Decision Points on Immigration

November 13, 2010 Hunter Wallace Activism, Books, Hispanics, History, Immigration, Politics, Whiteness 94

George W. Bush's Decision Points sheds light on the McCain-Kennedy amnesty.

Birmingham, AL

I bought of copy of George W. Bush’s new book Decision Points this afternoon. Eventually, I plan to write a review. Bush was such an omnipresent figure for so many years that it is hard to believe he is gone. I was mostly interested in hearing what he had to say about immigration and his presidency.

In particular, this passage stuck out at me:

“I traveled across the country touting the bill, especially its emphasis on border security and assimilation. Passions ran high on both sides of the issue. As immigrants took jobs across the country, they put pressure on local schools and hospitals. Residents worried about their communities changing. Talk radio hosts and TV commentators warned of a “third world invasion and conquest of America.” Meanwhile, a huge crowd of legalization supporters marched through major cities waving Mexican flags, an in-your-face display that offended many Americans.

The mood on the airwaves affected the attitude in Washington. Congressmen pledged, “We will not surrender America,” and suggested that supporters of reform “wear a scarlet letter A for ‘amnesty.'” On the other side, the chairman of the Democratic Party compared the temporary worker program to “indentured servitude.” The head of America’s largest labor union labeled the reform build “anti-family and anti-worker.”

As Bush recounts the story, the McCain-Kennedy amnesty was within 2 votes of passage in the Senate, but Harry Reid scheduled a premature cloture vote that failed. Republican Senators returned home where they faced the wrath of furious constituents who had been stirred up by talk radio. By the time they came back to Washington, “comprehensive immigration reform” was a dead letter.

Remember that big massive amnesty rally in Los Angeles with the sea of Mexican flags? That was the turning point in the immigration debate.

Americans didn’t suddenly rethink and abandon their core fundamental values. On the contrary, the contempt shown by Mexican illegal aliens for the American flag offended the patriotism of White conservatives, who reacted by making opposition to “comprehensive immigration reform” a hot button issue on talk radio.

That was how we turned the tide on immigration: a racially polarizing national spectacle that was beamed into every conservative household by FOX News and was discussed endlessly on talk radio. The overreaction of the opposition played into our hands.

It was probably that California high school where Mexican students ripped down the American flag and raised the Mexican flag as their standard. That incident emotionally resonated with implicit Whites and connected with their existing values. It created a lasting backlash that changed the political spectrum in our favor.

Similarly, the televised spectacle that happened this year with the Obama Justice Department suing Arizona over SB 1070 played a major role in nationalizing the immigration debate and driving up White turnout at the polls.

About Hunter Wallace 12392 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Probably the most positive development of this election cycle:

    http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/11/11/caps-seeds-new-platform-for-anti-immigrant-voices/

    http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/11/12/rand-paul-the-best-friend-a-white-supremacist-can-have/

    These leftwing anti-racist exposes by anti-White groups like Imagine2050 are posted every day to no effect. The Left has played the “racism” card so many times that White America is tuning them out. Whites are sick and tired of hearing their nonsense and disgusting hypocrisy on the race question.

    Rand Paul actually jumped in the polls in the wake of the MoveOn curbstomping. That was caught on video and played endlessly on MSNBC and other networks. Leonard Zeskind and the NAACP released that expose on the Tea Party less than two weeks before the election. No one but their own supporters cared.

  2. The ADL is accusing Glenn Beck of “anti-Semitism” over The Puppet Master:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/adl-beck-soros_n_782420.html

    http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www10.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/12beck.html?_r=5

    In The Daily Beast, Michelle Goldberg calls The Puppet Master “a symphony of anti-Semitic dog whistles.”

    If you know this history, you’ll understand why Glenn Beck’s two-part “exposé” on George Soros, whom Beck calls “The Puppet Master,” was so shocking, even by Beck’s degraded standards. The program, which aired Tuesday and Wednesday, was a symphony of anti-Semitic dog-whistles. Nothing like it has ever been on American television before. . .

    Soros, a billionaire financier and patron of liberal causes, has long been an object of hatred on the right. But Beck went beyond demonizing him; he cast him as the protagonist in an updated Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He described Soros as the most powerful man on earth, the creator of a “shadow government” that manipulates regimes and currencies for its own enrichment. Obama is his “puppet,” Beck says. Soros has even “infiltrated the churches.” He foments social unrest and economic distress so he can bring down governments, all for his own financial gain. “Four times before,” Beck warned. “We’ll be number five.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-10/glenn-becks-anti-semitic-attack-on-george-soros/

  3. I think it was in 2004 when Bush started pushing for his amnesty. The state pols objected and he eventually backed down. I thought that was the end of it. So when the election came around a few months later I actually donated to Bush’s re-election campaign. Yeah, I know. That was stupid. Because right after the election he started pushing that danged amnesty again.

