, on that matter, at least, it might make no difference if we have Trump or Harris in the White House.
Ukraine is another matter altogether. Putin probably would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were in the White House. But Biden-Harris did the right thing by helping Ukraine. Unfortunately, the American Right is rotten with Russian propagandists and influencers, including people like Tucker Carlson, who have the ear of Trump. Thus, in the case of Ukraine, Trump might actually be worse than Harris.
I understand why Ukraine is the most important issue to Ukrainians, but it is not the most important issue to me. Therefore, it won’t stop me from voting for Trump. Fortunately, the most likely outcome for Ukraine would be a conflict frozen on the current borders, which would give Ukraine time to regroup and rebuild. Putin won’t live forever. When he dies, Ukraine can settle accounts.
There are a couple of throw-away arguments for supporting Trump that I cannot leave out, because they might get you off the fence.
First, a second Trump term would be highly entertaining. Frankly, I would enjoy seeing liberal women parading around dressed as vaginas again.
Second, I hate the Left. It all came into focus for me when Corey Comperatore was murdered by Trump’s would-be assassin, a spiteful mutant whose name escapes me. I don’t want to see these people rejoicing over Trump’s defeat. I want them to suffer. I want their spirits broken. Crushing the Left would be beautiful. It would be just. But it would also be practical: they would offer less resistance to sensible reforms.
“But Greg, all of this is premised on voting for the candidate who might produce better outcomes. But what if ‘worse is better,’ you know, to accelerate things.”
I’ve tried my best to see the case for accelerationism, but it just doesn’t make sense. It begins as a way of coping with disappointment. “Yeah, Biden stole the election and will institute horrible policies, but maybe that’ll wake a lot of people up.” But accelerationism has mutated into a perverse strategy that basically reduces to: “We win by losing.”
This first hit me in 2016, when it looked like Trump might win, and one of my readers popped up and suggested that maybe it would be better if Hillary won, “To wake people up.” I balked. The fact that Trump was doing well was a sign that people were already waking up. If Trump didn’t actually offer something better than standard Republicanism, I could buy that argument. But Trump was offering things that actually advanced White Nationalist goals on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. He offered actual wins, so why not take them? Because ultimately, we only win by winning.
We won’t win with an ever-accelerating losing streak until we end up like white South Africans. It doesn’t matter if 90% of white people become red-pilled if we shrink to 10% of the population. Metapolitics doesn’t matter if we are too impotent to change it into actual politics. At some point, we must stop the Great Replacement, even if that means accepting gains from a befuddled Boomer like Trump.
Accelerationism really makes sense only when there is no hope for positive change short of the breakdown of the entire system. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that point. And if things really are that bad, how likely are we to change it merely by giving verbal support to Democrats on the internet?
It also puzzles me that many accelerationists oppose American bellicosity toward Russia, China, or Iran. Because if you really want to accelerate the collapse of the system, nothing beats thermonuclear war. It is odd that accelerationism stops when foreign geopolitical interests are threatened.
“But Greg, Trump may be better, but he’s not perfect. He’s only the lesser of two evils. Shouldn’t we hold out for someone perfect?”
No, choosing the lesser of two evils is basically the definition of rational, adult behavior. The way we win is by making the best possible choices again and again. Obviously, it would be better to be the guys setting up the choices, but we aren’t there yet. And how, exactly, do you envision “holding out” will cause the system to cater to us? It might have worked with your mommy. But we aren’t going to win by acting like spoiled children.
“But Greg, why not punish Trump for his bad ideas by putting Kamala in the White House. Then maybe people will take use more seriously and give us what we want. White people need to become an organized political bloc that can swing elections. Then politicians will cater to us.”
I agree that race-conscious whites need to become an organized voting bloc. I also agree that we must be willing to punish the GOP for betraying us, even if that means enduring Democrat rule. To create such a bloc, we need to know how many of us there are, where we are (particularly in close districts and swing states), and how energized and committed we are. Then we need an organization that can weld these voters into a bloc and use them as a tool for promoting actual political change. But we’re not there yet. We’ve barely started.
There’s a big difference between being an organized voting bloc and merely pretending to be one on the internet. In 2016, there is no question that the Alt Right helped Trump’s victory. But it was “fake it ’til you make it” puffery to claim that “we memed Trump into the White House.” In 2020, the same people claimed that they had memed Trump out of the White House because he had disappointed them. Today, Nick Fuentes has vowed to mobilize his “groyper” legions to tank Trump.
But no candidate will take such claims seriously without numbers to back them up. We aren’t a force to be reckoned with until we can present numbers to reckon with. To do that, however, we need to invest in polling like the Homeland Institute does, not merely in more podcasting.
Beyond that, even if we had the numbers and organization to tank Trump, let’s be real here: Trump is the best of the Republicans. Wouldn’t a serious movement attack the worst rather than the best of the Republicans? Wouldn’t a serious movement begin on a smaller scale, for instance in a congressional race? Wouldn’t a serious movement pick a battle where we are actually likely to have measurable effect on the outcome? If we started investing and building now, we might be in a position to do that in 2026.
I understand why people are disappointed in Trump. I genuinely loved Trump in 2015 and 2016. Now I can barely look at or listen to him. I find his speeches and debate performances painfully sloppy and self-indulgent. Even though the stakes have never been higher for himself or the country, Trump seems incapable of self-discipline and preparation. It doesn’t bode well for a second term.
Fortunately, Trump is surrounded by much better people this time around. I’m pleased that he has been endorsed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, but I am especially satisfied with his choice of J. D. Vance as his running mate.
Vance is a vast improvement over Mike Pence. He is also far superior to the other people who were being considered for the spot, like the neocon Nimrata Haley. Vance clearly has a better understanding of nationalism and populism than Trump himself, and he is a far more articulate spokesman. Once Trump’s time is over, Vance will be the natural standard-bearer for nationalism and populism in America. That is a huge step forward.
As a commentator on X pointed out, Vance is the true historic first in the contest. He is the first “extremely online” American to be running for Vice President. Vance’s X account indicates that he is plugged into the broader “Dissident Right.” He reads people who read me. The same cannot be said for Tim Walz. If White Nationalists want to influence politics, this is how it happens. But it won’t happen at all if Harris is in the White House instead.
Sadly, Trump is the weak link in the Trump team. That’s why I voted for Vance and his running mate. I want all of my readers to do so as well.
135 comments
Thanks for coming back to the Trump camp Greg. I was very disappointed by your previous essay urging us to vote for Harris in order to speed the demise of the country. For all his faults I think Trump does have an instinctual knowledge of what is plaguing us.
However I’m puzzled at your distaste for those of us who are highly suspicious of Pajeets? After 40 years of dealing with them I have noticed several patterns in their behavior. First being deceitful is plain and simply part of their culture. The truth never escapes their lips. Even when you catch them dead to rights they will continue to perpetuate their lies. Is India a high trust society?? I seriously doubt it. They don’t pay their bills either.
Second , they are extremely uncleanly. Anyone eating at an Indian restaurant is rolling the dice. I’ve seen rats, cockroaches, and various species of insects I never knew existed. In my opinion they rank dead last on the health o meter. Behind the Mexicans and the Chinese.
Third they are very ethnocentric ,rude and pushy. They would not hesitate to take our countries out from under our feet. Did they not have a hand in destroying South Africa? It’s no wonder to me that India is said to be the origin of Gypsies.
Could it possibly be that you’re having a NAXALT moment?
The accelerationist argument just doesn’t work.
I have had very limited interactions with Indians, and I am fully willing to accept that they might be wild outliers.
Re S. Asians.
“Understanding India”. Talk by JAYANT Bhandari in Turkey at Property & Freedom Society:
https://www.thinkinghousewife.com/2024/10/understanding-india/
I think he is sweet on China, though.
*******************
Talk by Frank Raymond, a South Asian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-65WSrifIE&t=121s
FWIW.
I would urge everyone here to listen to Frank Raymond’s speech.
As a person of East Indian ethnicity with broad exposure to both the colored and Caucasian races, minds and cultures, he is able to provide an outsider’s insight into the white mind, and show how it differs from the minds of other races. He stands for the principle that every race is unique and valuable, but he opposes the Cultural Marxist and ‘liberal’ tenet that the white race alone is non-existent, worthless and dispensable.
Greg Johnson: October 18, 2024 I have had very limited interactions with Indians, and I am fully willing to accept that they might be wild outliers.
—
Your interaction with them aside is it not enough that they cannot make White babies?
I agree with Mr. Dobbs about those racial aliens he calls Pajeets.
I wasn’t considering them as wives!
Greg Johnson: October 19, 2024 I wasn’t considering them as wives!
I did not expect you were. Just a reminder of the biological fact that Pajeets cannot make White babies.
As racial outliers, “wild” or tame, they must lie outside of exclusive White living spaces. Allowed in, it is likely that they might marry and breed with one of our own.
‘White hegemony will dawn someday. But in the meantime, Jews have out-thought, out-fought, and out-bought whites, and there’s no point in deluding ourselves about it.’ That is an admission that many on the dissident Right seem unable to make. Perhaps less time ought to be spent by the Right kvetching about Jews, and instead trying to sneak a peek at their playbook to see what we are doing wrong.
First thing, then: stop the Christian nonsense of loving your enemies and doing good to those that hate you.
Christians believe in helping immediate neighbors aka family and ethnic brethren (key word) first. “Loving the enemy” and “doing good to those who hate you” is given the meaning of being patient and not being an out-and-out destroyer of others (which again, would apply first to more immediate neighbors, aka family and ethnic brethren). Even then such patience has its limits; for some, perhaps many, perhaps more of some than of others, it is better that a millstone be tied around their neck.
