One of my favorite American political writers is Steve Sailer – he’s the film critic for the American Conservative Magazine (Pat Buchanan’s old magazine) and Vdare.com – the immigration control website. Yes, I know that Steve Sailer has some Jewish heritage, but he is firmly on our side. He’s just a very good writer, funny and gets to the point of things, has a very good feel for the opinions of the common man.
Sailer has presented a political program for the Republican party, which he calls the “Sailer Strategy”, which is a national version of Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” – Republicans targeting White voters as White votes count as much as non White votes and the Republican party can’t compete with the Democrats in pandering to non Whites, so why bother? Instead, the “Sailer Strategy” is for the GOP to just take the White voter’s side in fair and honorable ways on issues of crime, immigration, affirmative action, culture etc.
In his article on Vdare this week, Sailer explains how the Sailer Strategy worked just about everywhere. OD is presenting the link to Mr. Sailer’s Vdare article for “fair comment”, protected by the 1st Amendment and there is no official association between OD and Mr. Sailer or Vdare.com.
I made the point the other night that I was very disturbed by the Sharron Angle loss, despite the GOPs overall success among Whites on election day. She was going up against a hated incumbent in a state with record unemployment and a huge immigration problem. In response, Angle ran a hard hitting anti-immigration ad directly aimed at Whites, and still lost — and in a GOP wave year. As depressing as I find this idea, it’s clear that not enough Whites in Nevada considered immigration a big enough problem to vote for Angle. Richard Hoste has a blog up at altright arguing the Angle defeat is evidence the Sailer Strategy did not work for essentially those reasons. Hoste points out that if the SS did not work in Nevada this year under ideal conditions it’s not likely to work in the future when conditions are less favorable.
I think that other posters have pointed out that a huge proportion of the votes in Nevada were cast weeks before the election, before Angle’s anti-Mexican ads were run. Those people could not change their votes even if they had changed their minds, so we don’t know how effective the ads could have been.
True. And I’m sure there was a good bit of vote fraud too with those mysterious reports of power outages at odd times. Still, I was hoping for an avalanche for Angle after that ad. That was probably unrealistic.
I share Lew’s frustration with the Angle loss to Reed. Angle’s immigration advert was excellent, very hard hitting, maybe a bit too hard hitting – using a sledge hammer to nail in a nail.
But we shouldn’t let this current opening of American politics a bit a lot, blind us to realities of power politics, incumbent politics, urban Democrat machine politics.
Nevada’s population is mostly Los Vegas and Vegas burbs – the economy is tourism, Democrat controlled unions are very big and of course the US Senate Majority leader has pork projects power. Plus, Angle was a newbie and many voters don’t like to a newbie for something like US Senator.
Nevada is a strange political state – not of the The South, not of the White Mountain West, everybody is from somewhere else, except local LDS Mormons and the Mob runs a lot of Vegas. Go figure.
But great job to everyone who worked on this historic White victory.
Angle lost because …
1.) 65% of ballots were cast before election day. I followed the polls closely. Angle only surged to a comfortable lead in the last week or so of the race. She had a 4 point lead in the RCP average.
2.) Reid had a devastating ad that hit Angle on privatizing social security.
3.) Sailer is absolutely right that the “Hispanic vote” didn’t win the race for Reid. Hispanics voted for Reid more or less like they did elsewhere. Angle lost and Brewer won because the latter took a large share of the White vote.
Someone email Sailer and tell him about Angle and the early voting.
LEW,
The ad was very successful for Angle. She surged ahead in the polls. In fact, the same Newsweek (or was that Politico?) that credited Hispanics for defeating Angle said a few days before the election that it was the twilight of his political career.
The problem seems to have been that Angle had such a comfortable lead that her base didn’t turn out in force. There was no awareness of the early voting problem either. At least none that I can recall.
Early voting was also the culprit in Colorado. It was only in the last few weeks of the race that Tancredo closed on Hickenlooper. Maes support had collapsed in the polls. He performed better than expected though, again, because of the early voting.
During the election coverage, Frank Luntz had called Nevada for Reid based on the exit polls in the first hour of results. Luntz obviously knew that Reid was going to win because of the early voting.
65%? Damn. Never heard of that many early votes.
Another problem with Angle was that she was just a generally weak to mediocre candidate even apart from her problematic libertarian views, while also lacking in judgment. As much I love the second amendment, alluding to a second amendment remedy wasn’t a good idea. Angle wasn’t a complete joke like Christine O’Donnell but the Tea Party needs to do a much better job selecting candidates in ’12. Basically, they need more like Rand Paul.
LEW,
Is this the Vitter ad?
Yes, that was it, except the end was a little different in the you tube version. The ad that aired here locally ended with Vitter saying we’re going to take this country.
Vitter is about as good as a system politician will ever get on immigration:
* TV ad: Melancon puts out a welcome sign for illegal aliens. (Oct 2010)
* Voted NO on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on eliminating the “Y” nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
* Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 200
* Voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 100% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
* Zero tolerance for border crossing via increased prosecution. (Mar 2008)
* Government services in English only. (Mar 2008)
Reid won ‘dirty’:
“The Justice Department is reviewing a complaint from failed Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle after allegations that Sen. Harry Reid’s campaign engaged in voter intimidation and broke campaign finance law in his re-election campaign.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/05/justice-dept-pressure-probe-allegations-voter-intimidation-reids-campaign/
We man never know how good ‘The Wave’ ad was because of the all the democratic corruption that illegally countered it!!!
All the lefist forums are desperately pushing the Latino vote meme and also the Rubio thing. Methinks they are blinded by his name.
Sailer’s great. More data-backed good sense in one finger than almost the entire MSM put together.