    I was never for the Iraq war but that amnesty nonsense made me so blamed mad that I was done with Bush for good. And the GOP, too. I still vote for them. But I no longer consider myself a republican. I figure there were a lot of people who felt that way for various reasons. And that’s what gave birth to the Tea Party.

    But that election taught me something important. I gave money to a candidate and a party and they shat on me. But I also gave money to the NRA and they did exactly what I wanted. So what did that teach me? It taught me to NEVER! NEVER!! NEVER!!! give money to a candidate or a party because once they have your money they’ll kick you to the curb. Instead, give your money to the PACs who promotes your issues. In fact, every dollar you send to a candidate or party instead of a PAC only goes to undermine your issues. People always complain about special interests influencing the politicians. Well, that’s not going to go away. So it’s high time OUR special interests start doing the influencing. So STARVE those candidates and then they’ll have to come crawling to ALIPAC, TEAM AMERICA PAC, etc to get elected. That’s why the NRA has so much clout.

    ================

    Anyway, this is one of the reasons I just shook my head when they started the A3P. Now, I’m not opposed to them. I think they’ve got a great platform. And I wish them all the luck. But I wish they’d formed a PAC to influence the politicians rather than forming a party to be the politicians. After all, that’s what AIPAC did. I think we’d be much more effective that way. And hopefully someday A3p will make that transition. In the meantime, I wish them all the luck.

    ================

    By the way, I’m not the only one whose figured all this out. I’ve started looking and thinking about the racial marxists and that’s what they’ve been doing. If you’ll recall the McCain / Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. It later came out that Soros was behind it. And if you’ll recall, that was about the time all of Soros’ PACs emerged. Basically, what he was doing was shutting out corporate sponsors so that his PACs hijack the Democrats. And that’s exactly what happened. I was too stupid to realize it at the time. I had always figured it was about gaining an fundraising advantage over the GOP. It wasn’t until I watched that Beck special the other night that it dawned on me it had nothing to do with the GOP. It was all about taking control of the DEMs.

  5. So far … this is a terrible book in which W. unapologetically defends his most outrageous actions. I skipped ahead to the chapter in which he addresses immigration. Notably, it is clear the Bush family’s Hispanic maid had a major impact on both W. and Jeb Bush.

  6. HW: I wonder how many upscale Whites base their views on immigration on the accommodating behavior of their non-White servants?

  7. Bush on No Child Left Behind:

    “I was excited. No Child Left Behind stood a much better chance of becoming law with support from the Lion of the Senate (Ted Kennedy). It was the beginning of my most unlikely partnership in Washington. . . .

    At the end of my visit, I told students, parents, and the press what I had long believed: No Child Left Behind is a piece of civil rights legislation.

    Bush on Faith Based Initiatives:

    In June 1995, two African American churches in the town of Greenville, Texas, were burned. Until 1965, a sign on the town’s main street had advertised “The Blackest Land, The Whitest People.” As governor, I feared we were witnessing a surge in old-time racism.

    I traveled to Greenville to condemn the burnings. A mixed-race crowd of about four thousand people turned out in the football stadium. “From time to time, Texans boast that ours is a big state.” I said, “But as big as this state is, it has no room for cowardice and hatred and bigotry.”

    Bush on Social Security:

    Social Security was especially unfair to African Americans. Because their life expectancy was shorter, black workers who spent a lifetime paying into Social Security received an average of $21,000 less in benefits than whites of comparable income levels.

    Bush on immigration:

    The failure of immigration reform points out larger concerns about the direction of our politics. The blend of isolationism, protectionism, and nativism that affected the immigration debate also led Congress to block free trade agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea.

  8. You could have come to those conclusions without having to buy that book. So now your pitching Bush’s book on behalf of the neocons. Have you no shame? Your really starting to come out of the closet now.

  9. GWB with his “Jesus Day” in Texas (Dec. 10) and hundreds of millions to Africa has always been human garbage. What’s new? I agree with Alex, for a change; why even buy the book?

  10. Alex is a moron. But that’s nothing new.

    1.) I haven’t “pitched” the book anywhere. Did you not read what I said above? I said it was terrible.

    2.) I could have checked the book out from the library. In fact, I tried to do so. It was already checked out. I didn’t want to bother with the waiting list.

    3.) I had planned to write a negative review of the book (“Bad Decisions”) while it was still in the news. What’s the point of reviewing a book when no one is searching for it on search engines?

  11. This reminds me of media outlets like FOX News and Rush Limbaugh that shower publicity on leftist news commentators like Rachel Maddow, people that most mainstream Americans have never even heard of before and collectively have an audience of 10 people. Without so-called right wing news coverage they would have faded into obscurity.