Of course, ethnosuicidal (and sometimes ethnosupremacist) heresies happen based on misinterpretation, but that is to happen with any thought, considering some people are simply hardwired to think like that. Secular thought, being based on experiential reality and incomplete material science, is thusly more riven by contradiction. Christian thought has cycles of heresy because people are fallen, but eventually every so often gets purged of errors, as it remembers the One Truth comes from above.
And yeah the jews have ethnic pride and some other positive attributes, but that doesn’t excuse their evils, we can learn the former without sinking in the latter (as the non-Christians, and some dumb/evil Christians, tend to do).
Thank you. I’ve been advocating this, here and elsewhere, for a very long time. Isn’t Israel something like what WE want: a theorized, created, functioning, and enduring ethnostate? I don’t advocate foreign aid, let alone foreign wars, for Israel. But surely we can admire their frank ethnonationalism, and perhaps consider it as something of a model for our own ethnostatist future – one in which hardcore “White Zionists” (in the William Pierce sense) carve out and daily build up an ethnostate somewhere, whilst their co-racialists in other nations support them financially, and run political interference for them?
My main rationale at this point is that a Trump victory serves an important metapolitical purpose because of what people who hate him erroneously believe he stands for. If Trump loses, I fear the GOP ousts everyone decent associated with him, says ‘this is why we can never do this again,’ and returns to its historic posture.
Remember that following Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, the official GOP postmortem was that remarkably weak campaign had somehow been too tough on immigration. The party establishment has always been deeply uncomfortable about having a white base and would dearly love to get away from that. They’ve been desperate to get back to their “just economics and Israel” platform for eight years. I think another Trump loss is perfect cover for them to put up Nimrata in 2024. That she would lose by massive margins is likely inconsequential in their calculations.
The Left, on the other hand, would see this unambiguously as the last political gasp of white America. Trump does not actually care about white issues to any satisfactory extent, but in the minds of his critics he is an avatar for whiteness itself. Many of those critics hold power and influence and would spread the narrative of the end of white America with glee.
With a Trump victory, I think the last of the establishment “respectable Republicans” will leave the party in disgust. That would be a very positive development. Grinder would no longer crash every time the GOP holds a convention. I also think the Left will be so apoplectic after a Trump victory that it could further alienate normal whites, making them more conscious of important political realities. Honestly I would expect more leftist terrorism, which could only serve to hurt their overall cause.
I agree with all this. A Trump victory would make the ongoing national-populist trend in the Republican party pretty much irreversible.
Very well said. Like Peter Brimelow said a year ago, the reason for Trump to win a second time is because of what it causes to happen “by accident” more so than by what’s planned
Trump forces Conservatives, whether they like it or not, to talk about demographics and mass immigration — as well as racial differences as least to some marginal degree. That, and even the minor things Trump does (Tear gas at the border, stalling asylum claims, etc) continues to buy Whites’ time. I do believe that Trump failed more than he succeeded in term one, but there’s no question that he did prevent millions of browns and yellows who could have otherwise come in under the watch of someone like John McCain or Gavin Newsom, and legal immigration was less than under W. Or Obama. Trump losing this time could cause the GOP to return to its George W. Bush ways, while Trump winning again could prevent that from ever happening again.
The rest of the decade is on the line, and things are scary. Kamala would no doubt increase non-whites by upwards of another 12-20 million, and that would start 2030 with South African conditions already well underway. However much it sounds like a broken record, the damage that has happened under Biden is so high that another term with the multiracial Fran Drescher in charge may very well destroy any remaining chances at resistance. Sigh….we cannot take that chance, no matter how mad we are at Trump for past underperforming
While I have my issues with JD Vance too, he did say on Fox News the other day that a great contributor to low incomes and high housing costs is “because 25+ million people who shouldn’t be here are here.” If, by the grace of almighty God, Trump and Vance somehow follow through on repatriating the 20 million figure they quote, that alone would make Whites 66.8% of the USA again — about where we were in the early-2000s. Whites being 2 out of 3 Americans nationwide, while far from perfect, is light years better than only being one out of every two. This would bring 2030 to a massive head start for White Nationalists for further improvement over time.
All I can say is that if Trump and Vance somehow get in, our job is to demand 24/7 that they follow through on their promise to deport millions and to seal the border. And if White Nationalists get in trouble with anything in the neat few years, we at least have “a shot” at fair trials, Supreme Court cases, or pardoning. We have zero chance at that with the Dems in charge
No matter how difficult, we have to hold our noses and push the button for Donald one more time. Swallow your pride, calm your heart and mind, and prepare to do so in a few weeks. We’ll see what happens afterwards
I agree that we need to organize as a lobby and a voting bloc to demand that deportations and border closures actually take place.
Greg, thank you for your essay, it was an enjoyable and energizing read. I do plan on voting for Trump/Vance this election. Though I’m in a “swing” state and not sure how my state will go, “I also want to add to the popular vote tally, for symbolic reasons.”
I agree with many of your points, but two of them strongly resonated with me:
“…I hate the Left…I want them to suffer. I want their spirits broken. Crushing the Left would be beautiful. It would be just.”
And, I have a lot more hope for the future with this possibility:
“Once Trump’s time is over, Vance will be the natural standard-bearer for nationalism and populism in America. That is a huge step forward.”
Thanks Richard. If you are in a swing state, then don’t just vote. Get your friends and family to vote. Drive people to the polls. Etc. Do everything you can. If you consider doing it, then think, “Naw, other people are doing that, I can stay home,” chances are others are thinking the same thing, which is how bad things happen. So just do it. Switch the excuse setting to “off.”
I am glad you like Vance too. He has been amazingly good.
The extreme dislike for Vance on the part of the America Firsters is puzzling to me. The others who were considered like Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Kristin Noem are all much bigger pro-Israel simps than Vance is.
Yes, Vance’s race-mixing is not a point in his favor, but Haley is a race mixer too, in addition to being Indian, and at least JD didn’t sign bombs in Israel. Dog killer Kristi Noem, like Nimrata, is one of those true believing Christian Zionist fanatics. Uncle Tim Scott, who also married outside his race, has been one of the leading pro-censorship voices in the Senate.
Vance was the least objectionable running mate Trump could have chosen; it really isn’t even debatable.
Children don’t understand that when it comes to evaluating a candidate, the relevant contrast is to the other candidates, as opposed to their own fantasy alternatives.
True what you say there. Temporal political leadership is not the same as that of a religion, where ideological purity is paramount for cohesion and the heresiarch has to be cast out. In temporal politics, specially but not only dumbocratic ones, results matter more than purity. ZionDon and Hin-D Vance may ring true, Thiel and BAP and others surrounding them may be noxious – but as I said elsewhere, it is better for the frog to be boiled slowly and perhaps waking up when hot enough, than to be flash-fried in an instant without it having chance to notice. Furthermore, regardless of either path, the frog (us) must wake up itself.
JD Vance, while I too have very many issues with him and I don’t believe ultimately that he’s one of us, was by far the least bad choice from the list of possibilities. I too was relieved that he didn’t choose Vivek, or a woman (even a White woman) or Tim Scott. That Doug Burgam guy or Glenn Youngkin would have also been disasters. Despite being White men, they are so unbelievably cucked on race and demographics, and they’d just govern like Dick Cheney from an economic and foreign policy standpoint
Had Trump chosen Tim Scott or Vivek, that would have likely been the final blow to ever nationally portray the United States of America as a White country again — built by Whites, for Whites. That would have told the entire world that we’ve totally given up our demographic sovereignty not only for any non-white to reside here, but to actually have the right to be in charge of our Country that they didn’t build as well.
Vance was the least bad choice. Without question
Fuentes almost always mentions Palantir, Peter Thiel and what he refers to as the Thiel network when talking about why he supposedly doesn’t trust Vance. Fuentes also specifically brings up BAP and other pro-Vance people when talking about Vance. It seems like Fuentes’ issue is with the people that he sees as supporting Vance more than anything. Fuentes apparently has a lot of resentment towards those people. And Fuentes also talks about Vance’s nonwhite wife and appearance/weight and occasional apparent social awkwardness, but these things don’t seem to be the driving force behind Fuentes’ anti-Vance stance.
Anyway, I agree with you and believe Vance was probably the best VP option. I especially like his advocacy of free speech protections, and he is very effective in interviews and debates. Has been a great running mate.
Starting in 2018 or 2019, I started noticing a great deal of just flat out paranoia about Thiel amongst the “wignat” Right. Somehow he was responsible for their failures. Not themselves, not antifa, not corporate deplatformers, not conservative Inc., etc.
The most vivid example I can recall is when I dismissed Mike Enoch’s white knighting for the Hollywood hookers who #metooed Harvey Weinstein. Eric Striker then started claiming that Peter Thiel paid me 18k in Bitcoin to defend Harvey Weinstein on Twitter
The mind boggles. Aside from the odd notion that Thiel would care about Weinstein, I had no clout on Twitter. I probably had fewer than 18k followers at that time and not much in the way of retweets and likes.
Another instance of Thiel paranoia is when a former Imperium Press writer had a bipolar episode on Twitter and accused Thiel of buying Bronze Age Pervert a microphone to get him started as a podcaster. As if one needed a billionaire to buy a ISB mic. The guy was so passionate about this thesis, that, if I recall correctly, he started doxing people who disagreed with him.
When people start blaming someone for things as picayune as losing a Twitter dustup or buying a microphone, that’s pretty clearly paranoid ideation.
Nicely stated.
Aside from just how absolutely awful Kamala would be as president and the irreparable devastation should would ultimately bring to our country, I am voting for Trump to witness the greatest outbreak of mass hysteria on the left in history.
