There have been a number of articles lately which illustrate how the bidding war on the 2016 Republican presidential race has already begun:
“The confidence with which Bush is pursuing his strategy was evident last Wednesday in the Picasso-adorned Park Avenue home of private-equity titan Henry Kravis. It was Bush’s 62nd birthday, and he celebrated in Kravis’ 26-room penthouse with more than 40 of the richest people in New York. Among them were Bush’s cousin, George Walker IV, the chief executive of the investment management firm of Neuberger Berman, and real estate mogul Jerry Speyer, along with Ken Mehlman and Alex Navab of Kravis’ firm, KKR. The admission price: a minimum of $100,000, also the going rate for other Bush fundraisers.”
Guests took an elevator straight to the foyer and noshed on salmon and other hors d’oeuvres while listening to Bush talk about strategy for the upcoming campaign.”
It was these $100,000 a plate dinners that knocked Mitt Romney out of the race, but that’s old news. The oligarchs have signaled that Jeb is their nominee:
“Top Republican donors and party strategists are urging prospective 2016 GOP candidates to follow former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s lead on immigration reform.
Spencer Zwick, the finance chairman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential run, was among the GOP heavyhitters on a conference call Tuesday who praised Bush for taking a stand on the issue.
“Gov. Bush has decided to lead on this issue,” said Zwick. “It’s very early in the campaign process. We have not yet heard from every potential or likely presidential candidate [but…] I give Gov. Bush a lot of credit.”
The donors didn’t go into a specific critique or endorsement of Bush’s immigration policies, but their message was clear: the 2016 presidential candidates must strike a more moderate tone on the issue and avoid controversial “fringe” remarks to appease to the far right during a primary if they want to win the White House. …”
The oligarchs are demanding that all the other candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination sing the Jeb Bush tune on immigration.
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said on Friday he is giving out more than $100,000 to fellow Republicans, in a sign that he is banking on his fundraising prowess to build allies across the country ahead of a potential White House bid.
The brother of former President George W. Bush and son of former President George H.W. Bush has emerged as an early frontrunner in what could be a crowded Republican field in the 2016 presidential election.
Bush’s political committee, Right to Rise, announced it was handing out $10,000 to Republican state parties in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida – states that will be among the first to hold nominating contests in the 2016 primaries that decide the party candidates for the election.
His committee also gave out $5,200, the legal maximum, to 14 Republican lawmakers. Among the recipients: Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative David Young of Iowa; Senator Kelly Ayotte and Representative Frank Guinta of New Hampshire; and Senator Tim Scott and Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. …”
They are not even bashful about handing out cash to build alliances to buy the Republican presidential nomination.
“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is getting some 2016 encouragement from several of the GOP’s top donors, with Sheldon Adelson signing up as a co-chair for a March 3 fundraiser for the senator’s testing-the-waters political committee, Security Through Strength. …
In addition to Adelson, other prominent donors among the 33 co-chairs include Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz, hedge fund manager Seth Klarman, real estate developer David Flaum and homebuilding magnate Larry Mizel. The invitation asks for a donation of $2,700 to be a co-chair and $1,000 to attend.
The discussion will be moderated by Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.”
Lindsey Graham’s new PAC, Security Through Strength, is really nothing but a front group for Jewish billionaire warhawks. The recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance have obviously paved the way for the oligarchy to have more influence over the outcome of American elections than ever before.
If you are not spending all your time flying across the country to kiss the ass of Jewish billionaires, you are not even in this game. Remember this next time a constitutional patriot insists on haranging you about how the Founders created the greatest system of government ever known to mankind.
Hunter Wallace quote:
Also, as the original post shows, money rules. The people want less immigration; money wants more. And we’re divided into Republican and Democrat, so we don’t view the matter as oligarchs vs people.
Reg, capitalism, Karl Marx saw it as naturally paving the way for communism. He certainly viewed capitalism in the way you’re describing (ever expanding and tearing down barriers).
“so we don’t view the matter as oligarchs vs people” – that is because there really isn’t a “the people”. Americans have not, thus far, treated their fellow countrymen as their fellow countrymen. And that is why America will ultimately balkanize.
“The people” do agree on some issues like immigration. Unless the tally has changed recently, most, even among Latinos, want less immigration. Yet politicians push for more.
So, no we’re not united, but you do find common interest. And that’s significant, because in theory “the people” exert their will in our system. In reality big money exerts its will.
Throughout the world, in most any polity, you find “less immigration” more popular, usually. Americans aren’t unique in that.
@ Hunter,
We have two main disagreements:
1. About the Jews
I see no reason to muddy the waters and blame liberalism.
2. About whether replacing White people with low IQ savages is good for business.
I think it isn’t good for business.
—
1. About the Jews
HW: “Once the Jews were secure in their power at the top of America’s social system, they naturally pulled up the ladder behind them and changed the rules. They have been pushing doctrines which are illiberal like hate speech and Holocaust denial laws. […] But all of this are effects of Jewish power and shouldn’t be confused with its cause. / The cause was America’s social, political, and economic system which has been adopted as the model by all the other Western countries.”
You insist that the prime cause of the disaster is White people’s liberal ideology, which was responsible, among other things, for importing the first Blacks and Jews. But the way you present things is counterproductive. What we need is racial separation. And what prevents that is Jewish activism, not White people’s liberalism.
And you have double standards. When the subject is Jews, you suddenly become a political historian and claim that our ancestors invited them out of misguided liberalism (I think the Jews largely invited themselves). But when a Blackman kills someone in the street, I’m sure you are more down-to-earth and curse Blacks rather than the slave traders of four centuries ago. What do you do when a crook swindles old naive people? Do you blame the crook, or the stupidity of old people?
Of course it is.
Long before the Jewish Question became so important in the United States (around Henry Ford’s time, in the 1920s), we were already swimming in a sea of liberalism in the South. Remember, we had already fought and lost the biggest war in our history over that issue – the War Between the States, which was centered on the status and rights of blacks – and spent two generations trying to reverse the disastrous effects of Reconstruction.
Jews had nothing to do with abolition, with the Reconstruction Amendments, or the federal civil rights laws that were passed at the time. By the 1880s, White liberals had already succeeded in dismantling anti-miscegenation laws all across the North, abolishing segregation laws there, and repealing the black codes there, which is why millions of blacks from the South were able to move there to find work during the Great Migration.
In Gilded Age America, the Republican industrial oligarchs who ruled the North wanted an unlimited supply of cheap labor to fuel their factories. They turned to immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. They didn’t care whether or not those immigrants were Jews. As for as they were concerned, Jews from Poland were just another source of stoop labor like the Poles themselves, or the Italians and the Hungarians who also came during that same time period.