  12. Hunter, why don’t you adopt an anti-war platform on your site? It would certainly deflect alot of criticism from people questioning your motives. I can understand focusing on immigration but it looks to me like these neocons are dangling the carrot of border enforcement in order to get their people elected to office. Ending the Federal Reserve, scaling down the empire and ending third world immigration should be cornerstones of the White Nationalist Movement. That way it’s virtually impossible for fake opposition to spring up. If the Tea Party had adopted similar ideas I believe they would have swept Congress in these elections instead of just taking the House. No doubt people smelled something not quite kosher (or maybe they did smell something kosher) about Sharon Angle and Christine Odonnell. That is the key to winning in 2012. There is no other path.

  15. “Remember that big massive amnesty rally in Los Angeles with the sea of Mexican flags? That was the turning point in the immigration debate.”

    Just another example validating “worse is better” although Hunter will argue to the contrary. The more radical mestizos become in their demands for amnesty the more it galvanizes whites to oppose it and take meaningful action against it while exposing the white traitors within our ranks (Bush, Graham/Grahamesty, McCain/McAmnesty, etc.). Hell, even a few liberal wing nuts I know now agree with me that illegals must be deported.

    The initial pro-amnesty rally in 2006 was replete with displays of militant Chicano nationalism, Mexican flags and anti-white racial epithets. From that point on the pro-illegal camp lost any credibility or moral high ground they previously enjoyed with the electorate and illegals were no longer viewed as hard working, happy-go-lucky maids and day laborers trying to support their families.

    Most conservative polemicists don’t oppose illegal immigration because mestizos are an alien race and culture who pose a physical threat to white people. Their opposition is based on the fact that illegals won’t assimilate, tend to be more violent and support the Democratic party. If La Raza announced a shift in policy toward assimilation and support for the Republican party most well known anti-illegal conservatives would probably support some form of amnesty although the grassroots would still be steadfastly opposed to it.

  16. Yeah, great points, Fred. I too agree the A3P should have been a PAC. Actually, I think it should have been two groups. 1) a PAC, and 2) a White-equivalent of the ADL.

    It’s not too late though. If we could just get organized, it’s still a semi-free country; we can start a PAC anytime; there’s nothing stopping us but horrible internal disorganization that is hopefully not intractable and permanent. Maybe the A3P organizers could form a PAC.

    Funding is also a serious problem. I recall HW writing about the professionalism of the various organizations in northern Virginia compared to how laughably amateurish WN organizations are in comparison. Well, the reason for that is no mystery; it’s funding, nothing else. If you look at the NRAs Web site for example, you can tell that’s a very expensive Web site. No one WN group is ever going to put up a Web site like that.

    Our financial elites are such scum; we could start to turn the tide a little bit by next month if just one elite White Gentile equivalent of George Soros would step forward and fund White versions of the various Marxist front groups.

    PACs also exist at the state-level where we need to put all of the emphasis going forward IMO. We will never affect system dynamics at the national level usually.

    At the state and local level though, it’s feasible. A state level pro-White PAC would probably generate just as much anti-racist frenzy as a national one, and maybe embolden Whites in other states to form PACs too. A state-level PAC might actually be effective too. There are state districts here filled with Whites who are one step above explicit racial consciousness which means the state reps would have to be responsive to their needs if someone would just organize to represent them.

    The Blacks here have a slew of agitator groups based in New Orleans (I live in Louisiana) incessantly pushing the state legislature to do or not do things that will affect the Blacks.

    Feminists groups operate the same way too. Every year the state legislature tightens the screws on single fathers by making child support laws more onerous and adding other anti-male legislation. Every year fathers organize to stop it, and every year they fail because they legislators aren’t responsive because there is no political price to be for screwing over men. Fathers are much more organized than WN, but still no match for the feminist groups and the organized Louisiana Bar.

    The fact that the A3P is a political party is also problematic because the country is multi-racial whether we like it or not, and it’s going to stay that way for a long time. Accordingly, a politician can’t just represent one race when the law applies to everyone equally — at least in theory; in practice we know that’s a joke and that the law is heavily stacked against Whites, despite formal legal equality.

  17. May Day 2006 was a huge turning point in American public and political discourse about illegal immigration. But don’t forget it was primarily a demonstration of supremacy and separatism on the part of the illegal immigrants.

    Comforted and encouraged by words from the highest authorities in Washington, D.C., tens of thousands of illegal aliens took to the streets in every West Coast city demonstrating a claim to supremacy and an intention for separatism through flags, signs, speeches, epithets, rioting, sabotage, and every way possible to literally claim “the upper hand” in American streets.

    We ignore clear evidence that May Day 2006 was essentially a declaration of independence (except for welfare checks) by those rowdy mobs as well as a claim to supremacy over us.