Now you’re talking. Also, there must be a reason for the latest Directive from the DOD, whereby the army is permitted to kill Americans in America. Hint: they won’t be killing any rioting leftists if and when Dondi should win.
https://ronaldwchapman.com/blog/dod52401
Take, for example, the events of January 6th, a day that will likely live in our memories—and the history books—for a long time. It’s not hard to imagine how a future administration might use this Directive to call in the troops if something like that were to happen again. Under the current directive, we’re looking at a situation where, if civil disorder escalates, the Secretary of Defense could approve the use of military assets in the streets. And if the situation calls for it, there’s even potential for deadly force.
Banana republic is us.
I understand that Vance has gone through a political change this past decade. He was once a never-Trumper. He also once stated that he hated the police after the incident in Ferguson, MO back in 2014. But according to Victor Davis Hanson, who knows Vance and has spoken to him about this, Vance’s transformation has been genuine and not an act of cynical shape-shifting.
I agree that Trump could not have selected a better running mate than JD Vance.
I don’t know about that. It’s not at all a good look for the future “American [civic] nationalist” face to be a blatant race-mixer. And I would remind people that Ron DeSantis was the first person to get out front and aggressively state that, as President, he would not allow any Palestinian invaders, er, “refugees”, to swarm into the US after the Gaza War had commenced. I didn’t hear a peep from Vance. Granted, he wasn’t campaigning for President, but then again, how often do we hear Vance denouncing immigration, as opposed to his and Trump’s oft-repeated loud and stupid braying about “free trade” – which evinces fundamental ignorance both economic (tariffs will not help the economy) and political (there are many conservative persons tied to the current trade regime)?
White nationalists don’t like DeSantis because he sucks up to Jews. Ever been to Florida? But pro-white paleocons like him because he actually fights the Left, and on white issues (DEI, affirmative action, law and order, illegal immigration).
I think you and others here will be disappointed in Vance (I hope I’m proven wrong).
Tariffs will be good if they aren’t crazy and come with some help for local workers and businesses who choose to keep production here. Trump mentioning a taxcut to such businesses is a start.
About the refugee-invaders, yeah I’d hope Vance keeps them out regardless of peeps or not. DeSantis would vow that but then feed the ziomachine that causes (even more of) them, and bring them from other nations (including said ziostate). Regardless, neither is optimal, nor is ZionDon. We are holding our noses on them all.
Agree wholeheartedly with your assessment and choice. Vance has been a breath of fresh air especially with how easily he parries with the media. Having a non white spouse may actually help him in this battle. I have one and she definitely has come around to some of my thinking. Trump is no cure all but he’s the best of a thin lot. He’s a lock here in Missouri but down ballot we’re sliding ever so gently to the left and it’s dis-concerting. The dem for senate wouldn’t even state that he supports Harris’s candidacy and policies. He’s trying to play to Missouri and it’s sad really. Trying to be conservative as a democrat simply doesn’t work anymore.
Well said and very balanced. Thank you.
I disagree on Ukraine however. President Trump was impeached for daring to say “no” to the installed puppet Zelensky and for refusing to do what the Democrats are doing now which is escalating US provocations against Russia though the most corrupted “country” on Earth. Trump wasn’t going along with all that WAR against Russia Russia Russia and he got regime changed (ironically) so that regime change operations could be continued against President Putin. Trump if re-elected will have the power to deescalate our suicidal “support” for Ukraine and this is a good thing.
Zelensky was “installed” by the voters of Ukraine.
There is no “war against Russia,” but there is a Russian war against Ukraine.
Ukraine is, of course, a country, the homeland of the Ukrainian people.
There’s nothing suicidal about supporting Ukraine.
Maybe not “suicidal”, but I can think of better ways for Washington to spend $175 billion other than supporting and prolonging other countries’ conflicts.
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine
Actually, there is more: $425 million, as of this month:
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3937146/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/#:~:text=This%20Presidential%20Drawdown%20Authority%20(PDA,;%20and%20anti-tank%20weapons.
“This Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) package, which has an estimated value of $425 million, will provide Ukraine additional capabilities to meet its most urgent needs, including: air defense capabilities; air-to-ground weapons; munitions for rocket systems and artillery; armored vehicles; and anti-tank weapons.”
All the horrible things the US government wastes money on and your objection is to something that allows a white country to defend itself from a second Soviet empire?
Ukraine is technically White in terms of majority population, but no longer under White control. Just as USA is no longer under any meaningful pro-white control.
Let’s just keep the Ukes fighting them orcs until every Ukrainian (male) is dead and maybe all the orcs, too. Right.
That “white country” also needs to defend itself from the American Empire, not only Russian Empire. This is frying pan/fire territory the Ukrainians are in. Let us look after ourselves. I am not suggesting that the govt take $175 billion and use it to welcome hostile foreigners or fight “climate change” and “racism”.
Who appointed Amerikwa ruler and policeman of the world anyway? Let me know.
The idea Ukraine can win is stupidity but even if they did, what then? They’d be subsumed by the Zionist west
they are outvoted in the EU even if they align with Poland and Hungary. The Jew always is one step ahead
People have been saying that Ukraine can’t win for more than two and a half years now. Their faith in Russia, the sick man of Asia, is charming.
Standard Russian propaganda always plays up the power of the Western establishment so it can sell us on Russia as a potential savior. But Russia is clearly weak and declining. All told, I would rather have Ukraine on my side.
Ron Paul says it well:
Why Should we Fight Wars for Ukraine and Israel?
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/why-should-we-fight-wars-for-ukraine-and-israel/?mc_cid=2f51c34971&mc_eid=ac8bf73638
A little excerpt:
When you take on the role of the world’s policeman, don’t be surprised when countries who cannot fight their own wars call “911.” That is exactly what is happening to the United States on two fronts and it is bankrupting our country, depleting the military that should serve our own national interest, and threatening to drag the US into World War III.
When Ron ran for the Republican party nomination, the Republican party stomped all over him to make sure he was not heard. I ****ing hate the GOP more than the Donkeys if that is even possible.
———-
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/ron-paul-campaign-press-release-ron-paul-military-donations-nearly-twice-those-his-gop
Zelensky installed himself after his term expired with no new election this year. He is an American, Zionist puppet who would be snorting coke and piercing his dick if he weren’t sucking above-mentioned cock.
The Ukrainian constitution prohibits elections in times of war. Thus the constitution “installed” him in an extended term. Or better: Putin “installed” him.
The Ukrainians should continue to fight and to die to stay under the rule of Jewish puppet of the British and not to come under the power of Jewish and Armenian puppets of China. A nice choice.
What a farce!
All elections in Ukraine after 2014’s Putsch are parually illegitime, because the President and the Parliament should be elected by the whole country, and parts of Ukraine are under Russian control. If the Ukrainian constitution had noted that as lost lands, just like Germans gave up Preussen und Schlesien, it would be OK to elect only in the regions, which are under Ukrainian control, but this was not done, so big parts of Ukraine could and can not elect the President or parliamentarians, so the President and the Parliament are not fully legitime.
Thank you for changing your mind, yet I worry that some of the younger folks you may have previously persuaded may not see this article as it rolls down the roster. CC, and you as the head honcho, have great influence and I hope you will bang the drum a few more times over the coming days.
Yes, I will keep banging the drums.
I would love to debate some of the never Trumpers in our circles.
Maybe post an debate offer/challenge as it’s own article. It would help with sharing it around. I think such a debate at this point in time would be great for getting Counter-Currents and your name in front of more people. It would also be a very entertaining debate.
You should debate Nick Fuentes himself. He’s the chief neo-wignat or bad faith fed promoting the non vote and helping the most genocidally anti-white option.
I’m willing.
Good! Fuentes will go to the Elija Schafer show on the 27th or something like that. Elijah is not totally insane and not a fed so he’s defending the position of voting for Trump, but he’s not the brightest. You should contact him and offer to be a proper counter to the insanity Fuentes is peddling. Seems a nice opportunity.
Fuentes said that Schafer is a pedophile. I think it is bizarre that Schafer would platform him.
MarcDF: October 19, 2024 You should debate Nick Fuentes himself. He’s the chief neo-wignat or bad faith fed promoting the non vote and helping the most genocidally anti-white option.
===
Greg Johnson: October 19, 2024 I’m willing.
—
“Wignat” is a new one on me, but from the little I’ve seen of the arrogant upstart, Mr. Fuentes, I hope you will debate him, Greg, if only to ask how he and his silly groyper troops plan to exterminate all non-Christians when they take over.
Wignat means “Whigger nationalist” as opposed to “White Nationalist.” I always took it as a jab at movement people with low IQs and high time preferences.
Thanks Greg. Like you, my opinions have evolved throughout the election cycle. Several weeks ago, I was convinced that I was just not going to vote. I’ve sadly come to terms with Trump’s Jewish handlers, but I also realize that it took me until I was 40 years old to even be aware of the JQ, and I have to give normies and boomers some slack in that regard. There are more pressing issues right now, the first hopefully reversing the third world hordes dismantling our nation.
Thanks. Please do follow through with voting. Do it early if you can. And then help others you know to vote as well.
Greg Johnson: October 18, 2024 Please do follow through with voting. Do it early if you can. And then help others you know to vote as well.
—
Although I oppose the entire current electoral process of mass democracy, especially at the national level, I held my nose and voted early yesterday — for Rabbi Trump, despite conclusively learning that he is the most Jewish non-Jew extant, here: “Let’s Talk About Donald Trump” at nationalvanguard.org.
