Sarah Palin’s Insidious Whiteness

Sarah Palin's Alaska is an eight hour campaign commercial.

Alaska

It’s almost official: Sarah Palin is going to run for president.

Yesterday, I watched the highly anticipated debut episode of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” According to The Wall Street Journal, approximately 4.96 million people watched the show. It was the most watched debut program in TLC history.

Palin’s new reality show is already offering us glimpses into how she intends to conduct her presidential campaign. She is going to run as an Andrew Jackson style populist candidate, a down home “woman of the people,” against an unpopular Barack Obama, who is going to be cast in the role of John Quincy Adams, a cerebral out of touch Washington elitist, a closet Federalist who struck a “corrupt bargain” with Wall Street.

The Palin campaign will be based on an implicit form of White identity politics. She isn’t running on the basis of her experience as Governor of Alaska. She isn’t running as the champion of some public policy cause like the flat tax. Nor is Palin the favorite of the GOP establishment. The whole basis of her appeal is her identification with Red America.

Sarah Palin wants to be the first president of Red America.

Her television show is an eight hour campaign pitch to White voters in the Red States. It is so obviously telegraphed that it is almost indisputable: driving an RV up to Mt. McKinley, fishing for salmon with the kids while watching brown bears fight, landing on a glacier, mountain climbing. In upcoming episodes, Sarah of Alaska will be shown on television dog sledding, camping out, kayaking, and shooting rifles.

Think Dubya at the ranch on steroids.

In the promo for the show, Palin says, “I’d rather be doing this than in some stuffy old political office” and “I’d rather be out here being free.” In other words, Palin is more comfortable in the outdoors than in the metropolitan areas where Barack Obama seems to thrive.

Palin’s children have unorthodox names like “Bristol,” “Piper,” “Track,” “Willow,” and “Trig.” There was a “McKinley” in the show who was also a Palin family member. The exaggerated whiteness here is on the same level of black women who give their children African ghetto names like La’Kisha, Mo’Nique, Latoya, and Da’Quonda.

The show is based on the way of life of Red America.

Blowing the Dog Whistle

The dog whistle is blown in “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” so hard to White voters that progressives are already freaking out about it. Salon has a new article called “The insidious message of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” that psychoanalyzes her every move.

This is worth quoting at length:

“And when in the first episode, she just happens to observe, “I love watchin’ these mama bears; they’ve got a nature humankind could learn from,” that has nothing at all to do with her own political action committee ad of earlier this year entitled — what was it again? — Mama Grizzlies. Sure, TLC, I believe you. Because I’m just that stupid. Likewise, when the Palin family triumphant built a fence to protect themselves from a journalist who’s “writing an ugly book” next door, it wasn’t just an issue of privacy; it was, as Sarah declared, “a good example of what we need to do to secure our border.” Palin 2012 — Keeping America safe from Joe McGinniss.

Palin, in fact, is shutting down access and asking for papers with the zeal of an Arizona border patrol agent in the show’s first episode. . . .

“I love watching these mama bears,” Palin tells the TLC camera. “They’ve got a nature, yeah, that humankind could learn from. She’s trying to show her cubs, ‘Nobody’s gonna do it for ya. You get out there and do it yourself, guys.'”

Translation: Stop relying on government.”

The first episode was loaded with hints and suggestions of public policy positions. The fence scene suggested that Palin will champion building the border fence and defending Arizona-style laws with federal court appointments.

She has a child with down syndrome to endear her to the anti-abortion crowd. Palin has been bellicose enough in her rhetoric to appeal to the warhawks. She has endeared herself to the small government, low tax constituency in the Tea Party. There is also the enticement to her candidacy of becoming “the first woman president” that could eliminate the traditional Democratic advantage with White women.

With such public visibility and widespread appeal to the various factions inside the Republican Party, I have a hard time imagining anyone beating Palin in a race for the presidential nomination.

Palin for President

It is too early to start talking about the 2012 presidential race. We don’t know who the candidates will be or their positions on issues like immigration. A few of the other likely major candidates are already making moves. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Bobby Jindal have new books out. Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney make regular appearances on television. Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Jim DeMint could possibly run. There is already talk in some kosher con quarters of drafting Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio running as the Republican version of Barack Obama.

A Jeb Bush presidential candidacy must be defeated at all costs. The last thing we need is a resurrection of the Bush dynasty. Similarly, Rubio and Jindal must be prevented from getting the nomination, or that will further the narrative that the GOP must sell out its White conservative base to remain viable.

There is nothing inspiring about Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty, Barbour, Huckabee, or Santorum. Jim DeMint is loved in Tea Party circles, but he would face too much opposition in the primaries and he doesn’t have the charisma to become president. If Ron Paul has any plan to run again, I haven’t heard any buzz about it.

At this early date, Sarah Palin is the logical choice for the nomination. There isn’t a more polarizing figure on the national political stage. Something about Palin drives Blue America up the wall. She is easily the most despised figure among the political class in Washington.

At the same time, Red America loves Sarah Palin as a symbol and representative of White provincial life in the Heartland. They would lash out in anger at attacks upon their champion. A presidential race between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama would be the most divisive national election since Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.