    And remember, no one from any of the various Mexican migration support groups has ever disowned or spoken against the symbols, signs, and speeches that marked May Day 2006 as a day to remember for the rest of this century.

  19. Just days after the failure of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain-Kyl amnesty bill, also known as “comprehensive immigration reform” forced our then sitting Arizona governor Janet Napolitano to sign one of the first tough pieces of legislation aimed at stopping illegal immigration: the employer sanctions bill or L.A.W.(Legal Arizona Workers.)
    http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special46/articles/1128biz-sanctions101.html?&wired

    Up until that point she was the “veto Queen” but a deadlock and melted phone switchboard in Washington forced her to swing to the right.
    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/11/20/20081120departure1121.html

    [Quote]In her first six years in office, she shattered the state’s veto record by rejecting 180 bills.

    Brewer, a former county supervisor and state legislator, doesn’t figure to be nearly so prolific with the veto stamp in working with a Republican-led Legislature.

    “If (Napolitano) leaves, we’ll have a very different landscape than we did yesterday,” said incoming House Assistant Minority Leader Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat girding for Life After Janet. “It’s going to be very different.”

    More blunt was state Sen. Ken Cheuvront, a Phoenix Democrat: “It’s going to be a travesty. We will have no one to stop the extremist legislation that inevitably will be put forward by the Republican majority.” [Quote]
    Now that she’s gone Arizona has become a much more safe place to live and mestizols are deserting our state in droves or heading to other states that aren’t tough on illegal immigration like California.
    I guess my point is that with the elections two weeks ago, Arizona (and some other states) have shifted even more to the right even if the Federal Congress and Senate haven’t so much. The states are much stronger now. If Obama tries to pass anything like the amnesty Bush failed at in 2006-2007 he will fail even worse. So look for an executive order from him and the lame duck Congress and be prepared.

    And also look for several state bills banning “birthright citizenship” or “anchor babies.” We in Arizona are just getting prepared to heat things up again.

  20. So let me get this straight: Hunter’s game plan for how “we” turn the tide on immigration is this:

    (1) Cede the moral high ground and initiative to the Left.
    (2) Wait for them to over-reach, i.e., “to party like its 2042,” to borrow Matt Parrott’s phrase.
    (3) Hope that the Jewish media monopoly is not as united behind race replacement as they are behind Zionism, so the images get to white Americans, who are duly alarmed.
    (4) Hope that Harry Reid mistimes a vote.
    (5) Squeak by with the votes of a few system whores whose commitment to long-term race replacement wavered in the face of short term self-interest.
    (6) Assert that they were playing into “our” hands, as if he were a political mastermind rather than . . . well, whatever he is.

    Sounds like a plan.

    And he calls me a fantasist.

  22. What’s absent from this discussion is what would happen to the White billionaire who stepped forward to fund White causes.

    He would be attacked by every agency of the federal government. Unless he inherited his money his businesses would be vulnerable to every regulatory bureau. They would examine every scrap of paper and, guaranteed in a large financial empire, they would find or plant enough evidence to send him to federal prison.

    They were able to do this to James Traficante, and he wasn’t even rich.

  23. M: Probably so. The IRS would find something wrong with any White benefactor. Sam Francis wrote about anarcho-tyranny, where the law is written to trip you up no matter what you do, so you are always at the mercy of a willing prosecutor. Bill Gates didn’t give anything away until Congress called him in to testify about monopoly practices. Somehow, he couldn’t remember a lot of things that a CEO ought know, but they let him walk away. Suddenly, he then saw the virtue in throwing money into liberal causes, which of course employ liberals, like the worthless offspring of politicians and their friends.

  24. Does anyone else think that the debate between GJ and HW is (at least in part) driven by events that happened over the last year?

    For the newbies around here who might not know, the people at TOQ fired GJ from his post at TOQ Online and offered the job to HW, who accepted it along with the stipend that went with the position (formerly given to GJ and one of his friends). The transition was messy and it is my understanding that HW has since left the position himself. There’s a long thread at MR where all of this was discussed and chronicled.

  25. My impression has always been that there is some underlying personal enmity in their exchanges. My focus is on their arguments only.

  26. Hunter Wallace says: Notably, it is clear the Bush family’s Hispanic maid had a major impact on both W. and Jeb Bush

    Also, from an EGI standpoint, Jeb is married to a Mexican woman, and they have three kids together. George P. Bush, one of those kids, is often touted as a future savior of the GOP. I’ve also seen Jeb’s name popping up in kosher con circles as a possible candidate in ’12, including on David Frum’s Web site. The Bush family is dangerous. A classic example of elite White gentile betrayal.