He may have some handlers that are sketchy but he’s at least learned to keep his family out of the mix. Especially his son in law and daughter. His children are great and should be helpful to our cause. I’ll leave it at that.
The worst-case scenario is Trump selling the Republicans on an amnesty that they would fight if it were proposed by Harris. But is that likely? Given the choice between the certainty of a worse immigration situation under Harris and the remote possibility of a Trump amnesty, I am willing to roll the dice on Trump.
It is a virtual certainty that the Chamber of Commerce and the jews in the GOP will put forth an amnesty if the GOP has enough votes when combined with DNC votes. This was the scenario under Reagan and it’s the same scenario that played out under Trump 1.0. People forget the some parts of the GOP was trying to pass some parts of a legitimate ‘immigration control’ during Trump’s first term and he was no help at all.
The GOP cannot be trusted with immigration. The only thing that keeps them from going ‘full amnesty’ on their voters is the backlash and the fact that it would destroy the kayfabe around them being the ‘babyface’ on immigration as far as their voters are concerned.
It isn’t a virtual certainty. It is a remote possibility.
If the GOP are in power then the potential backlash and loss in future election will scare them from approving such an amnesty, as it did during Trump 1.0. And as bad as the GOP was to the paleocon/immigration restriction wing during that term, it could have been worse – as the Dem regime was during the last 4 years. If they are not in power, then they might block such an amnesty for political points, but the Dems will sneak in way more people than them regardless. Many times, whoever occupies the bureaus that apply the law matters more than the laws passed themselves.
Trump and the Republicans have a spotty record on defending free speech. But given the certitude of more censorship under Harris and the reasonable hope of better conditions under Trump, Trump is the obvious choice. The same basic argument applies on DEI and economic issues.
There is less a chance of ‘antisemitic’ speech laws being passed under the DNC than the GOP. DeSantis passed ‘antisemitic’ speech laws in Florida without the slightest objection by GOP stalwarts.
Yes, as I said, the GOP is spotty on free speech, but on balance better than what we have now or can expect under Harris.
Both parties are philosemitic, just one more zionist than the other, while the latter being more antiwhite than the former, which hurts all whites and not just the jq-pilled ones (which will get hurt anyway, alongside any nonwhite antisemite allies; meanwhile at best a slap on the wrist will be given to the ziostate, which is fed by all the diaspora orgs fed by both parties regardless of position on Palestine, and will not get the Rhodesia treatment by either east or west; meanwhile refugees from both sides of the green line will keep coming).
They chief reason to not vote for Trump is the same reason not to vote for Harris: Neither of them are pro-White.
So let’s look at the likely outcomes:
Trump wins and he does everything he says he’s going to do. This is a ‘lose’ for Whites. Nothing Trump has said he is going to do will be good specifically and uniquely for Whites. He panders to non-Whites and non-Anglos. Even Vance cannot talk about ‘whites’ without also talking about non-Whites as if they were equivalent to him.
Harris wins and she does everything she says she’s going to do. This is a ‘lose’ for Whites. But, nothing Harris has said she is going to do to Whites is any different than what’s been done for to Whites since 1860.
If Trump wins, the GOP will not change. It will still be the Chamber of Commerce versus the White working class and the GOP jews against all Whites and all effort will be put forward to purge pro-working-class and anti-Semitic elements from the party.
If Trump loses, the GOP will not change. It will still be the Chamber of Commerce versus the White working class and the GOP jews against all Whites and all effort will be put forward to purge pro-working-class and anti-Semitic elements from the party.
If Harris wins, the GOP will either fight (and fail) or ‘compromise’ and give away the farm. Either way, the GOP looks less and less like a viable vehicle for the political will of its voters.
White Nationalists are not going to get anything of value from this election. Participating is just a humiliation ritual.
When the game is rigged, it’s not practical to keep playing. The only practical action is to build your own game.
In ‘swing states’ the generically pro-White or Concerned White vote could be a factor. When the private polling comes out and the GOP realizes that the strategy of trading in ‘Rico’ for ‘Karen’ and ‘Paul’ has failed, they won’t change their approach one iota. We don’t live is a system where the GOP elite responds to ‘democratic input’ from the GOP’s ‘base’. The GOP elite is rich jews and Whites who despise their voters.
The strategic goal for White Nationalism cannot be the ‘conversion’ of the GOP into a pro-White entity. It cannot happen and it will not happen.
The GOP must die so that White America can survive and thrive.
This is because the GOP’s role in the American Punch and Judy show of jew-dominated America is to keep non-urban Whites on the ‘proposition nation’ plantation long enough to have their assets stripped. This asset-stripping operation is ongoing using whatever mechanisms available including immigration and uses of immanent domain as projected through ‘civil rights’. The recent efforts to drive Section 8 housing into stable White suburbs is part of this asset-stripping project.
The idea is to drive immigrants into functional White neighborhoods, inducing White flight and stealing all the sweat equity that went into creating them. The jews have learned that ‘global’ recessions are bad for them and are now working on ‘targetted recesssions’ focusing on Whites and their existing assets.
Whites are a stateless people who still hold a lot of national assets.
The long-term goal of the jews is to keep Whites stateless while divesting Whites of the assets they currently hold.
The best way to destroy a people is to destroy the infrastructure they rely on.
The jews have already seized control of the means of decision-making that Whites have come to depend on (including elections and both political parties). The deployment of CAFTA, NAFTA and MFTN China opened up many asset-stripping opportunities in the ‘Rust Belt’ but judeo-capitalism cannot grow if it cannot find new areas to exploit. Hence, they have begun endo-colonization of targeted White areas to drive Whites into…nowhere. The jews are hoping that kicking the economic foundation out from under Whites will just get them to engage in mass suicide or racial dissolution. Suicide is already happening for White males and White women, unable to find ‘suitable’ White male mates will eventually miscegenate their own genetic uniqueness out of existence.
That’s the kind of political operation that White Nationalists are fighting and that’s the kind of counter-politics we need to be developing.
Trump isn’t even a blip on this kind of process. And the only way to turn it around is for White Nationalists to tactically not vote at the national level while continuing to vote GOP for state and local officers.
Don’t vote Trump.
Don’t vote anyone for President.
Trump’s motives don’t matter as much as what he might accomplish. Like I said, Trump’s value to White Nationalists is that he might make our work easier than harder. Only White Nationalists, however, will create a white American homeland.
I see no value in voting GOP on the state and local levels and NOT on the national level.
That’s how I feel. I just filled out my ballot for Trump and did write ins or third party for everything else. Our republican governor is absolutely worthless. He posts his pronouns and has gone out of his way to facilitate white replacement by opening the doors of the state to “refugees”
The difference is that Harris will bring in 15 million migrants while Trump will only bring in 5 million. Both are a loss for us, but one is a bigger loss. Let’s at least take the smaller loss…
Actually having a working border in place, and standards for letting people in and booting them out, would be a huge step forward. Because then, we can simply lobby for ever tighter standards.
The great danger is that the illegals will simply be legalized by fiat. But that’s more likely from the Democrats than the Republicans.
But there’s no guarantee you’re going to get that. It’s all just speculation. What we know is that the Republican majority Congress during Trump’s first two years tried to pass an amnesty and Trump didn’t say whether he would have signed it or not.
The only immigration position that White Nationalists should be supporting is repatriation not ‘legal and limited’.
That’s why the most important thing for White Nationalists to do if Trump somehow wins is to be a 24/7/365 bullhorn and demand that he follows though on his recorded promise to deport people and seal the border. I totally agree that White Nationalists shouldn’t be focusing on (at least not currently) about how many and who can “come legally”
Immigration policy on who can come and how many (or no immigration at all) is fruitless until we actually show some ability to get people out of the country, and close entryways in. A strong anility to do that hasn’t been demonstrated since the 1950s
If we can get one good thing out of Trump, it’ll be removing some people/making it extremely difficult to come in. If 20 million people are removed, that restores Whites back to 66.8% of the country, and that buys us another decade or so of stronger majority status. Even if only 10 million were removed, that cements our current 60.5% majority through 2030 and still buys more time before things could get seriously bad
Deportations, however many, and strong border security/total closure is what we have to fight for the most if Trump get’s back in. Other things can wait a little longer before those.
Mass deportations IS repatriation. I’m voting for the mass deportations candidate.
The fact is, he didn’t pass such amnesty. If he had desired it, he would have sped it up, as Reagan did. Instead, he was focused on other stuff. Granted, he didn’t do much (i.e. small sections of wall), but was better than the alternative.
How many more extremely disappointing elections do White Nationalists have to go through before ‘lesser-evilism’ ceases to be a credible political argument? The fundamental question for a White Nationalist ought to be whether Trump is pro-White, not whether he is less anti-White than his opponent.
White Nationalists are never going to win anything politically until they stop doing the enemy’s work for them by convincing each other to vote the ‘lesser of two evils’.
White Nationalism isn’t some for of extreme ‘conservatism’.
White Nationalism is a pro-White revolutionary philosophy for the defense, advancement and nurturing of the White race.
This is an interesting case. I see what you’re saying about lesser evilism. However, at present we have to operate within the bounds of what is possible. Currently, white people are still not collectively ready to support openly pro-white politics, but they’re making promising strides in that direction. The question of whether to sit out or vote for a lesser evil is very undesirable politically, but it’s our situation at present. I think we have to be Machiavellian and prioritize whatever gives us even a slight advantage in any way.