How did so many Jews wind up in the United States anyway? Well, they were invited to come here! They were never excluded from coming here at any point. They were given all the rights and privileges of other White citizens after setting foot in New York. You don’t see why that is a problem?
No, I don’t.
I have no problem acknowledging that Jews are problem. The question that interests me is why they have thrived to such a degree in the US. What was it about America that allowed them to become so successful here? Why weren’t Jews recognized as a threat and blocked from climbing to the pinnacle of America’s social pyramid? In a thousand years, they weren’t able to do that in Byzantium. I believe the answer lies in America’s social system, which was extremely vulnerable to Jewish subversion, and which was exported across the West after the US victory in the Second World War.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
How could they have invited themselves from Poland, Germany, Russia, etc? We can trace the history of American immigration policy quite easily. The answer is that Jews were never excluded from coming here at any point in American history. They were always considered “White.” They always had all the the rights and privileges as other “White” citizens under the republican system of government. In a handful of states, there were some barriers to non-Christians voting in state elections, but those legal barriers were either never enforced or were repealed within a few decades.
George Washington patted himself on the back for our “liberal policy” of tolerating Jews which he hoped would become a model for all mankind. You will also find that he framed it in terms of America’s natural rights doctrine:
“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. …
May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
– George Washington
That’s because I am still a political historian. I’m familiar enough with our history to know that black crime is a symptom of the free negro. It is the natural and inevitable product of abolition, civil rights, and integration. When slaves were locked down on the South’s plantations, Southern cities weren’t plagued by petty black criminals because their masters were held legally responsible for their actions. Do you honesty think blacks got away with raping White women back then like they get away with it now? Give blacks the freedom and equality to do whatever they want and the lowest sort of them will turn to crime due to lack of other options. The opponents of abolition predicted that would happen for decades by citing statistics from Northern prisons.
You blame both, identify the problem, and take steps to ensure it never happens again. In the case of gullible White liberals, if they were not being played by Jews, they would still be getting played by all their favorite non-White groups. That was already going on here before Jews entered the picture and exacerbated a preexisting problem.
(continuation)
2. About whether replacing White people with low IQ savages is good for business
• Me: “Low wages are not the only thing. Wages are pretty low in Haiti, and it never made Haitian employers wealthy.”
• HW: […] “Nevertheless, there are a few foreign owned industries there that thrive on cheap labor like the textile industry.”
Belgium has about the same country and population size as Haiti, but investors can make much more money in Belgium than Haiti. That is because Belgians and Haitians are not the same people. As Belgians are gradually replaced by Blacks and Arabs, the opportunities for investors will gradually shrink. That is not good for capitalism. The same is true in the USA. The more Blacks and Mexicans there are, the more third-worldish the country becomes, the less money is to be made by the capitalists. If no Blacks had been sent to Haiti, investors could make much more money on that island.
• Me: “If the government was not under jewish control, it would do one of two things: either it would tell the employers to get used to making lower profits, or it would lower their taxes or give them public subsidies. But it would not choose a nation destroying method to help them.”
• HW: “Why would it do that?”
The government is supposed to arrange deals that benefit the common interest. You seem to think that the tomato farmers have so much money that they have been able to buy political support in Washington. They want more Mexicans to work for them. But most White people want the Mexicans to stay in Mexico. Financially, I think that importing Mexicans will hurt White people more than it will benefit tomato farmers. If I’m right about that, the simple solution is to find another way than immigration to channel money to the tomato farmers. You find some way to distribute public money to the tomato farmers. In return, they agree to hire White people instead of Mexicans. Maybe tomatoes will become more expensive. Maybe tariffs will be needed to stop the competition coming from farmers in Mexico. But it must be possible to find some solution so that farmers in Alabama won’t lose any money, and White people will be saved from race replacement. Everyone will win (except the immigrants).
• “Where are all these Gentile employers who agree with you? Tomato farmers in Alabama? No, they loudly demand to have illegal aliens here”
Which doesn’t make any sense. The only way it can be beneficial for tomato farmers to hire legal and illegal Mexicans is if the government arranges for things to be that way. Maybe for example, the Mexican “illegals” are not made to pay the compulsory contributions that other employees have to pay. Which makes it possible for illegals to live on very low wages. But it isn’t a natural situation. It is government engineered. Another thing: if the farmers want the Mexicans to be kept miserable enough so that they will have to keep working on tomato farms for extra low wages, supporting amnesty doesn’t make sense. I don’t know the explanation, but I’m sure there is some government interference here.
• “the business community, which is driven by the profit motive, pours billions of dollars into our political system every year”
Overall, businesses and investors are getting poorer as Western countries become more and more like Haiti, even though some labor intensive businesses are making money out of it. The question is: how come businesses that are losing to the race replacement policy have not been able to organize and join forces with the White anti-replacists so as to buy some politicians and some media outlets of their own? How come White people cannot have JUST ONE big pro-White and anti-jew TV station? How come they cannot have JUST ONE pro-White anti-replacement trade-union or agri-business syndicate? The answer is: the Jews.
Also, an employer’s decision to hire immigrant parasites doesn’t mean that he thinks mass immigration is good for employers. The financial interest of employers is both to have all the immigrants expelled from the country and to hire them at low wages while they are still around.
If you are allowed by the Belgian government to be the only business manager employing illegal African immigrants in Belgium, and if you pay them half the minimum wage, then you will get rich. But if everyone is allowed to do so, Belgium will turn into Haiti, and you will get poorer.
• “In order to have a government that promotes the “general interest,” it must be motivated and determined to overcome the resistance from capitalists who will organize themselves into lobbyist groups to subvert the nation to promote their own petty financial interests. The motivation has to come from outside the capitalist system from some other cultural source. There is nothing inherent in the system itself that promotes restraint.”
You make the wrong assumption that mass immigration from the third-world is beneficial to the capital owners. The contrary is true, even though you won’t believe it and the media won’t print it. That is the crux of the matter. Overall, mass immigration is a disaster for capital owners. The managers of big corporations do not go along with the race replacement policy because it serves the action holders’ interests, but because the Jews have arranged that it would serve the personal interests of the managers to do so. Very often, a CEO who has been running his company into the ground will get a huge severance deal anyway. Trade union leaders usually support race replacement too. That is because they have been co-opted by the Jews. Politicians also support race replacement, while the voters oppose it.
So far, most White Nationalists seem to accept the received jewish wisdom that mass immigration is good for business owners and investors. And they don’t even bother to support their view with arguments. After all, if the Jewish media say so, it must be true. No need to argue at all.