  27. Greg Johnson’s strategy:

    1.) Instead of building bridges to the mainstream, we should instead build a plank (in the opposite direction) and dive off the deep end into the deepest waters of fringe politics.

    In doing so, we cede the moral high ground, the political spectrum, and the initiative (remember Johnson abandons reality in favor of cyberspace) to our enemies.

    2.) Spend the next sixteen years “spreading ideas” in anonymity on the internet. That hasn’t worked since the David Duke presidential campaign, but this time it will be different.

    Those “ideas” can’t motivate Greg Johnson himself to lift a finger to change our circumstances in reality, but he is confident that complete newbies (who are not even racially conscious) will respond to them in a different way. Get ready for a repeat of 1994 to 2010.

    3.) Rely upon obscure websites which no one in the American mainstream reads (or even most people in the White Nationalist movement) to preach a radical message of Neo-Nazism and anti-Christianity to Middle America.

    Somehow this will “influence the elite.” The American elite is reading Counter-Currents.

    4.) Abandon the political spectrum to our enemies. Reject the system and let everyone who advocates anything close to our position go down to defeat. Empower our worst enemies and destroy all resistance to the status quo. Make it even harder to discuss matters of concern to us in respectable discourse.

    Worse is better. Ted Kennedy was reelected to the Senate until he collapsed and died. Harry Reid was just reelected in Nevada. Worse is better didn’t produce any results for the White Nationalist movement in Nevada or Massachusetts for decades, but this time it will be different.

    5.) Reject the “system whores” like Tom Tancredo and Jan Brewer who have actually made it easier to talk about securing the border and immigration; the “system whores” whose actions have SUCCESSFULLY BEGUN to defuse the charge of “racism” in White America.

    Instead, rely upon an INEFFECTIVE “metapolitical struggle of ideas” which consists of reviewing movies like Batman Begins and Legally Blonde 2 and panning your favorite European fascist philosophers on a website that no one in Middle America will ever read.

    6.) Barring the success of that unlikely strategy wait for “the collapse of civilization” to solve all our problems.

  28. So let me get this straight…

    And let me get this straight: Your the leader of a political party and you’re coming onto a blog to snipe at a kid?

  29. Hunter, do you mind telling us how this site does in terms of web traffic?

    I ask because ever since you switched to a more pro Republican point of view it seems like most of your commentors despise you. I’m curious to see if your new angle is driving away longtime fans.

  30. It is not reflected in the WordPress Control Panel. There was an enormous spike in traffic on the day of the midterm elections. It declined somewhat, but stabilized at about 1,000 more views per day. I think we are averaging 3,500 to 4,000 views per day. There were 3,485 views yesterday.

    For every disgruntled vanguardist, there are hundreds of people who read this site, but don’t leave comments. I also think this site is becoming more effective in the sense that we are reaching more people who are more likely to vote, donate, organize, and influence their peers now.

  31. Greg Johnson plans to bridge the gap between explicit White Nationalism and implicit Whiteness by … drumroll … doubling down on anti-Americanism, anti-republicanism, avant-garde European neo-fascism, and anti-Christianity.

    It is not going to work. The market for that type of material is miniscule. I can guarantee you the response of ordinary Americans will be: this isn’t the right movement for me; those guys in the Tea Party do a much better job at representing my views and advancing my interests.

    And so we have the Tea Party sucking up all the wind of the White backlash and the White Nationalist movement failing to break out.

  34. Rodger,

    I have always been against foreign wars. At the same time, I won’t pretend that I consider foreign wars (which drain our treasury and result in a few thousand casualties) a problem of anywhere near the magnitude of the immigration crisis.

    Working within the mainstream is the best way to “End the Fed,” stop the foreign wars, and reform our immigration system. Ron Paul is now the overseer of the Federal Reserve. Rand Paul just got elected in Kentucky. We also have twice as many “true reformers” in the House on immigration as did before.

    It was by any reasonable standard a good day for us.

    But not in the minds of the crank wing of the White Nationalist movement: nothing short of Adolf Hitler riding into Washington on a white horse will satisfy them.

  35. The Flag is a sacred symbol for conservatives, veterans, and many others. We need to reconnect the Flag to its White nature and show what kinds of flags fly, and how they fly, when we let in foreign races:

    American Whites and Our Flag, from the civilizing of a New World to Whites planting our Flag on the Moon:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auupP1FDlKA&feature=related

    Flying a Mexican flag above an American flag. White hero Jim Brossard takes it down:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6cCPbA8jo&feature=related

    Immigration advocates flying Mexican flag and Che Guevara version of Cuban flag:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc5MVcsrrcI

    American students forced to pledge allegiance to Mexico:

  36. Hunter Wallace says:
    November 13, 2010 at 10:27 pm
    “For every disgruntled vanguardist, there are hundreds of people who read this site, but don’t leave comments. I also think this site is becoming more effective in the sense that we are reaching more people who are more likely to vote, donate, organize, and influence their peers now.”