I think part of why we struggle so much politically is that our guys are drawn to romanticism. We prize abstract concepts like honor while the Left is crudely materialist. They get things done politically in part because politics is a dishonorable game full of cynical choices, and they thrive in those circumstances. Leftists easily flit from one idea to often directly contradictory ones if it’s in service of power. They will bitch and moan about how Democrats aren’t whatever they want them to be, but still fall lockstep behind them. We on the other hand tend to think in terms like you’ve outlined above, seeing support for a lackluster candidate as an affront to our honor, a humiliation ritual. How many of us would rather lose everything than shame ourselves? That’s strength of character, but it’s weakness politically.
I don’t believe lesser-evilism is the problem. The problem is believing that once you’ve voted for the lesser evil that you’ve done your part. No, voting in a national election should be the tiniest and least consequential thing we do. We should all be organizing at the local level primarily, the state level secondarily, and the national level last of all – and not just organizing to vote. Votes only come around every few years, but working and organizing for our people shouldn’t be a once-every-few-years thing. It needs to be an everyday thing, or we’ll never make it.
Frankly, I think we expend far too much energy talking about Trump vs. Kamala. We should just vote for Trump and get back to the real work of organizing for our people. I know some guys who are out there every week at the local GOP meetings, and have worked their way up and taken control of several local districts – enough districts to oust some cuckservatives at the state level and replace them with nationalists. They’re active in their local communities. You can organize to get on school boards, election boards, city councils, even HOAs… Lasting power grows from the grass roots up, and we mustn’t leave the grass-roots organizing all to our enemies, who never seem to rest…
This is really well said. Gaddius made a great point about the people whose panties are in a bunch about voting for Trump: don’t vest so much emotionally in your votes. Voting should be just one of those things you pencil in some time for every year, like a regular dental checkup, but far simpler and less unpleasant. The real work, which we should take very seriously, is political and community organizing.
My hope is that the Homeland Institute can provide the kind of data necessary for a national political organization that fights for white interests and welds whites together into a voting bloc. When that happens, it would be great if there are pro-white people already organized locally all around the country. Since we want to bee able to swing elections, we will especially need to be well organized in congressional districts that are highly competitive, where small numbers make a bid difference. We should also pay special attention to organizing in swing states.
You seem to think that somehow, magically, if we don’t participate in politics, things will get better for us. Please explain how that magic will happen.
Picking the better of the options available to us is pretty much the definition of rational behavior. How is being irrational going to help us?
It’s misrepresentation to say that not playing the lesser-of-two-evils game every four years isn’t playing politics. In close elections, ‘the White Nationalist vote’ could make a difference. Serious politics is not about predicting the future, but creating it.
How is White Nationalist support for Trump creating anything politically? I submit to you that it is not. If our support was known, Trump would repudiate it.
How is White Nationalists and Concerned Whites not voting for Trump creating anything politically?
Uncharitably, you could say that White Nationalists refusing to vote for Trump are ‘making things worse’. But I doubt you could make that argument pan out over the long haul. Trump isn’t guaranteed to make things better, and I am doubtful that Harris is guaranteed to make things worse. If you think about it, Harris and her ilk have had four years to attack ‘free speech’ and what have they achieved along those lines? Nothing so far as I can see.
At some point, White Nationalists have to organize themselves as a political minority with political majority aspirations and conduct ourselves as such.
As a political minority, our chief power is in affecting outcomes in narrow elections.
When elections are not narrow, our votes are irrelevant.
When elections are narrow, our votes can be significant.
But in order to leverage our minority vote, the other political factions need to understand that we will not vote for their candidate unless we get concessions up-front.
There’s a difference between being an actual organized ethnic lobby and swing voting bloc and merely pretending to be one on the internet.
You are merely doing the latter.
We have only taken the first baby steps toward doing it in the real world.
You are right, in the sense that if the movement is revolutionary, it won’t do anything of note in a dumbocratic process.
However, even for getting a revolution started, one must have a strong base, and a strong vanguard. Neither is present at the moment. Thus all that can be done is proselytize and infiltrate and heat up the streets and grassroots, so to speak. So the base and the vanguard can come into being. Meanwhile, the mainstream factions and normies are vehicles to be used to the movement’s advantage, no more but no less either.
Good comment.
There’s way, way too much copium ginned up around Trump. Just like last time, all you’ll really get is mean tweets. Israel, however, will get whatever it wants; including White men to do their fighting, and most especially dying, for them.
The asset-stripping you address fits with the Trump/Vance immigration plan to switch from violent non-Whites to that of less-violent non-Whites as the perferred battering ram against White people.
If Vance speaks as though non-Whites and Whites are of equal value to him, that’s because he has non-White children whose future he means to secure. Trump/Vance is the opposite of the fourteen words.
Basically, the anti Trump arguments boil down to: he isn’t anti-Jewish or some form of simping for Muslims, which is basically just another form of anti-semitism. Trump was never advertised as anti-Jewish. So this just seems beside the point. Trump is better on immigration, though, so he’s worth voting for. He’s also probably better on DEI, free speech, and economics. Hence my vote.
You have misrepresented my argument.
I said Trump won’t do anything for White people– except, of course, waste our time and our franchise. The reason that will be alleged that he won’t, will be how thwarted by the deep state/establishment he is. Israel, on the other hand, will suffer nothing in the way of gross intentional incompetence by the Trump administration.
Surely you can grasp that my complaint isn’t that Trump isn’t anti-Semitic, sufficiently or otherwise, but that he isn’t pro-White at all. Trump is better on immigration … on what do you base that assertion?
As I said, Trump might slow violent non-Whites illegals entering the country. But, then, the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign was Build the Wall. His strategy this time will doubtless be bait-and-switch on the importation of violent non-Whites, while opening the damn flood gates to non-violent non-Whites.
I didn’t say it the first time, but I will point out the obvious now. Vance has non-White children. Trump has non-White grandchildren. Trump/Vance is the opposite of the fourteen words. They will work to secure the future of non-White children.
Newsflash: Trump isn’t a White Nationalist. Only White Nationalists are. Thus we cannot expect him to do our work for us. But he can make it easier or harder. Carmella will certainly make our work harder. Trump is likely to make it easier. Hence my vote for Trump.
I think that’s a ‘straw man’ account of the ‘anti-Trump’ position.
The fundamental issue has nothing to do with Trump’s philosemitism. That’s just one factor in a White Nationalist voter’s list of relevant policies related to whether to cast one’s vote for a candidate or not.
The more salient factor is whether Trump has actually earned any White Nationalist’s vote without appealing to lesser-evilism.
I don’t think he has.
And certainly Harris hasn’t.
The ‘immigration’ argument isn’t particularly strong. At best, Trump can be said to have ‘waffled’ on immigration during this campaign. From my particular White Nationalist perspective, I see no relevant difference between a non-White in White territories legally versus a non-White in White territories illegally. They’re both non-White and they’re both in White territories. As for the argument that ‘merit-based’ immigration is better, I’d say it’s worse. Bringing in highly-educated or high-IQ non-Whites is a direct attack on the White ‘knowledge worker’ class. It’s class warfare against the White white-collar working class in exactly the same way that low-IQ border-jumpers are class warfare against the White blue-collar working class.
The issue for any voter – including a White Nationalist voter – is whether or not the candidate has earned your vote.
No political candidate is owed your vote. In fact, in the USA no one is legally required to vote for any candidate at all.
Which is what I suggest White Nationalists do on a selective basis.
Being the lesser evil IS earning our vote.
Greg Johnson: October 21, 2024 You seem to think that somehow, magically, if we don’t participate in politics, things will get better for us. Please explain how that magic will happen…
—
I couldn’t help but think of the timeless quote attributed to Athenian politician and general, Pericles, when you asked that question;
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.
While searching for that I found this one from Charles de Gaullle that’s as appropriate for our purposes:
Politics is too serious a matter to leave to the politicians.
White racial nationalist leaders must be statesmen, not politicians.
* * * * *
Greg Johnson: October 20, 2024 Basically, the anti Trump arguments boil down to: he isn’t anti-Jewish…
—
He’s as pro-Jew as a non-Jew can be. In fact, it’s said he quietly converted to Judaism back in 2017. Trump Converted to Judaism in 2017 – by Anthony James Hall (substack.com)
I’ve already voted for him early anyway for reasons you have given. He could buy racial nationalists some much-needed time that the mongrel Kalama Emhoff and her gang certainly will not.
Good points all, but at the very least could have bought yourself more time 4 years ago instead of trying to accelerate and dwindle white percentages even further (i remember your comments).
Furthermore, not voting doesn’t accomplish anything in itself. It’s not like the nonvoters are arising forming third parties to elect at least a local school board member or something. At best the nonvoters get sequestered in ever smaller bubbles while the world around them chips at them. Example: the Amish still have to participate in the judaic marketplace, and pay the judaic usury and taxes to judaic bankers and bureacrats to sell their wares, and thus still feed the system, who sooner or later will finish them off in various ways (antiChristian/antiwhite discrimination, environmental pollution, increasingly punitive economic and tax policies, Amish endogamy eventually resulting in genetic issues). Granted, white America at large has way more room and genetic pool than the Amish – but it is on the brink of losing its demographic supremacy in these lands (elementary schools are already majority nonwhite, an ominous sign), the “Argentina moment” may be happening soon if it isn’t happening now. Your answer may have made sense 10-12-16 years ago after the W/Romney debacles showed a way worse GOP but with a bad but still salvageable demographic majority. Right now the majority moment is apparently passed, and there is only a question of buying time while awaking as many as possible. True, the awakening had to happen as early as decades ago, with better figures than ZionDon (but still just as charismatic ones, for podcasters and lecturers will never be leaders). Now it is only a matter of picking up as many numbers as possible, and brace for impact. Regardless of who wins, the “boiling pot” will blow over, as increasing amounts of people on all sides of the ethnopolitical aisles are getting more racialized (even the mixeds, who are coalescing around allies based on ideology and/or ethno/geographical proximity, the latter informing the former more often than not).