By doing that, we work against our own interests and against common sense. That is an example of the Jewish technique of the big lie. Jews like to lie big, with the support of all the media. And White Nationalists are afraid to challenge that. I’m sure there are at least a few economists who say that replacing White people with third-world violent half-wits is not the best way to increase profit, and is actually the main reason for today’s economic difficulties, but they will not be invited to speak in the jewsmedia and will find it difficult to have a career in a university. We need to find them and get their support.
• “Even Israel has a problem with non-Jewish guest workers.”
In the agriculture sector, I know they hire people from Thailand. The Thais come without their families. They go back to Thailand when the contract is over. In Western countries, the “illegals” are brought in by the governments. They are given housing, health care, and their children are sent to schools. In France, they don’t even have to work. By contrast, in Israel, my guess is that illegal Africans are directly imported by the employers and live in hovels without health care, and have to work their ass off until they are expelled to Sweden by the government.
• “It’s because of the nature of the system itself. Every liberal democracy that comes to mind has moved over time from a smaller to a larger electorate. Democracies always debase the electorate just like they debase their currency.”
The racial betrayal comes from the top, not from the larger electorate. The Jews cannot buy the larger electorate.
• Me: “Unlike jews, most White businessmen are not psychopaths. They want to make a profit, but they don’t want to destroy their country.”
• HW: “LMAO. How is it then that all of these super patriotic White businessmen seem to be on the opposite side of this issue?”
Well, maybe Alabama’s tomato farmers are psychopaths after all. But you didn’t really explain how they managed to buy the government. Did they make contributions to the Democratic Party? Did they make direct payments to Obama’s personal bank account? I think it makes more sense to say that the tomato farmers themselves have been bought by the government and brought into the anti-white system. Obama’s objective as President is not to earn as much money as possible, but he is anti-white and owes his political career to the Jews. He cannot be bought by anyone else.
Most politicians are afraid to take a stand against race replacement. It could be argued that they have been bought by the system, but the real problem is jewish intimidation, much more than bribes and campaign contributions by the tomato farmers.
Anyway, going along with the race replacement program is not the only way for politicians to get rich. In France, for example, when Sarkozy was elected president of France in 2007, he simply granted himself a 172% wage increase. That was one of his first moves. After that, you can completely ignore the tomato farmers.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the biggest Gentile capitalists around, are all for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Search through the Forbes 500 and find the Gentile billionaires and millionaires who are on our side of the issue. There’s not that many of them.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are two of the richest men in the world. In the case of Gates, who testifies in Washington all the time as a spokesman for “comprehensive immigration reform,” it is because he wants to flood the labor market with cheap high tech workers from Asia. That’s also why he has outsourced a lot of Microsoft’s activities to China. Believe it or not, but Gentile billionaires are more than happy to screw over their own people.
Perhaps that’s because of the actions of so many Gentile businessowners speaks for itself? We have your theory that mass immigration is bad for business. These people obviously disagree with you on that point. Gates, in particular, preaches the gospel of Third World immigration all the time. Maybe you know their interests better than they do? If so, feel free to inform them of this.
Actually, WNs tend to talk about the Jews 24/7/365, and lots of them have a tendency to explain everything that happens in the world as a Jewish plot.
Maybe so.
I’m sure there are a few. Personally, I believe the capitalist system is inherently self-destructive. There is absolutely nothing in the nature of capitalism that would ever create, preserve, or maintain a “White ethnostate.” Instead, capitalism would start subverting such an ethnostate the day it was created, and an incredible struggle would be required to restrain its natural tendencies, Jews or no Jews.
The US also has a system which grants visas to temporary agricultural guest workers. Lots of them do go home. As for Israel, it too has a large number of guest workers, but nothing on the scale of Qatar and Bahrain, where Arabs are a minority in a sea of guest workers. Even Japan has guest workers. There’s nothing unusual at all about the hunger of the capitalist system for cheap labor and how this draws in cheap foreign workers. Even your Jews aren’t exempt from that problem!
It happens regardless of whether there are Jews are not. It was going on in the US in Thomas Jefferson’s time. It is because democracy creates large factions within the nation, which compete with each other to control the government, in what is essentially a numbers game. Because of the nature of the system, there will always be an incentive for one faction to gain advantage over the other by expanding the electorate to mobilize new voters. It’s same way with the welfare state. Granting government benefits will always work to the advantage of one faction which can use tax revenues as a patronage system.
I never said anything about psychopaths. I just don’t believe that lots of businessowners share our values or your concerns about Jews. They are looking at it from an extremely narrow, individualistic perspective. They are asking: what’s good for me, not what’s good for my race and nation. Tomato farmers in Alabama are in a precarious position because of the trade laws and the welfare state. I can see where they are coming from. I understand their position. Those crops really are going to rot on the vine because no one who has better options or who can live on SNAP EBT, TANF, Medicaid and what not is going to work in those conditions.
Jewish intimidation is a symptom of an underlying problem:
– Liberalism clouds the ability of White people to see anything but individuals or to even think in terms outside of “inalienable rights.” White people just don’t have any concept of themselves as a group under attack by Jews who are seen as just another group of ‘Murikans.
– Capitalism removes all the shackles, all the barriers, that have inhibited Jewish economic success over the centuries. Compared to the burdens imposed upon Jews in the Middle Ages, its really no surprise that they thrive under a system where there are no obstacles to their social and economic advancement.
– Democracy naturally debases itself over time. This was known in Plato’s time. The electorate naturally balloons and then voters discover they can vote themselves the treasury. Combine that with racial and ethnic identity groups and Whites will lose power under that system.
No one speaks for Whites because Whites themselves, contrary to what WNs believe, have no racial consciousness. Why would they? Even WNs won’t take a public stand for White people! All they do is vent their anger and complain on the internet.
Re: Armor
1.) Jews – Obviously, I don’t have a problem acknowledging that Jews are a problem. The difference is that I don’t believe that Jews are the sole problem. In other words, I reject the Single Jewish Cause theory.
I believe there is an underlying problem here – the system that exists in every Western nation, liberal capitalist democracy – which weakens Whites and empowers Jews similar to how the HIV virus attacks and undermines the immune system or how plants thrive in greenhouse conditions.
2.) Capitalism – Seeing as how countless Gentile business owners all across the South and far beyond seem to speak with one unanimous voice on this issue, I am convinced that they believe that Third World immigration is good for their businesses. They want to exploit illegal aliens to make higher profits by paying them lower wages and by evading workplace safety regulations, taxes, and healthcare costs of American workers. That’s why they prefer illegal alien labor and are so eager for Congress to pass their amnesty because they want amnesty themselves from the government for hiring illegal aliens and breaking the law.