    JR responds
    yes, agreed. All should understand O.D. is looking to be effective, looking to win – O.D. isn’t selling out to Neo Con or any other anti White forces. We’re going to get Glen Beck fans and Rush Limblob fans here who will see that the O.D. web site isn’t “weird”, fringe – or foreign. And yes we will work to move these folks solidly in an international pro White way.
    For those Vanguardist who worship NS, Hitler – please understand that the very successful German NS movement in the 20s and 30s did the same thing we’re doing now – they worked within existing political, cultural realities. The National Socialists knew how to communicate with Conservative Bavarian Catholics of the day – the NS pushed anti marxism, German military patriotism – the NS did not push Odinism, Hindu Aryan prophesies about incarnations of Vishnu in Catholic areas. And AH and the NS managed to work well with German Industrialists, German farmers, even German workers – thus the name the German National Socialist Workers party – this name appealed to German workers in say Berlin where German workers were also being recruited by the Communist party. So again, O.D. is now doing what AH and the NS were doing in Germany – finding ways of reaching regular people, not scaring everyone off using foreign, strange fringe symbols, philosophies.
    And also understand that O.D. has included many good racial history articles like one supporting the Spanish Inquisition (Instauration Magazine) – but for some Vanguardists who are never satisfied, they’ll moan that publishing history articles supporting the Spanish Inquisition is being soft on “the Jews” go figure.

  37. I really don’t understand this objection that the Tea Party is neocon/Zionist controlled. Of course it is — the entire US political, military and industrial war machine is neocon controlled. There are exceptions of course like the Pauls, but the neocons hold sway over US foreign policy — and not just within the GOP.

    In Afghanistan, BHO himself replaced General McChrystal with General Petraeus, a neocon. Look up what Pat B. said about Petraeus; Petraeus is the neocon’s guy. The neocons had enough influence to get BHO to put their guy in charge in Afghanistan.

    There is nothing we can do about neocon influence. It’s unfortunate, and I hate it, and I think we all hate it, but complaining about neocon influence is akin to complaining about Hollywood producing anti-White movies. It is a given with nothing we can do to stop it right now.

    Accordingly, the priority IMO needs to be keeping as many non-Whites off of American soil as possible through immigration restrictions — even if that means people voting in anti-immigration neocons which it will.

  38. As I’ve said before it looks to me like the neocons are paying lip service to immigration concerns to get their candidates elected. Of course, they know Obama and the Democrat Senate can block anything that comes out of the House so they can promise the moon and it means nothing.

  39. Sorry for the derail, but i think it’s relevant and I really want people to read this article I wrote. This article explains how meaningless a lot of this infighting really is.

    Why There Will be No War on Iran
    by Otis The Sweaty

    There has always been a split on the far right in American politics (and by always, I mean since the early part of the decade) between the far-rightists and the white nationalists/paleocons. These two groups share an overwhelming amout of basic beliefs and ultimate goals, but they have very different priorities and the end result is a tremendous amount of animosity on both sides.

    That animosity has grown since the Republican landslide in the recent midterm elections. The far right sees the Republican gains as a victory in the battle against hispanic immigration whereas the white nationalists/paleocons see the elections as only as a catalyst for a United States attack on Iran.

    While both sides are agreed that an attack on Iran would be a bad thing, what divides the sides is how important a US/Iran war (and consequently, preventing such a war) really is. The far rightist position can fairly be summed up as, “It’s a bad idea but whatevs… hey look, another state is adopting the Arizona law!” Meanwhile, the white nationalist/paleoconservatives view an Iran attack as absolutely unnaceptable both for moral reasons (white nationalists/paleocons tend to be Iranophiles) and well as practical reasons (i.e. an Iran war would further expand Jewish/Zionist power and therefor be bad for American whites).

    One thing that is rarely or never discussed, however, is how likely a US attack on Iran really is. There just seems to be an assumption that the US will in fact attack Iran and it is only a matter of time. But is it really?

    Who Wants War with Iran?

    A stupid question, right? Israel (and consequently, it’s American arm, AIPAC) does, obviously. But is that enough? If we look at recent history, we will see that it is not. It isn’t enough that Israel wants something, there are other groups that need to want it as well.

    It is true that Israel got the war it wanted in Iraq in 2003, but there were many factors that allowed Israel to get what it had wanted since atleast the first Gulf War in 1991. Let’s examine the factors that allowed for the Gulf War II:

    1. A NeoCon dominated White House: George W. Bush ran as a foreign policy moderate in the tradition of Republican Presidents like his father, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. Whether he intended initially to govern in such a fashion before 9/11 will never be known but what is known is that he surrounded himself with NeoConservatives from day 1. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Douglas Feith were believers in an imperial America and had openly talked about overthrowing Saddam Hussein for years before 9/11.