To JD Vance and his running mate! And to Vance’s rhetoric getting even better and his actions in accordance with it.
I almost always get retail politics wrong, but to me it seems trump does well when the left is divided. When trump won in 2016, there was a major rift in the Democratic Party between the clintonites and the Bernie bros. In 2020, the powers of the left were completely aligned against trump and their power was awesome. This time around, there is the Gaza issue which is a fly in the ointment of the coalition of the fringes. It’s not as big as the Bernie thing, but it is a point of dissension. Young leftists saw the leftist universities slamming their faces on asphalt over peaceful protests. It bodes well for trump.
However, if trump gets in, I have a feeling that within a couple of months, we will missile one of our own ships, say it was Iran, and go to war against Iran in retaliation.
I think you have a good point about the left being divided.
I seriously doubt that Trump is going to waste his last term by going to war with Iran. It would surely accelerate the death of America if he did. I think he’s too realistic to do that, though.
I agree with you on Iran, but I wouldn’t put it past the people who really run things to do that. In his last term, top generals were secretly telling China that they’d refuse to follow Trump’s orders in case he wanted to start a conflict, so there are clearly some rogue Deep State elements in the military. I doubt they said they’d disobey Trump’s orders because they’re pacifists, either. I don’t expect they’ll start a war behind Trump’s back, but I wouldn’t put it past them…
There are courts martial and firing squads to deal with people like this. But of course Trump wouldn’t have the brass to do it, even if it would be wildly popular.
If Trump gets elected with a Republican majority Congress, I predict they will pass a ‘bipartisan immigration reform’ that includes mass amnesty along with some fig-leaf eVerify policies that will get thrown out by the courts.
When the GOP has power, they screw their voters (or at least try to). Every. Single. Time.
That’s the worst case scenario. It is reasonable to consider such scenarios, but if you can’t help but believe them, that’s pretty much the definition of paranoia. We have to weigh such scenarios carefully. I think it is highly unlikely it will come to pass, and given the certitude of things getting worse under Carmella, the reasonable choice is to vote for Vance-Trump.
My prediction is based on past performance. The GOP attempted exactly this kind of amnesty the first two years of Trump’s term. They failed because a handful of GOP House folks would not let it come to a vote.
That actually happened.
It’s not paranoia.
On the other hand, Trump has a history of promising all kinds of stuff and delivering only on the jewish stuff. Like not delivering on the Wall but completely delivering on moving the American embassy to Jerusalem. He didn’t even withdraw from Afghanistan.
I wanted Trump to win in 2016.
I don’t care if he wins or not at this point.
The real action is at the state level and the building out of nullification infrastructure that will allow individual states to defy the federal government.
So it . . . didn’t happen. And based on past experience, you predict that it . . . will happen. Even though the GOP is substantially different from the GOP in 2017 and 2018, before the cucks started retiring or being primaried.
I agree Trump will be as toothless as last time around but maybe his winning would inflame anti-MAGA types again. On Sunday two top secret documents were leaked showing Israel planned attacks on Iran. If Trump wins maybe such files would be leaked in a torrent.
As Dr. Johnson said on a weekend podcast about a year ago, “I will enjoy watching when the wheels fall off this operation (US policy and governmental apparatus)”. The unhinged left might want to defy the obsequious near united GOP front for Israel, slavishly providing Israel everything it wants.
The “handful of GOP House folks” got there based on Trump-propelled MAGAism, and today there is some more of them. Granted, they and some others are still flawed or worse. But again, if enough of them got into power based on people waving “mass deportation” signs, at the very least there is a higher chance they listen and do it, rather than the Dems that literally import votes.
Funny enough, withdrawing messily (key word) from Afghanistan is costing the Dems. ZionDon may not have withdrawn as we wanted but at least kept it cool there and elsewhere.
I voted early and I voted straight-ticket GOP.
I’ve never been a big fan of the GOP and was appalled that a couple of “Conservative” incumbent local state legislators actually won the primary who are Black.
This means that in the general election it was a choice between the anti-White Democrat candidates and the “based” Black GOP candidates.
If the lighter-hued Latinx Democrat candidates had been any less odious I might have been tempted to cross party lines, but the fact is that the Democrats wear anti-White on their sleeves and they are serious about their crusade.
The GOP needs a trip to the woodshed somehow ─ especially the Never Trumpers ─ but the Democrats are unequivocally the sworn enemy.
Furthermore, the idea that we can win by destroying the GOP somehow just falls flat UNLESS you can drop a bigger nuke onto the Democratic (anti-White) party.
Reforming the GOP without the political and moral equivalent of atomic energy is going to be a tough job ─ assuming it is possible to do at all ─ but I just can’t understand the twisted logic of supporting the Democrats at all nowadays. They are our sworn enemies and they mean it.
Anybody who thinks that voting for Kamalamala helps White interests somehow is living in fairy tale cuckoo land. That seems to be quite a few edgy podcasters these days.
And the idea that Cackles is not at least as beholden to the Joos as the Donald is also nonsense.
The best bet for winding down the forever-wars and curbing the global interventions remains Trump.
The immigration debate was also brought onto the national radar by Trump gliding down the escalator. This would not have happened any other way.
🙂
The basic wignat position (and Fuentes is a wignat now) is that the GOP stands in the way of white identity politics but somehow the Democrats don’t. That’s just borderline crazy talk.
I think wanting the republican party to die to make way for white identity politics is silly. Thought experiment: what would happen if the republican party were defunct? OK, some new Conservative Party would arise to replace it. The usual suspects would infiltrate and control it via money and vilification just like they do the Republican party. Back to square one.
We don’t have the time (or ability, maybe) to start a new party from scratch but what we can do is work to take over local GOP districts and thereby gradually gain influence and then power at the state level. Power at the state level can then translate into influence and potentially power at the national level.
Usually there is very little competition to run local districts, and they usually need help since it’s unglamorous down in the weeds. Show up with some friends. Do some work. Be reliable. Put your name in, and vote as a bloc.
I personally know someone who, along with his friends, took over several districts in North Dakota and gained enough power to oust several cucked “conservatives” at the state level and replace them with white nationalists. They are having an influence. It can be done.
The Republican Party circa 2008 and 2012 basically is dying, and Trump is largely responsible for killing it. I agree with Adam Mil that people like us need to fill the newly emerging party with our ideas and our warm bodies.
Where is the equivalent ‘Whites for Harris’ on the GOP side? However you slice, the GOP is less willing to directly address White GOP voters than the DNC. That’s simply a fact.
And I would say that if that is the Groyper’s position, that they’re are, essentially, correct in their analysis.
No ‘concerned White’ is under the illusion that the DNC is pro-White.
However, most GOP voters who are ‘concerned’ about ‘race relations’ think the GOP is ‘on their side’ when it very clearly is not.
This is why the GOP is a bigger obstacle to White Nationalist politics than the DNC.
GOP voters assume an implicitly pro-White agenda the GOP that is simply not there.
Breaking the grip of the GOP on White GOP voters would free up White political energy to be applied in other – more pro-White – political projects, like nullification, and state-based counter-politics to the ‘civil rights’ and anti-White politics of the national GOP.
The DNC are “addressing” white people because they are so obviously anti-white, and they need to hide it. It isn’t a positive sign at all.
The GOP and this includes Trump plays by the silly rule that white identity politics, and only white identity politics, is per se immoral. Our main job is to chip away at that absurd anti-white double standard. But that is a metapolitical project. Not a political one.
Yet the fact remains that whether the GOP are ashamed of it or not, closing the border and deporting millions of illegals (almost all nonwhites) will be good for white people. That’s why you need to vote for Trump. Harris means the certainty of things getting worse. Trump offers the possibility of things getting better. It’s a no brainer.
The GOP and this includes Trump plays by the silly rule that white identity politics, and only white identity politics, is per se immoral. Our main job is to chip away at that absurd anti-white double standard. But that is a metapolitical project. Not a political one.
How is ‘metapolitics’ supposed to ‘chip away’ at this ‘problem’? After all, the GOP is a political entity. It responds to political signals. Your position is that White Nationalists ought to support a political entity that has a ‘silly rule’ that Whites are not allowed to be important to a party whose voters are primarily White.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘silly rule’ to me. That sounds like systematic anti-Whiteness.
But, for some reason, you want to minimize the systematic anti-Whiteness of Trump while supersizing the systematic anti-White of Harris.
Trump and the GOP don’t even want to acknowledge White people as a GOP constituency, but the DNC does.
The DNC is overtly anti-White and therefore is overtly trying to address any Whitelash against that anti-Whiteness.
The GOP is at least as anti-White as the DNC, it’s simply more covert about it and therefore feels no impulse to address its anti-Whiteness.
I don’t see the advantage to Whites – especially White Nationalists – of giving their vote to the Presidental candidate of either party. Each White Nationalist needs to assess their support for Congressional, state and local officers (and referenda) based upon their assessment of the individual candidates position on relevant issues, including racial issues.
You said in another comment that the GOP has changed. If they still have their ‘silly rule’ about Whites even after losing White votes in 2020, I don’t think they have changed. Trump still has a campaign manager who prefers non-White votes to White votes.
No White Nationalist should give their vote to a party that will not address White identity while openly doing so to other non-White identities.
“The immigration debate was also brought onto the national radar by Trump gliding down the escalator. This would not have happened any other way.”
Immigration was already a hot issue before Trump announced his candidacy.
In the years after Romney lost but before Trump declared:
Anti-immigration referendums passed in Oregon and Montana. In each case, the anti-immigrant vote surpassed Romney’s 2012 vote by 25 percentage points!