“By the 1880s, White liberals had already succeeded in dismantling anti-miscegenation laws all across the North, abolishing segregation laws there, and repealing the black codes there, which is why millions of blacks from the South were able to move there to find work during the Great Migration.”
Where you see “whites”, I see grasshoppers. Ants build and protect great civilizations, grasshoppers multiply inside civilizations and ultimately destroy them. A grasshopper can be liberal or conservative, the end result is the same.
There are dozens of posts under the “Caribbean Project” tab about the history of Haiti and the role of capitalists in the slave trade.
The history of Haiti actually shows the exact opposite of what you are saying here: slave traders and planters, who were the capitalists of their day, were making large fortunes by populating Haiti with millions of slaves from Africa. The profit motive caused them to continue to recklessly import blacks into Haiti even after the demographics had reached an extremely dangerous ratio.
Did the slave traders and planters stop what they were doing to consider the long term consequences of turning Haiti into a negro island? No, they did not. They didn’t because of the inherent flaws of capitalism: it is an extremely individualistic system, driven by market forces instead of long range planning, and neglects the general interest in favor of short term profits. Capitalism as an economic system also has nothing to do with the ethnonationalist ideal of the folkish state.
Even after the Haitian Revolution, did the slave traders and planters, who were the capitalists of the Caribbean, learn anything from that experience? Did they recognize the need for long range planning? No, they shifted their operations to Cuba which they would have transformed into another negro island if the British Navy had not succeeded in shutting down the slave trade.
But that’s not a problem for capitalists when seen from the perspective of how the system actually works. The capitalists who are importing the cheap labor, who are profiting off it themselves, aren’t thinking about the long term or the big picture. They are just responding to self interest and market forces.
Does it make sense to ship all of America’s manufacturing capacity to China? No, there is tons of money to be lost in the long run because the presence of industries has a magnifying effect that leads to investments in infrastructure and education that leads to new industries and so on.
“Give blacks the freedom and equality to do whatever they want and the lowest sort of them will turn to crime due to lack of other options. The opponents of abolition predicted that would happen for decades by citing statistics from Northern prisons.”
liberte egalite fraternite (liberty, equality , brotherhood)
When this was brought to the Black slave population of French Santo Domingo/Haiti it caused total chaos, resulting in the genocide of the Island’s White population.
Similar Libertarian fantasies today about offering the worst Black underclass children vouchers to attend White private schools will not work a whole lot better.
In theory, the government is supposed to promote the general interest, yes.
In practice, the government has been captured by alliances of various interest groups which stand to benefit from their influence over public policy.
No, I do not.
In Alabama, the tomato industry doesn’t have the clout to get its way in Montgomery, which is why Alabama passed its immigration law, HB 56. It’s too small, not powerful enough to sway legislators. The tomato industry here isn’t as lucrative as other crops in neighboring states like Georgia and Florida.
That’s not the point though. The point is that the Gentile tomato farmers here in Alabama loudly championed “comprehensive immigration reform.” They pushed that issue because they believe that they will financially benefit from it. It’s just not true that everyone who favors open borders is a subversive Jew – like the SPLC who sued Alabama over HB 56 – or that eliminating Jews will put the issue to rest when there are other actors who stand to benefit from it.
The tomato farmers are already subsidized by federal programs that provide them with temporary seasonal laborers, but because of free trade they have to compete with countries like Mexico and Chile which don’t have the full suite of American tax, labor, wage, and environmental laws that we do here.
The existing trade laws put the tomato farmers in Alabama into direct competition with producers in Mexico.
Why do you assume that the tomato farmers care at all about the race replacement of White people? They don’t.
Feel free to ask them that.
All this proves is that capitalism is inherently self-destructive because of its short-term individualistic bias, but there are countless examples the world over which illustrate the truth of that. Look at South Africa where a gazillion Bantus were brought in from across the Limpopo to work in the mining industries there. Look at Brazil where most of the slaves who crossed the Atlantic ended up. Look at Hawaii which was populated by Asian coolies, or Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritus, or even the Gulf States like Qatar and Bahrain where Arabs are a minority in a sea of cheap labor. During the Civil Rights Movement, it was the business community in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma which ultimately engineered the surrender to integration.
Gentile employers have a long history of lining up on the Jewish side on issues like immigration and civil rights. Surely, you know this.
If capitalists transformed Haiti itself into Haiti, and much of the rest of the Caribbean into an approximation of Haiti, even after the Haitian Revolution, why do you think they wouldn’t make the same mistake in Belgium?
Sure it does.
1.) First, the tomato farmers don’t share your concerns about race replacement of White people, or your inhibitions about working with, say, the Jews at the SPLC who filed the lawsuit to gut Alabama’s HB 56.
2.) Second, because of the existing trade laws, they have to compete with Third World producers who don’t have American tax, wage, environmental, and worker safety laws. Their profit margins are small and they are reliant on illegal alien laborers who can’t take full advantage of the American welfare state like the blacks do here.
3.) Third, the issue ultimately kicks up to the national level in Washington where a different set of interests have fixed the existing trade laws. The small time tomato producers in Alabama have to go along with the economic conditions that are set at the top of the system.
Yes, it is engineered by even larger conglomerations of capitalists with vastly more money manipulating trade policy to their advantage. It is what happens at the state level too, but on a much larger scale in Washington.
It makes sense to them, which is why we are having this fight with them, not only here in Alabama, but in virtually every other Southern state.
““The people” do agree on some issues like immigration. Unless the tally has changed recently, most, even among Latinos, want less immigration. Yet politicians push for more.” – It is not enough to agree on an abstract principle, people have to get behind a single person with a discrete policy, and that isn’t happening. Likewise the reasoning for the position is also important. Do you think that Latinos want less immigration to preserve the American people? Are they concerned with the harm that immigration inflicts on the average American? It should be quite obvious that they merely want less economic competition.
Hunter Wallace: “Jews had nothing to do with abolition”
I’m not blaming the jews for ending slavery, and I’m not in favor of slavery!
I admit that many Europeans in the past took part in destroying the White race out of stupidity, sexual lust, financial self-interest, short term convenience, nihilism, misanthropy, lack of racial awareness, a belief in loony ideologies, and so on, even when there were no Jews around. Other Europeans failed to do anything about it out of complacence, stupidity, laziness, lack of perspicacity, and so on. But I still think it is more natural for White people to wish for the good of their own race than to take pleasure in inflicting pain on their fellow White people while helping low-IQ ugly nasty dirty dark-skinned invaders to replace us.