    2. A pro war public: In the summer of 2003, America was riding high. The American military had trashed the Taliban in Afghanistan with ease, installing a pro Western puppet with little apparent cost. The memory of 9/11 was still fresh in the minds of the American people and they were anxious to continue hitting back and the Saddam Hussein boogeyman that had been built up in American’s minds over the previous decade provided a convenient target.

    3. A weak adversary: Iraq in 2003 was a comically weak country. It had virtually no air force or even any real air defenses. Its soldiers were poorly trained, equipped, led and were ready to surrender at a drop of a hat. The bulk of the Iraqi population was more than happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein and certainly were not about to risk their lives on his behalf. Iraq was also diplomatically isolated, lacking any real friends or support with the exception of Syria.

    4. A strong American military: The US military had just scored a very impressive, quick victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan and had no problem gathering the resources for a crushing offensive into Iraq.

    5. Allies: Although the UN Security Council did not acquiese to the second Gulf War, the Bush administration was able to form a “Coalition of the Willing” for the US led invasion. Britain made substantial contributions in both men and material and other nations pitched in as well, although their contributions were more a diplomatic nature.

    6. A strong US and Global Economy: In 2003, the US economy was going through a post 9-11 mini boom. Oil was cheap and times were relatively good. The country could afford a war and could afford to pay a little more for gas for a few months.

    The situation today

    How does the summer 2003 situation compare to ours today?

    1. There are no NeoCons in the current White House: Obama’s entire cabinet is made up of people who don’t like to use force except as a last resort. The defense secretary, Robert Gates, is a professional, well respected, military man who is known to oppose war against Iran. Obama himself is probably the most antiwar US President in the post WWII era in complete contrast to Bush who viewed himself as having a divine mandate to “spread democracy”.

    2. The American people don’t want war: Ever since late 2003 the American people have become more and more disillusioned with war. They have seen the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turn to shit and they know what the true costs of another conflict would be. While guys like Bill Kristol are still pushing war, they are not leaders of a mass movement. The people who actually fire up the the Conservative grassroots may not be pushing an anti war line, but they aren’t pushing for war either. Meanwhile, the most important part of Obama’s/the Democrat’s base, blacks and hispanics, reflexively oppose any US war as they see them as “white aggression” against “people of color”.

    3. A credible adversity: While calling Iran “strong” may be somewhat of an exageration, it is certainly strong compared to the joke that was 2003 Iraq or 2001 Afghanistan. Iran has a massive army that is ready and willing to fight, not just looking to surrender at the first opportunity. Iran’s mountainous terrain is much more difficult to conduct offensive operations in than the Iraqi desert. Iran’s air defenses haven’t been eroded by a crippling war and years of sanctions and airforce strikes. The Iranian population would, by and large, actively resist any invaders, not tolerate them and certainly not welcome them. On the diplomatic front, Iran is most certainly not diplomatically isolated like Iraq was. In fact, Iran has a relatively good standing in the international community and has powerful allies like Russia, China and India.

    4. An overextended American military: The US military is worn down. It is deployed in too many places and it simply lacks the resources for another imperial war.

    5. No Allies: Except for Israel, no other country would (publicly) support a United States war against Iran.

    6. A horrible and rapidly declinig US economy: The economy is bad and is only going to get worse. A war with Iran would send oil up to $300 a barrel and accelerate and intensify the next economic downturn which is coming anyway, but that the elites are trying so hard to prevent.

    The above evidence shows that a US attack against Iran simply is not in the cards. That certain powerful/people want such an attack is true, but irrelevent. Israel/AIPAC/the NeoCons simply are not going to get their war. Not this time.

  41. A very good article, Otis. There is certainly a lot to chew on there on and on the topic in general.

    What are your thoughts on the possibility of Israel forcing the US’s hand by striking Iran itself to start a conflict?

  42. Rodger:

    As I’ve said before it looks to me like the neocons are paying lip service to immigration concerns to get their candidates elected. Of course, they know Obama and the Democrat Senate can block anything that comes out of the House so they can promise the moon and it means nothing.

    True, except they have already stopped amnesty dead in its tracks. That’s a significant accomplishment. Without the Tea Party wave election, Obama’s next move would have been to amnesty 15,000,000 to 30,000,000 illegal Mexicans. But otherwise, I don’t disagree with your main point that extreme skepticism is warranted.

    Otis:

    Meanwhile, the white nationalist/paleoconservatives view an Iran attack as absolutely unnaceptable both for moral reasons (white nationalists/paleocons tend to be Iranophiles) and well as practical reasons (i.e. an Iran war would further expand Jewish/Zionist power and therefor be bad for American whites).