Jeff Sessions was re-elected Alabama senator unopposed! Because he was the Senate’s leading voice against amnesty, he was so popular with his constituents the Democrats didn’t even try to unseat him!
Despite being outspent $10,000,000 to $200,000, anti-immigrant candidate Dave Brat defeated pro-amnesty Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary. This was the first time in history that a house majority leader had ever been defeated in a primary election. Brat also won the general election by a much better margin than Cantor had in 2012, despite being massively outspent and despite facing a strong libertarian 3rd party challenge.
Anti-immigrant Kris Kobach won the Kansas Secretary of State election with 60% of the vote, the same year establishment Republican Sam Brownback won the governors race with only 50% of the vote.
Trump used an already existing trend to win the election.
Sessions, Kobach and Brat kept faith with their voters. Unfortunately, Trump did not.
Immigration was a hot issue. But there was a gentleman’s agreement in both parties not to compete on immigration and globalization. Trump discarded that consensus. That’s still the best thing he ever did.
Well, at the turn of the 21st century in Arizona, the Marxist “Reconquista” group La Raza (the Race) was holding giant open-borders demonstrations and these were being counter-protested by White little old ladies and retirees, and “WN Militias.”
At some point some White Democrat or media nabob figured out that the Mexican national flag flaunted at these demonstrations was not a good look for the Reconquistas, and so they started using the American flag instead and trying to mainstream open borders like traditionalist civic nationalism albeit with a new Civil Rights mission.
Whites also organized militia groups who not only demonstrated but basically patrolled the border and dropped off bottles of water in the desert on migrant smuggling routes ─ and when they spotted migrants, they notified the Border Patrol and the State Police (the latter only notifying the Border Patrol unless there were other crimes involved that they had jurisdiction for).
However, all the din about controlling the borders that you heard from RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), plus the usual Democrat Schweinerei, always went silent on the subject right after the election, so nothing was done.
The Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano talked tough for the media but once quipped that a border fence really made no sense because you can always bring a taller ladder. Lots of people talked a good game but simply did not believe in border control (and their Kosher fundraisers certainly did not).
But after Barack Hussein Obama was elected in 2008, he appointed Ms. Napolitano to direct the Department of Homeland Security and that moved a Conservative Republican woman, Jan Brewer into the state’s highest office. (Maybe the Obamanator did not think that one through.)
Gov. Brewer later publicly scolded President Obama about the broken border issue right on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport, LOL ─ the point being that in those days even swarthy Democrats had to pretend to support border security.
Arguably the modern Immigration movement began in Arizona when the late President of the State Senate Russell Pearce got SB1070 passed and signed into state law by the Governor in 2010, which easily earned Gov. Brewer reelection later that year.
SB1070 basically made being a migrant without documentation in the state illegal under state law, which means that we don’t have to depend on the Feds to deport Illegals.
So now the State Police could stop a boatload of Beaners anywhere in the state and ask for ze papers please. If Jaime or Hugo didn’t have no stinking papers or any other identification (like a valid Arizona driver’s license ─ which are not issued to undocumented persons) then they had to provide it later or risk arrest (and ultimate deportation) if they are not in the database. It was very much like proof of liability insurance or an operator’s license if you are pulled over by the police and don’t have it on you. You have to send valid papers in or appear in court.
Well, the usual Commies went fully unglued by SB1070 and compared it to racial profiling. Oh dear! But that is what the documentation is for, geniuses, to make it race-blind or unprejudiced. You either have the necessary documentation or you don’t.
If I don’t have a valid operator’s license, for example, and I can’t prove it later, my White skin ain’t going to keep me from being arrested. I might get deported too, but by then I will have given them my Social Security Number and shown them which of the states I was born in.
So after passage, the money poured in from the usual anti-White cabals to defeat SB1070. I believe that there were propositions put on the ballot ─ but getting tough on Illegals was way too popular, so these referenda were either defeated or were passed in favor of tough immigration laws.
Then President Obombah got the Federal courts to gut the relevant parts of SB1070 saying that states had no business enforcing Federal Laws.
Well, maybe not ─ there was a war between the states over this ─ but the reality is that there are many parallel laws which States do enforce right along with the Feds such as murder or drugs. And Libtards normally do not complain about that unless Negro suspects are involved.
After the Obama Courts gutted SB1070, then a fresh campaign was waged to gut Senator Pearce from tail to gills.
They aimed to get all of the Democrats and the Mitt Romney or RINO-wing of the GOP to unite and destroy Russell Pearce, the then State Senate President and force of nature who was behind SB1070.
Senator Russell Pearce was an Army veteran, Sheriff’s deputy, and former Mormon (LDS) bishop from Mesa, Arizona and he was very involved in the anti-immigration militia movement that fellow prominent Mormon, the RINO Congressman and later U.S. Senator Jeff Flake found so horrific.
At one time Pearce was mentoring the White Nationalist J.T. Ready and almost got him elected to the Mesa City Council. Flake personally stopped it. Never Trumper Flake is now President Bidet’s ambassador to Turkey.
I had met J.T. Ready a few times and can state that he was a bit of a nutcase ─ he eventually killed himself after murdering his mixed-race family. This was somehow blamed on Mr. Pearce. But the real reason that Pearce and friends were opposed by the RINO-GOP was because they were signalling to affluent friends that they are not rayciss. Pearce was bad optics for the GOPe.
The usual suspects ran another former Mormon bishop and erstwhile Republican named Jerry Lewis (not kidding) against Russel Pearce who was ousted in a close recall election. Really a sordid tale. Jerry Lewis was not in politics for very long and has never been heard from since. What a tool.
Sorry, back to Trump. Dr. Johnson is absolutely correct. Trump was a billionaire who violated the unwritten rule on Race and the Border that NO other Presidential candidate could have violated in 2015.
When he ran for President in 2008, Sen. McCain’s old local “build the dang wall” campaign ads were virtually Memory Holed.
Immigration is the real reason why the System hates Trump so badly. They have pulled out the stops to stop Trump, and he has a very good chance of actually winning the 2024 election. In the words of the Klingon Kor, the Libtard meltdown next month will be glorious.
And I hope that we at least get a wall.
🙂
The latest:
“Pennsylvania Trump Supporters Receive Threatening Letters”
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/donald-trump-pennsylvania-threats/2024/10/18/id/1184623/
It would be nice if Trump got in and secured the border a bit but the chances of it happening are so remote that it’s not worth it to be complicit in this charade.
I don’t think you’ve understood the right context for acclerationism, but otherwise I agree another trump term has its advantages. /Acc is ultimately about moving beyond the system of ideological liberalism that is the current legal justificati0n for many of the anti-white policies pushed by the zionists and roman empire successors. Immigration for example being a “human right” falls under this umbrella.
In my view demographic change makes liberalism’s decline already a certainty, and trump’s not going to be able to halt that process. His loyalties to this anachronism are not really moving the needle forward to advance western whites spiritually even if he’s going to help rescue the economy. Trump’s worldview is never going to move past the 20th century, and the /acc crowd is interested mainly in how to manage the 21st now that these old paradigms have become obsolete in the new modern environment.
There’s no reason to believe in lost high-trust society norms like “human rights” for the out-group when we’re moving into a demographic majority who won’t reciprocate them. Trump would take a page from Bukele and lean more into authoritarinaism if he were smart. That’s the only real counter to the new woke left. Staging a retreat to prop up right wing larps in the style of CHAZ is not a recipe for reconquista. The cultural right needs to start enforcing its norms on the blue states, for example by canceling sanctuary cities.
I am not sure we are even using “accelerationism” to talk about the same thing.
It’s interesting that, aside from the most fanatical accelerationists, the comments here were overwhelmingly positive. Everytime I’ve popped my head up to advocate for Trump over Biden then Harris, I was met with a barrage of criticism, to put it mildly.
I wonder if it’s just the particular demographics of C-C’s audience compared to that of online chats. Or if the dissident right is truly getting more serious about the election as it gets closer. I hope it’s the latter.
I think people are getting more serious.
No matter which way this thing goes or what the future holds, the vantage points on here are always pertinent and apropos to realpolitikal considerations. The remainder of this decade feels like we’re Luke yelling into the comlink for 3P0 to “shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention levels!” Unlike mark, the pro-Whites haven’t turned to the drunken dark side. A New Hope indeed.
Another important argument in favor of Trump-Vance is Cal-exit. The Left is so brainwashed into believing Trump is the second coming of AH, that his election could seriously advance the idea of Californian secession. It’d be great to crush the Left’s spirit; it’d be glorious if a by-product of that were losing the least white, most-leftist state in the union.
To echo what someone else said above, the most important factor that Greg Johnson seems to be missing from his in-depth analysis here, is that JD Vance is married to a non-White. Indians (or “Pajeets”) are NOT WHITE. That should be the beginning and the end of any conversation regarding JD Vance (and, therefore, Donald Trump, to whom JD Vance is second-in-command), particularly on a site that considers itself to be White Nationalist.
Regarding this particular topic, Greg Johnson further elaborates, that, “the tsunami of “Pajeet” hate offends even me, since I tend to find South Asians to be interesting and agreeable people.” To be very honest, as a White man who has had personal and professional relations with Indians, I find this pronouncement shocking. However, scrolling down to the comments, I read Greg Johnson’s admission that he has not had much personal interaction with Indians, and it all starts to make some sense.