The natural attitude of White people is not complete indifference to what happens to their nation. I would expect the elites in the government to be even more concerned than the average man about the good of the nation, if for no other reason than it is their job. But it is obvious today that the government is deliberately killing us.
I know that many White people are soft-headed liberals. Some of them give money to African orphanages. But it doesn’t mean that they want to kill the White race. I don’t think that people who honestly care for the third-world are the same ones as those who claim we need immigrants to pay for our pensions, to compensate for the declining birth rate, to bring diversity, to take the jobs that White people won’t take, and so on.
We see the government and the media destroying the White race, encouraging interracial sexual promiscuity, blaming White people for all kinds of racist crimes, and particularly the holohoax, and at the same time, we see them go after White people who make the mildest criticisms about the jews. We see governments and TV stations that are full of jews repeating that we need to defend Israel and import more non-whites in our own countries. We see the main political parties, funded by jews, supporting ever more mass immigration, against popular opinion. The natural conclusion should be that the jews are the driving force behind the anti-White policies.
Many Whites take part in enforcing the jewish anti-White agenda. Some of them do it for money. Others, who do it for free, think they are enforcing morality by doing so. They have that absurd idea that defending our existence amounts to oppressing the non-whites. They got that idea from the government and the media. They are being manipulated. We have an innate disposition to go with the flow and with what the authorities say is best. The problem is that people keep trusting authorities that have been hijacked by crazy jews. In extreme cases, self-righteous morons enjoy destroying society and inflicting pain on those who do not follow the jews’ inverted morals.
Many White people have an infinite reserve of patience and good will. Even though they disapprove of race replacement, they balk at the idea of mass expulsion because they want to be fair and avoid any harshness. They have accepted the absurd government view that it is too harsh to force non-whites to live in sunny countries among other non-whites. They won’t rebel against the alien invasion because they want society to work for the best, and they don’t understand that the government simply wants to destroy them. I think they are in urgent need of being told about the jews.
• “George Washington patted himself on the back for our “liberal policy” of tolerating Jews which he hoped would become a model for all mankind.”
Washington may have been stupid in racial matters, but that was long ago. By the beginning of the 20th century, many intellectuals had become aware of the necessity to defend the White race. Western governments had become more sophisticated and less irresponsible. They were able to plan further ahead. Americans no longer saw themselves as settlers in an empty territory where anything goes. The views of Francis Galton (1822–1911), Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950), and Madison Grant (1865–1937) were probably discussed in intellectual circles and independent non-jewish newspapers, and they were having an impact on government policy and public opinion. People were becoming more conscious of the importance of race. They had a clearer view of the question, in a more scientific way. One would have expected the government’s race policy to improve.
But at the same time, the jewish charlatan Franz Boas became a professor of anthropology at Columbia University in 1899. Israel Zangwill staged his theater play The Melting Pot in 1908. And the Jews started buying up the newspapers and the politicians.
• “I have no problem acknowledging that Jews are problem. The question that interests me is why they have thrived to such a degree in the US. What was it about America that allowed them to become so successful here?”
As racial parasites, jews thrive on thriving societies. America was thriving because of the space, the land resources, people’s dynamism, the lack of impeding rules.
You claim there is a problem with White people’s liberal theories/tendencies, and the Jews have taken advantage of it. But liberal theories didn’t prevent racialists like Stoddard and Grant to do their work and change public opinion, until the jews suddenly managed to make them disappear from the media and the universities in the 1920s. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, many intellectuals wrote books specifically calling attention to the Jewish threat, and they probably shaped the views of Hitler and others like him. Liberalism didn’t prevent those books from having an impact on public opinion. George Washington was born too early to read Stoddard and Grant, but he would have been greatly interested, and he would have learned something. His reaction would not have been to ban their books. Those books later disappeared from the public scene because of jewish activism, not because of liberalism.
• [the tomato farmers] “pushed that issue because they believe that they will financially benefit from it. It’s just not true that everyone who favors open borders is a subversive Jew – like the SPLC who sued Alabama over HB 56”
I guess it’s true that the tomato farmers, in the current situation, have a financial interest in being able to hire underpaid illegals. In a context of free trade and mass immigration, it makes them able to survive the competition with Mexico and with other American farmers who are hiring illegals. But that situation is of the government’s making. It’s a good way for ZOG to give the impression that the pressure for immigration comes from the employers. But what would really be in the interest of Alabama tomato farmers would be to stop the competition coming from Mexico and from other US states where illegals are employed. That would also be in the interest of the general population: rather pay more for tomatoes than be swamped by Mexicans and have to pay for their health care, education, and all the rest.
What a non-jewish government would do is one of two things:
– either maintain/re-establish tariffs and limitations on tomato free trade so as to give jobs to Americans
– or lift the tariffs and tell the farmers to accept lower earnings or find some other job
But they would never remove tariffs and advise tomato farmers to hire Mexicans.
Even though some people, in the current situation, have a financial interest in being able to hire underpaid illegals, it remains true that business owners as a whole would financially benefit from a stop to immigration and a program of repatriation.
• “The capitalists who are importing the cheap labor, who are profiting off it themselves, aren’t thinking about the long term or the big picture. They are just responding to self interest and market forces.”
If the long-term prospects are bleak, you are not going to have short-term prospects that consistently remain good from year to year to year. Investors are losing money NOW because of immigration. A massive amount of resources is being hijacked by the millions of non-whites. More immigration this year means there will be less money left for the capitalists next year. Also, because of mass immigration, millions of White babies have not been born. The investors now have to work with non-whites instead, and it is harder to make a profit with a low IQ son of Mexican immigrants than with a White technician.
In this conversation, a lot depends on whether I’m right to say that businesses are losing money because of immigration. It seems like a debate for economists, but you don’t really need to be an economist to tell that third-worldization is bad for the economy, and that the massive amount of money wasted on useless immigrants is lost to the capitalists. In any case, your argument that the capitalists wouldn’t support immigration if it made them lose money is insufficient. You need to explain how Somalis are good for capitalism, and it isn’t anything obvious. If I’m right to think that they represent a net loss for everyone, it means that the race replacement is imposed on White people in spite of capitalism, not because of it. It means that jewish networking and jewish racial animus are stronger than both capitalism and the White survival instinct.
• “Does it make sense to ship all of America’s manufacturing capacity to China? No, there is tons of money to be lost in the long run because the presence of industries has a magnifying effect that leads to investments in infrastructure and education that leads to new industries and so on.”