Rubio has no discernable black or mestizo ancestry (i.e. he’s White), is Christian, and speaks perfect English as well as Spanish. He is the son of immigrants from Cuba and his immigration position is mixed:
* AZ law may unreasonably single out some citizens. (Apr 2010)
* Don’t count illegal immigrants in the 2010 census. (Apr 2010)
* Allow children of illegals to pay in-state college tuition. (Mar 2010)
* No amnesty in any form, not even back-of-the-line. (Mar 2010)
* Oppose amnesty in any reform. (Feb 2010)
(http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm#Immigration)
We should recruit to our cause pr ally with Hispanics who are White, Gentile, and assimilated (e.g. speak good unaccented English like Rubio). But they also need to be strong against immigration and here Rubio falls short. Also, he’s married to another Hispanic, and although she’s also White this like his mixed immigration stance suggests that his sympathies might lie more with Hispanics than with Whites.
I don’t automatically dismiss Spanish-speaking Whites as enemies of the WN, and indeed I’d love to have some of them on board as allies, but Rubio’s got some problems.
jqhart,
I have no view either way as i only recently heard of him. I think that’s probably true on the other side as well and they’re going purely on his name – but that’s just a guess.
“Methinks they are blinded by his name.”
Cuba is chock full of White European Spaniards.
These are the people that Rubio comes from. You can tell they are White because of their hatred for Communism, an ideology that appeals to Jews, coloreds, and extremely deviant (homosexual, miscegenationist) Whites.
@Markus
Yeah, that was what i was thinking. Funny if so as they’ll be disappointed.
The fact that white conservatives are supporting things that happen to be good for white people and opposing things that happen to be bad for white people, does not mean that they are ready to defend themselves as whites against the anti-white white left and the anti-white nonwhites.
I can illustrate this by means of an anecdote. Once, years ago, I went to Jones Beach with a friend. Loud radios were everywhere. We asked a lifeguard if there was a place on the beach where radios were not allowed, and were told there was one. We went to that area. It was a blissfully quiet oasis without radios playing. It also was completely white, while the rest of the beach was mostly nonwhite.
Many conservatives whites will ask for the radio-free area, and thus find themselves in an all-white part of the teach. But they will never explicitly identify the connection between whiteness and no radios. They will not say to themselves, “If I want a beach with no radios, that means I want a beach with no nonwhites.” In the same way, they will not say to themselves, “If we want to preserve American and Western civilization, we need a white majority society with that is governed by white standards and ideals.”
And the primary reason they will not say this to themselves is not that they fear being called racist. It is that, having fully internalized the teachings of modern liberalism, they sincerely believe that any white racial consciousness is immoral and disgusting. As long as that is their belief, conservative whites will continue to pursue values which are substantively white, even as they continue to embrace a liberal value system which assures the ongoing extinction of whiteness.
Here is the article at SBPDL: MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 01:48 PM
The fact that white conservatives are supporting things that happen to be good for white people and opposing things that happen to be bad for white people, does not mean that they are ready to defend themselves as whites against the anti-white white left and the anti-white nonwhites.
In today’s environment, you are entirely correct that Whiteness has to be implicit (“no radios allowed”) not explicit (“Whites only”). It’s awkward and clumsy but it’s the world we live in. But it’s quite wrong to conclude that politicians who are only implicitly pro-White are not ready to defend Whites.
If a politician is supporting far more positions that are good for Whites than one could expect by chance, that’s a strong clue that they are Implicit White Nationalists (IWN). IWN is astronomically more powerful and popular than Explicit White Nationalism. That will I’m afraid be true for many decades to come until we capture enough media and educational institutions to get the EWN message out in a positive way instead of in a way that our Hollywood-brainwashed populace automatically dumps in the “villain” category.
Most Jews aren’t explicitly Jewish, either. But they almost always, subconsciously or consciously, ask themselves “Is it good for the Jews?”. The result is a set of positions that couldn’t have happened by chance. They could be and are all over the ideological map, from anarchism to libertarianism to communism to democratic to a dizzying variety of in-between and combination views, but all these disparate positions when propounded by the Implicit Jew nevertheless far more often than one could expect by chance lead to outcomes favorable to Jews. That could have only happened by their brains at some level putting the positions through that “is it good for the Jews?” filter.
We must judge politicians by the same standards with respect to Whites. In our multi-ethnic and PC-brainwashed society no viable politician is going to run around telling us that they base their positions on what is good for the Whites. Jewish politicians don’t publicly ask this explicitly for the Jews either, and even NAM politicians can only go so far with such explicity.
Nevertheless there are some White politicians whose brains do privately or subconsciously filter their opinions through the question, “Is it good for the Whites?” Our task is to identify these politicians and support them.
Hunter’s immigration position checklist is an example of a set of positions that it’s hard to imagine other strong motivations for besides an implicit love for our race. They argue their positions based on other justifications to be sure, but no ideology consistently leads pro-White positions except EWN and IWN. If we see a White politician advocating reduction of immigration, opposing affirmative action, opposing sending (mostly White) troops off to fight foreign wars that are not in White interests, without having other opinions not obviously unfavorable to Whites, at some point it becomes astronomically improbable that they are not filtering their opinions through a pro-White filter. We can’t realistically expect them to come forward and actually say that love for our race is the actual reason for taking these positions. They may not even be aware of this, it may be subconscious. Nevertheless the chances are high that in a novel situation they will also arrive at a position based on whether it is good for Whites.
We have far more education to do before we reach the point where EW is feasible, but meanwhile IW is a powerful force we can harness for our protection and flourishing.
How do you know that Steve Sailer is part jewish? He is adopted.