Greg Johnson, please take it from us White people who have been unfortunate enough to deal with Indians, that they are truly among some of the worst non-Whites around. I can even, honestly, say that, if pressed, I would often prefer to be around blacks than Indians, since blacks, while lazy, frequently unintellectual and prone to occasional outbursts of anger or violence, very often come nowhere near the rudeness, pushiness, aggression, lying, scheming, back-stabbing and incredible uncleanliness and downright evil and incompetence of Indians (especially Indians with “degrees” in the USA). There is a reason India is a shithole, and that reason is that it is full of Indians.
As a White man, I also find Indian women to be completely aesthetically unattractive, which gives me one less reason to ever wish to interact with them. Not to mention, that everything I’ve said above is amplified 100-fold, when one realizes that there are about 1.3 billion Indians in the world, compared to about 700 million White people total (and this is without adding the almost half a billion Pakistani and Bangladeshi cousins of Indians to those numbers).
Greg Johnson is a very intelligent man, however, I would respectfully recommend that he obtain some real-world exposure to certain things – for example, Indians (although the process of interacting with Indians will prematurely age you) – before writing about them. And, no, I don’t mean Savitri Devi’s romanticized portrayal of certain upper-caste Indians at the beginning of the 20th century, I mean the real Pajeets infesting the technical and medical fields in the US in the 21st century. It is a fact that a large part of the growing decline of the technical and medical fields in the United States (and other Anglophone countries) in the 21st century can be attributed to it being increasingly swarmed by corrupt and inept Indian (and other non-White) “engineers”, “doctors” and so on.
In any case, JD Vance being married to a non-White Indian is the big “elephant in the room” of the Republican party (no pun intended) and is simply an unavoidable fact that says so much about America’s present and future – a future that, whichever party wins the election, is decidedly non-White.
The phenomenon of Pajeet hate is one of the reasons I don’t think the Silicon Valley preference for multiracial space capitalism will ever materialize.
Excellent points. I agree completely.
The MAGAs do project too much, methinks.
You posted an article about two months ago arguing against voting for Trump as you would rather see a dysfunctional multicultural society (what Biden, Harris, Democrats, et al. would bring) than a functional multicultural society (what Trump, Republicans, et al. would bring). It’s right here: https://counter-currents.com/2024/08/trumps-great-betrayal-on-immigration/ The premise of your thesis was that a dysfunctional multicultural society would cause whites to wake up more to their demographic demise than a functional multicultural society. Thus, in that respect, “Trump is objectively worse for whites” as you put it.
I wonder what made you change your mind. The tenor of this article seems to suggest that it was raw pragmatism. Perhaps it was realizing that the August article you wrote put you in the same camp as Nick Fuentes. Either way, I’m glad you came to your senses. First, things were much better with respect to immigration and foreign policy under Trump than under Biden/Harris. Not to mention the utter insult to those who lost everything from Helene only to have Mayorkass(sic) deadpan and say, “whelp, we’re all out of money for the rest of hurricane season” only for the media/government play the pilpul game in saying its misinformation. “We have enough money for Helene, just not the rest of hurricane season! But it’s not because we’re using FEMA money for migrants! It was FEMA money but then got earmarked under another name, you conspiracy theorist!”
That being said, I’m of the Jim Goad school of thought that America’s problems and divisions are too vast to be solved by the president. Even if Trump wins and tries to get serious on immigration, namely deporting illegals, there will be a Manhattan project level amount of subversion to prevent its implantation. On the note of being pragmatic, there is no way in hell, Trump in office or not, that the federal government is going to entertain the idea of a white ethnostate. Multiculturalism/white people bad is the new state religion. The only tenable option I see in forming a white ethnostate is for a band of well-financed white people to establish a colony somewhere in Antarctica.
Could you elaborate on what you find appealing about Vance? Initially Vance was pretty anti-Trump. He does seem to now not necessarily “bang on the I bar of racial politics” (I think that was someone, forgot who, said of the late Sam Francis) but I think he touches upon racial politics and race realism in an indirect way. I think that is the best option for now. The idea of racial differences is very much taboo but I think with all the migrants/golems Biden’s very Jewish administration (I think his cabinet itself has a quorum to do a Torah reading!) is letting in and Kamala being a DEI candidate that the reality of race, taboo or not, is something that is becoming inescapable.
It became clear to me that we really don’t have to worry about Trump or anyone else creating a functional multicultural society. First and foremost, it isn’t possible. Second, Trump doesn’t even have the brass to try. The dreams of people like Rufo and Hanania, of a cognitive elitist, meritocratic, multiracial capitalism is never going to happen.
Vance is just the best option for now, and he’s very articulate and feisty with the press.
Hi Greg, thank you for sharing. I’m new to the Right, but, one thing that really bugs me is the mindset of the Right, and maybe the Left as well. It is not always black-and-white matters. You can be against hamas/Palestinians and Israel at the same time, the same goes to the Ukrainians and the Russians. It is rather unnecessary to pick a side, is it not?
If you prefer to remain uninformed, then yes, it is better to not pick a side.
Certainly, it isn’t necessary for us to pick a side. And from a purely rational and self-interested point of view, we should probably stay out of that conflict entirely, sit it out and befriend the side that wins.
But unlike the Jew, as white folk of European descent, we have a moral conscience and when we see murderous war crimes being committed, facilitated by OUR MONEY, our natural instinct of fair play clicks in. Call me old fashioned, I react with revulsion when I see clear evidence of Palestinian children being massacred, even though I certainly don’t want them, or their parents, in my country. That’s problem I have with Mark Gullick’s argument, if I interpret him correctly.
I liked Taki’s recent piece on his site – he spoke with moral clarity, as he usually does.
A not so throw-away argument: A Trump victory might prompt blue state secession, CALEXIT, which would be a tremendous gain. It’s not just Trump we’re voting for, it’s “Trump” the image, the Left’s cartoon fascist. Trump triggers the Left like no other. So I’m voting for Vance-“Trump.” Our best defense is a good offense: push the Trump pawn forward and let the howling begin.
Yes, that is a great argument.
I agree with Greg here with one small caveat.
“But Biden-Harris did the right thing by helping Ukraine.”
In truth, Biden-Harris did the wrong thing in helping to destroy Ukraine.
“Unfortunately, the American Right is rotten with Russian propagandists and influencers, including people like Tucker Carlson, who have the ear of Trump. … Fortunately, the most likely outcome for Ukraine would be a conflict frozen on the current borders, which would give Ukraine time to regroup and rebuild. Putin won’t live forever. When he dies, Ukraine can settle accounts.”
Pure silliness, Greg. Your “frozen conflict” drivel springs from an overdose of neocon-supplied copium. Ever find it odd that you’re on the same side as Victoria Nuland, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro and the foreign policy wing of the American uniparty?
Next year when we meet again at AmRenCon, Ukraine will have suffered a decisive defeat, Zelenksy and his cronies will have fled to their villas in Italy, and the ever-delusional hawks will be blaming people like me for the disaster that they caused. Never mind that people like me have been warning since 2014 that US policy in the region would inevitably lead to the destruction of Ukraine in a war that Ukraine cannot possibly win. I won’t rub your nose it in, and I won’t even mention it.
I have a rule that my friends are allowed to hold one really bat-shit crazy idea about the world. Astrology, numerology, faked moon landing, anarcho-capitalism, etc. Take your pick, but you can only one. Yours is Ukraine. It’s OK, Greg. I’m still want to read everything you write about white nationalism.
Odd, I thought that Russia is destroying Ukraine, not Biden-Harris.
People have been speaking about Ukraine’s inevitable defeat for more than two-and-a-half years now. That must be terribly humiliating for Putin, Dugin, etc.
Ukrainian nationalists are mostly dead. The denazification is successfull. The rest of Ukraine wants just a peace, ANY peace. There is no much difference to live under Jewish puppets of Britain or under Jewish puppets of China.
That’s total rubbish.
What will change in the life of an average Ukrainian, a taxi driver, a doctor, an engineer, a saleswoman, a peasant, with the change of power? Nothing. It will be dangerous only for bureacrats, state officials, maybe policemen (but thousands of policemen in the occupied territories now are serving in Russian police), surely militaries, and, of course, all those propagandists in media, culture and arts, who provoked the war – but even many of them would swiftly change their mind, if only Russia proposes them a good salary.
Only fools in Ukraine still believe that the Ukrainians in this war defends “Europe” of Russian aggression. Everybody knows that the Western Europeans are on the Russian side and only want the “transit countries” cease to exist, so they could get oil and gas directly from RF.
Moreover, you could be sure that after the Ukrainian defeat the Ukrainians in Ukraine and abroad would be most anti-Western elements. The Europe already has the Ukrainian Fifth column within, and these people will hate the West for the betrayal. Get ready for the terrorist attacks.
BillMiller: October 25, 2024 I agree with Greg here with one small caveat…
—
I hardly agree with Greg on everything, but that he is guiding folks to vote for Trump, if only to help avoid his anti-White opposition to gain what has become that mostly puppet-leader seat of power, is sound advice and important.
For me Greg’s most profound observation in this piece is: “Unfortunately, the American Right is rotten with Russian propagandists…”
One of those rotten Russian propagandists, Putinist “Victor,” has been commenting here at C-C for some time now as I pointed out conclusive yesterday — already deeply buried in comments — here: https://counter-currents.com/2024/09/russian-culture-as-pseudomorphosis/
Rather than respond to my proof that “Victor” is a propaganda agent of the Kremlin, trolling “Western” sites with his pro-Putin propaganda, he came back with a stupid question for Kök Böri to divert attention from what I had just revealed about him, because he can:
—
Victor: October 27, 2024 Is Belarus a non-White country?
—
Reminds me of a quote by Mr. Hitler: “Important facts lay all around people’s feet, yet they refuse to look down [and act on them].”
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.