It amounts to selling out the industry. The only way it makes sense is that the sellers get paid for selling out.
But why would the government allow the industry to be shipped to China? You yourself hesitate to say that capitalism is responsible for that destructive policy. As for me, I can’t think of another reason than jewish sabotage. You could argue that it is based on the theory of economic liberalism. The idea that free trade is always a good thing, even when it wipes out a country’s industry, is typically jewish, just like the idea of violent proletarian revolution. They always take their theories to destructive extremes. It has nothing to do with the liberal tendencies of White people. By the way, I don’t think that Israel would allow its industry to be shipped to China.
• “In practice, the government has been captured by alliances of various interest groups which stand to benefit from their influence over public policy.”
No. The government has been captured by the jews. Big business is losing money both because of mass immigration and because of the policy of shipping the industry to China. If the intention was not to destroy White people, they wouldn’t bring in Somalis. They would choose Chinese people instead. It would still destroy the White race, but not the economy. Unlike Somalis, the Chinese are able to run profitable businesses, and they do not run around raping women in the street. Also, if it was a matter of cheap labor, European countries would not import third-world people who don’t even work at all.
• “All this proves is that capitalism is inherently self-destructive because of its short-term individualistic bias”
From a financial point of view, the short-term individualistic bias of nearly two hundred million white people should lead them to stop immigration, expel the non-whites, hang the jews, and recover the stolen money.
• “Why do you assume that the tomato farmers care at all about the race replacement of White people? They don’t.”
If tomato farmers are normal White people, they don’t like the idea of race replacement, even though their priority may be their own financial interest. They would certainly prefer a solution that both benefits their financial interests AND avoids race replacement. Anyway, the government is not run by tomato farmers and they are not the real problem.
• “In the case of Gates, who testifies in Washington all the time as a spokesman for “comprehensive immigration reform,” it is because he wants to flood the labor market with cheap high tech workers from Asia. That’s also why he has outsourced a lot of Microsoft’s activities to China. Believe it or not, but Gentile billionaires are more than happy to screw over their own people.”
Bill Gates has a screw loose. His foundation is anti-White. I don’t think it is about money. He goes along with the jewish agenda. If there was a WN government, he would go along with the WN agenda.
• “Actually, WNs tend to talk about the Jews 24/7/365”
In most Western countries, people are not allowed to talk publicly about the jew problem. In the USA, you cannot talk about it in the mainstream media. It means that most people in Europe and America are kept in the dark. American blogs seem to be the last remaining place where you can discuss it. But most people in American WN forums still do not understand that the jew problem is the key. We should definitely talk about it 24/7/365.
• “There is absolutely nothing in the nature of capitalism that would ever create, preserve, or maintain a “White ethnostate.” “
– Capitalism is the practice of investing money.
– Nationalism is the defense of your race.
– ZOGism is the jewish drive to terminate the White race.
I think it’s easy to keep capitalism subservient to nationalism. The danger is ZOGism disguised as capitalism, liberalism, and everything else.
• “Liberalism clouds the ability of White people to see anything but individuals”
More exactly, the jewish control of the media clouds the identity of White people, prevents them from affirming their White identity, prevents them from getting organized, intimidates them into saying they can’t see race. And it isn’t just the media. White people have lost their elites. There is no longer any institution training elites that will stand up to the jews and defend the common interest of White people in North America and in Europe.
I think there is a contradiction between your claim that liberalism is the problem, and your other claim that White people only care about their bank account and not about the White race or their particular nation. Liberals usually say that doing the right thing is important and that not everything is about money. (But there is also a problem with the word liberalism. It doesn’t have a unique and precise meaning.)
Hunter: “Why do you assume that the tomato farmers care at all about the race replacement of White people? They don’t.”
Opposing race replacement is a question of morality. It is like being against theft and murder.
It is in everyone’s individual financial interest to steal other people, if one can avoid being caught. But everyone is better off living in a society that works. And society can only work is theft is prevented by the police or by internalized common morals.
What keeps White people from stealing in spite of their individual financial interest is not the fear of being caught, it is mainly their moral sense. But their moral sense is not necessarily shared by Blacks and Jews. The same is true of race replacement. What keeps White people from hiring illegals is their moral sense, and their natural racial loyalty, more than the fear of breaking laws, that are being abolished by the jews anyway.
Unfortunately, the natural morality of White people has been attacked by the jewish inverted morals that are imposed on us by the government and the media. As a result, many White people no longer know what is the moral thing to do.
Internalized common morals is what allows us to protect ourselves as a race, and not just as individuals. The Jews are fucking with that in order to destroy us.
When White people no longer know what is the right thing to do, we should try to shame them into doing the right thing. But at the same time, the jews and their brain-damaged leftist allies are trying to demonize anyone who defends the White race and traditional morality. It isn’t an easy task for us.
This goes a long way toward explaining what happened to the American South, to Haiti, to Brazil, and the entire Caribbean, right? In the name of “liberty” and “equality,” it was these altruistic punisher Whites – the Wilberforces, the John Browns, the Garrisons – that abolished slavery and set the black slaves free in all of the former plantation zones. In Latin America, the Spanish who had driven the Jews out of Spain happily mixed and intermarried with the indigenous Indians, thereby creating the hybrid mestizo race which dominates most of Latin America.
Read up on the history of the New World.
The British and French viciously fought against each other for supremacy in North America with Indian allies. During the American Revolution, the British fought alongside Indians against the American colonists. Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal duked it out in various conflicts – all of which were a sideshow to the Thirty Years War – before establishing their zones of control in the New World.
Here in the South, the most devastating war in our history was fought over the status and rights of blacks. Without any assistance from the Jews, Yankees invaded the South, destroyed slavery, imposed the Reconstruction Amendments on the Constitution which created black citizenship and voting rights, attempted to impose integration on us, and succeeded in repealing all of their own segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.
Why would White people be completely indifferent to the fate of their nation?
It is because White people are suffering from a disease, liberalism, which has become pathological and has now entered its terminal stages. There’s been a slow progression through the modern era, a disintegration, in collective structures. The extended family, for example, was parried down to the nuclear family. The modern family has evolved again to become a purely voluntary, contractual arrangement the only purpose of which is individual self-fulfillment, which is why the joke of the modern family has expanded without much resistance to include things like gay marriage and gay adoption.
The indifference is a symptom of the general state of extreme individualism and social atomization that afflicts Western countries. When people care only about themselves, nothing else matters outside of their own little private world. They can put around in their little cars, indulge in venal pleasures, completely oblivious to the future, the past, or the present. They are not even thinking on the wavelength of the welfare of their nation or race like we do.