    One quibble here. The white nationalist/paleoconservative view, as you represent it here, is actually that they care more about the consequences of a purely hypothetical Iran attack than blocking a president who will definitely sign amnesty legislation, or putting people in office who will vote for more immigration controls.

    It’s also not certain that such an attack would increase Jewish/Zionist power. It might very well do the reverse — bankrupt the American empire once and for all.

  43. What are your thoughts on the possibility of Israel forcing the US’s hand by striking Iran itself to start a conflict?

    First, thanks for the compliment.

    I was gonna talk about that but I didn’t want to take up too much space or divert the focus. But it is an important question so I’ll answer it now.

    For Israel to attack Iran it would need three things: motive, means and will.

    Israel certainly has the means to attack Iran. While Turkey and the US would not allow Israeli Jets to fly over airspace they control for an Iran attack, Saudi Arabia definitely would (the arab people love Iran, but the arab governments despise the Iranians who they see as a threat to their own power). It’s hard to see Iran’s 70’s era air defense causing a problem to the fully modernized IAF.

    It is the subject of “motive” where we start running into problems, however. The current popular narrative (which is unquestionably accepted by white nationalists who really should know better) is that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and they will very shortly develop a nuclear warhead which can be put on a missile which the crazy Iranians will not hesitate to launch straight at Tel Aviv. Now while it is possible that the world has access to intelligence that suggests the Iranians do in fact have a nuclear weapons program all intelligence that is available to the public indicates just the opposite: the Iranian program is exactly was they say it is, an internationally monitored nuclear energy program*. Ofcourse, when the Iranians master the nuclear fuel cycle that will give them the capability of developing nuclear weapons within a year or less should they so desire and that is what truly concerns Israel, the US and Iran’s regional rivals. The issue is categorically not an existential one for Israel, so it’s motive is not s strong as they are saying and most accept unquestionably.

    The real problem, however, is the question of will. Israel is an extremely weak country although this is not widely understood. After the 1967 war Israel established an image for itself as a tough, independent country that wasn’t afraid to do anything. But ever since Israel was pounded by Egypt and Syria in 1973 the nation has been on a terminal decline to the point where it is now so weak and so lacking in confidence that there is nothing it will do without explicit US permission. Israel needed US permission to attack Syria in 2008 and is only blockading Gaza today because the US allows it to. Even Ahmadenjad, who certainly knows a good deal about Israel, recently dismissed the possibility of an Israeli attack on his country because Israel’s “American masters” would never allow it (his words, not mine).

    Long story short, I can’t totally rule out that Israel would start a war with Iran. I also can’t rule out that if they did so that Iran would be stupid enough to play into Israel’s hands by doing something idiotic like launching missiles at Saudi Arabia or closing the Persian gulf to oil exports. But while both scenerios are certainly possible, I think that they are very unlikely.

    *While Iran certainly has a covert nuclear weapons program as well, such an issue is a red herring as practically EVERY IAEA monitored nation has a covert weapons program, but such programs are irrelevent as long as the actual nuclear materials are under IAEA supervision, as they are in the case of Iran.

  45. Oops hit return too soon.

    Where is American 3rd Position Party? All I’m getting from all the links, here AND on the Political Cesspool site AND on theoccidentalobserver.com is
    “oops internet explorer could not find”

  46. It’s also not certain that such an attack would increase Jewish/Zionist power. It might very well do the reverse

    While I agree that that would be the likely result, Iran is generally regarded by white nationalists as sort of the current “great white hope” for destroying Israel ever since the Arab regimes have been co-opted into the American orbit. I get the sense that many think that Iran provides the last chance of ridding the world of Israel.

    Also, a war with Iran could result in millions of Iranian casualties, and white nationalists/paleocons feel morally bound to prevent such a situation as they think very highly of Iranians.

  49. I doubt Bush wrote the book. The ghostwriter likely had to write in a semi-believable juvenile style, but I doubt Bush could even maintain a narrative or train of thought in written colloquial English.

  50. I would like to add that I don’t think the Iranians are stupid enough to launch on Israel, even if they could. Back in the day, as they say, Israel’s nuclear force was limited to ground-based ballistic missiles and free-fall bombs. As per a few years ago, the Israeli navy – an otherwise not very impressive force – operates German-manufactured diesel submarines which carries nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. That make a first strike against Israel virtually impossible.

    On a more cynical note: if I was an Israeli leader, I might consider letting my Patriot batteries “miss” on inbound missile so that I lost a minor city. That way there is plenty of moral imperative to strike back and I would also have a whole new – fresh! – Holocaust memory in my arsenal…

Comments are closed.