Sure, that’s not what they are trying to do. I know plenty of people like that. They don’t wake up in the morning and think to themselves: well, today I will do my part to contribute to the destruction of the White race!
Even if their self-centered values and actions has that long term effect on their own ethny, these people aren’t even thinking in terms of races, cultures, and nations. They are generally self-absorbed individualists who are too wrapped up in their own private world to give much thought to anything else. Many of the others sincerely believe in liberal economics because it was what they were taught in school or because its all they know.
True, we do see all of that.
I completely agree that Jews are drastically overrepresented in the news and entertainment media, in the financial world, in culturally sensitive positions in the universities, and so on. I agree that Jews are extremely wealthy, that Jews are concentrated at the top of America’s social pyramid, and that all of those Jews combined with their historical resentments, their liberal values, and their irreligion definitely has a cumulative impact and an extremely negative overall impact on our culture. Yes, Jews are in the cultural driver’s seat now, but given the system we had in place in the US and other Western countries that is where we should expect them to be.
These people are the “altruistic punishers” who I mentioned above – the modern day SJW successors of William Wilberforce, John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Robiespierre, Sonthonax, etc.
For starters, mass expulsion of non-Whites would violate the standard “human rights” dogma that prevails in the West, and it would also go completely against the grain of their milquetoast, soft-hearted theology.
Washington’s attitude toward Jews is important because it reflects how Americans thought of the Jews at the very beginning of the United States. By the time of Henry Adams (great-grandson of John Adams), there were millions of Jews here and they were on the rise and were starting to become a threat to the Yankee establishment.
Because of the system that was already in place, Ford, Grant, Stoddard, Adams and so on didn’t have the tools at their disposal to defeat the Jewish threat to the Yankee establishment. The only resistance that America was able to muster was the quota system at Ivy League universities which fell after WW2.
Precisely.
Jews were living in a “free country.” All those newspapers were for sale. The universities were open to them. There were opportunities to enter the financial world and build the motion picture industry. That’s what I have been saying all along: there was no defense whatsoever to the Jewish takeover.
It seems to me that the “lack of impending rules” is the key observation there. Under the system that was in place, there was no defense at all to the eventual Jewish takeover.
America rolled out the red carpet for millions of Jews to come here. After stepping off the boat, they were granted citizenship and equal rights. As Jews, they had unfettered access to America’s resources. They were pretty much told to go forth, multiply, and live the “American Dream.” Enjoy yourselves, boys!
Stoddard, Grant, Ford, Adams and so forth were the dying voice of the Yankee establishment. It is important to realize what had happened to them. Their ancestors had allowed millions upon millions of non-WASP immigrants – Jews were among them in the Great Wave – to move to the American North to work in their factories and demographically swamp their descendants. All of those workers were given American citizenship and equal rights.
It was only a matter of time before non-WASPs began to accumulate wealth, rise in the social scale, and challenge the Yankee establishment on its own turf. That’s exactly what happened too. Jews were at the forefront of this movement, but they were not alone. There were Irish Catholics like the Kennedy family in Massachusetts who had risen to elite status too. There were Italians in New York and New Jersey, etc.
Henry Ford’s The International Jew would be the best example of this.
In the United States, the newspapers, the film industry, the publishing houses and so on – things which we would understand to be key cultural nodes, which have the power to shape mass opinion – were all left to the “private sphere” in accordance with the prevailing liberal theories.
What was supposed to stop Jews from gaining influence in that sector? Just like the Weimar Republic, they had a free hand to set up their own publishing houses, their own movie studios, set up their own newspapers or snap up established organs of liberal opinion like the New York Times.
It’s also due in part to the state of mechanization in agriculture. There are some crops like tomatoes, onions, blueberries, oranges, winter vegetables and so on that still have to be handled with great care. In order to make a profit, farmers need hordes of cheap laborers, and “free trade” with the Third World, which puts them into competition with countries like Mexico, only makes a bad situation even worse.
In the 19th century, the same was true of traditional Southern crops like sugarcane, cotton, rice and tobacco and Midwestern crops like corn and wheat. The mechanization of agriculture eventually eliminated the need for family farmers and hordes of cheap laborers in those crops, but at the time farmers still weren’t very picky about where they acquired their labor force. If you look at places like Hawaii, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, and Guyana, you will see that after the abolition of slavery the planters turned to importing huge number of Asian coolies.
The pressure does come from employers: make no mistake about it, hotel and restaurant owners, contractors, tomato farmers, onion farmers, agribusiness and so forth all lobby for the cheap labor. At the same time, trade policy is set at the national level where some actors like Alabama tomato farmers have much less influence.
I think you are mistaken here.
There’s no guarantee that a non-Jewish government would be protectionist. In the 19th century, it was Britain that spread and imposed the gospel of “free trade” on much of the rest of the world. A government that is under the sway of a plutocracy or oligarchy will tend to favor free trade over protectionism.
Maybe so.
I can assure you though that they don’t see it that way. That’s why you find the same set of actors whether it is in Alabama or Georgia or Florida working in partnership with the SPLC and other liberal forces that want open borders.
That’s not necessarily the case.
– In Haiti, for example, France and French planters were reaping enormous profits by sacrificing the long term to the short term. They transformed Saint-Domingue into a negro island and kept doing it even after the racial demographics reached dangerous levels. Even after the disaster in Haiti, the same people went on to repeat the folly in Cuba.
– Countries which are under the sway of the free market are routinely crippled by financial panics which are caused by sacrificing the long term to short term profits. That’s just the nature of the system.
The vast majority of capitalists aren’t thinking in terms of changing racial demographics, racial differences in intelligence and behavior, the welfare of their ethnic group, the long term welfare of their nation. They are looking at it from a narrow individualistic perspective of how to make a quick profit NOW.
All I can say to this is travel across the world and look at all the places – in Latin America, in the Caribbean, in the United States, in Africa, in the Indian Ocean, in the Pacific – where capitalism, trying to make a quick buck by sacrificing the long term to the short term, has already created multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic societies.
Look at Qatar and Bahrain which are demographically non-Arab. Look at Israel which has its own problem with guest workers. Look at Brazil and Haiti which was Africanized. Look at South Africa where hordes of Bantus were recruited to work in the mines. Look at Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Mauritius and Hawaii with their large Asian populations. Oh, and take a close look at Malaysia where the Chinese replaced the Malaysians or even small islands like Fiji where the indigenous Fijians were replaced by cheap laborers from India and China.
Where has capitalism ever followed the opposite track? Where has capitalism ever produced, say, a White ethnostate or a folkish state that reflects the innate racial value of White DNA? The answer is nowhere.
It makes sense when you realize that the oligarchy has reaped a huge windfall at the expense of the nation. That was the whole point.
Yes, I agree with Marx himself on that.
Yes, that’s what free trade has always done: enriched a small oligarchy at the expense of the nation.
Not really.
It is just liberalism applied to trade policy. All these ideals you keep mentioning here like the long term interest of the nation or the preservation of White people are irrelevant to liberalism.
Organized Jewry is one interest group, although an extremely important player, that attempts to influence the government in its favor. There are many other actors. As for big business, if you want its opinion on anything, read the Wall Street Journal or The Economist or follow the stock market which has soared to record highs.
Nope.
The typical White person will wake up in the morning, go to work, come home, think about things like their bills, watch some television, cook dinner, and go to sleep. They are suffering from a pathological form of individualism. Their lifestyle enables them to be completely self-absorbed in their own lives where they don’t think about much else.
You are taking for granted here that it is NORMAL to be extremely racially conscious, to be extremely forward thinking, to be ethical and think of the long term where the opposite is true.
Bill Gates is just a businessman. His type are extremely common in this world.
Well, I check the internet almost every day, and for at least the last 15 years, there hasn’t been a day when I logged on and haven’t seen WNs carrying forth about the Jews. There are people on this website alone which have been doing it for half a decade now!
• “There is absolutely nothing in the nature of capitalism that would ever create, preserve, or maintain a “White ethnostate.” “
Okay.
If it is so easy to keep capitalism subservient to nationalism, where in the world can we find an example of this? Where in practice has capitalism ever led to the creation of a White ethnotate or the WN ideal, which is borrowed from German philosophy, of the folkish state?
Yes, but wasn’t it liberalism that …
1.) Facilitated the entrance of the Jews into the United States. After all, we wouldn’t want to “sanction bigotry” by excluding them from our shores.
2.) Granted them citizenship and equal rights.
3.) Removed the influence of the church over the state.
4.) Allowed Jews to create, buy up, takeover the media in the 20th century.
5.) Deterred the violent actions against them like pogroms and expulsions which were commonplace in Europe.
6.) Enclosed White people in a bubble of self-absorbed narcissism which prevents them from seeing anything except the malicious actions of individuals.
It’s true that Jews are extremely powerful and influential today. It is also true that the system we had in place – liberal capitalist democracy – never had any defenses against a hostile takeover by Jews.
When liberals talk about doing the “right thing,” they are assuming a very peculiar worldview and any number of things it takes for granted like “religious freedom” and “property rights” and “individual rights.”
While this is self-evident to a racial nationalists, it is hard for White people who subscribe to liberalism to understand, as you certainly know from all the times you have interacted with them.
Ah, but look at it this way: according to liberals, “all men are created equal.” That means that Jews and blacks are just like White people. They have the same moral sense. They have the same universal equal rights. Race replacement is not something to be bothered about because “we are all the same” and “we are all human beings” anyway.
In a sense, I agree.
Liberalism is one thing. Jews came here and entered a country that was already in thrall to Enlightenment liberalism. However, Jews have made it much worse by “mating,” so to speak, American liberalism with various other forms of 19th and 20th century radical leftwing traditions: Marxism, postmodernism, political correctness, etc. So yes, Jews have played a large role in confusing the moral sense of White people.
The chink in the armor that allowed them to bust through our defenses in the first place though and begin to hijack our culture was the system that was already established here.
In the present day, absolutely.
” “Opposing race replacement is a question of morality. It is like being against theft and murder.”
While this is self-evident to a racial nationalists, it is hard for White people who subscribe to liberalism to understand, as you certainly know from all the times you have interacted with them.”
I’ve had enough interactions with these people, to understand their sense of what is right and wrong, is programmed into them by their DNA. They cannot be changed or reformed, they can only be suppressed for a short time.
This is a racial reality that White Nationalists need to understand.
Anon,
I don’t disagree with what you say. One argument for increased social spending is voters would desire fewer immigrants to draw on social services. So, if the US dumped its GDP into healthcare and education rather than into war, more might have economic incentive to oppose immigration.
Anyway, I’m a racialist. I’m not arguing for a different ideal. I just wanted to point out that most voters want reduced immigration, but we don’t get that. If not for Roy Beck and NumbersUSA, immigration would be far worse in the US. We have a few highly capable Americans who take such stands against big money.
Voters split into Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, when truly they want many of the same things. Divide and conquer. I’m not arguing against a nation-state as the ideal.
The Heritage immigration study concluded that most immigrants would become net recipients of US social spending, not net contributors.
The US has a highly redistributive tax system. No one seems to believe the results though, because we’re not as “socialist” as Europe, yet.
The Heritage study was interesting though. It was so incredible that it had to be condemned. We all benefit from roads, parks, schools, so many benefits that we don’t even consider. Low income tax brackets are net recipients, not net contributors. They benefit businesses who may pay them little, but they do not benefit tax collection. With more people comes more spending to offer the same services to those people.
Latest news on Jeb’s religion is that he plans to carry on about his conversion to the Catholics as a spiritual journey through the Old Testament and various forms of Protestantism. Huckabee is under the delusion that there are enough anti abortionist
Evangelicals around to get him nominated on an anti abortion platform.
It all sounds like an Oprah show.
Bush or Clinton. Worst or Worstest.
I would rather Clinton win.
Just my two bits: jewish problem in the west countries. Once a Jew gets into power of politics and business (media, Universities ect,) Jews are hired first-does not matter their qualifactions.
A US study was conducted a few months ago. Several thesis (3000) were sent. If the applicant was Muslim–zip replies, If english sounding name– very few hits in actual interviews but got numerous no thank you, But jews, hundreds got actual requests to on site interviews. If you are a Company exacutive gentile wanted to hire–try doing the same but in reverse and see what happens.
Jojo,
I’ve heard Indians are the same way, though Indians are split into multiple groups.
@jojo
Link?
Hunter Wallace says:
March 1, 2015 at 9:00 pm
“I would rather Clinton win.”
Clinton is too white for the Dems. They need more diversity at the top, or they won’t be vibrant enough.
JoeB says:
Hunter Wallace says:
March 1, 2015 at 9:00 pm
“I would rather Clinton win.”
‘Clinton is too white for the Dems. They need more diversity at the top, or they won’t be vibrant enough.’
Hillary Clinton is a perfect candidate for the Demorats.
Her husband is often spoken of as being the first black president.
That makes her a mudshark by default.