It would put White identity politics at the center of the national political conversation in a way that a showdown with other bland candidates like Mitt Romney would not. At the same time, the perception that Sarah Palin is running as the White candidate of Middle America would drive SWPL progressives to new hysterical heights of overreaction. It would draw out the most slanderous venom possible from non-White organizations like the NAACP and La Raza.

Elections are opportunities.

If Sarah Palin runs for president and wins the Republican nomination, the mainstream media will spend at least a year trashing and vilifying a cultural icon of Red America. If Palin manages to defeat Obama, they will spend at least five years doing it, and the resulting polarization will further damage and undermine their credibility with Whites in the Heartland.

Unless some other equally polarizing national figure emerges, the insidious whiteness of Sarah of the Provinces is our best shot at driving a hard wedge between Washington and Middle America.

About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Politico on the devastation of the Democratic Party in the states:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45160.html

    Republicans have already gained as many as 60 seats in Congress, but when GOP gains are looked at on a state-by-state basis, the bloody picture for Democrats nationwide becomes even more gruesome. Several state legislatures made historic transitions to Republican hands — some for the first time since the 19th century — and nearly an entire generation of state Democrats saw its ranks obliterated. Here is POLITICO’s look at states that saw the political landscape change dramatically.

    • Alabama’s most monumental shift came in the state Legislature, in which Republicans gained control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1874. State Sen. Robert Bentley’s win kept the governor’s mansion in GOP hands, and Republicans picked up a net of seven seats in the Senate and 19 seats in the House. In the state’s most contested U.S. House seat, Martha Roby defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright.

    • Wisconsin was painted red as Ron Johnson defeated Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, Republican Scott Walker won the open governor’s race and two House seats flipped: Republican Sean Duffy won the seat of retiring Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, and roofing contractor Reid Ribble defeated Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen. But perhaps the Republicans’ most historic victory was gaining control of the state Assembly and the Senate — marking the first time the GOP has had total control of the state government since 1998 and the first time one party won control of both houses on the same day since 1938.. . .

    I worked hard in Alabama to make this a reality.

  2. I was wondering why Democrats had stopped talking about their Northeastern firewall:

    • New Hampshire saw both of its congressional districts flip back to the GOP thanks to victories by former Rep. Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta’s defeat of Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. Kelly Ayotte easily posted a win in her Senate race, but perhaps the most amazing gains were in the Legislature. Republicans gained veto-proof majorities in both chambers — 297 of 400 seats in the state House, the most since 1984, and 19 of 24 Senate seats, the most since 1962.

    • Maine’s governorship flipped to the Republican column, with Paul LePage edging out independent Eliot Cutler in the multicandidate race to give the GOP the post for the first time since 1995. In the Legislature, both chambers reverted to Republican hands — the first time in 36 years that the GOP will control the state House and the first time in 14 years that it will control the state Senate.

  3. Only 4.96 million viewers? C’mon. Reruns of Gilligan’s Island and I Dream of Jeannie get higher ratings than that. Why has the media all of a sudden started promoting this woman? It’s only an opinion but I think there’s a reason her popularity soared during the Presidential campaign and then started to plummet weeks after. People figured her out.

  4. The Huffington Post and Think Progress (arms of the George Soros media empire) publicizes the NSM rally in Arizona. Another useful illustration of how White Nationalist vanguardists and Jewish Democrats are allies:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/neo-nazi-rally-arizona-immigration-law_n_783533.html

    Sarah Palin’s daughter Piper Palin:

    http://parentingfreedom.com/images/palin240.jpg

    Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi plot how to pass the DREAM Act amnesty in the lame duck session next week:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45156.html

    California Supreme Court upholds in-state tuition for illegal aliens:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/us/16immig.html?src=mv

    Ex-RINO Lincoln Chafee, Gov.-elect of Rhode Island, promises to rescind E-Verify:

    http://www.projo.com/news/content/CHAFEE_EVERIFY_11-16-10_R9KV71K_v13.389062b.html

  5. The delicious irony is that ZOG based media probably thought that their McCain/Palin campaign venom and assorted ravages killed any chance she would had of running successfully for the 2012 nomination, let alone running successfully for the office. Instead, their clearly biased vitriol, her book, Fox appearances, and this TLC series will allow her to possibly live to fight another day. The economy and their knee-jerk anti-white hatred may really be their undoing, and certainly has helped Mrs. Palin both politically and even monetarily.

    Polarization seems to be the gift that just keeps giving these days; but, then again, rationality was never a strong suit for those that pray at the altar of multicultural silliness and hating whitey. If they were intelligent about things they would back off and at least try to appear to play nice, but it just isn’t in them (e.g., see Timothy Wise’s recent comments on killing whitey). Instead, they reflexively attack and seem to ignore any possible learning from the most recent election. It really is a sight to behold.

  6. The hate spewed at Palin, an identity politician like Andrew Jackson, will resonate with White voters in Middle America. In much the same way, blacks take attacks on Obama as an insult to their entire community.

    In contrast, if Mitt Romney were to win the nomination, attacks on him won’t be perceived as attacks on an entire community. No one identifies with Romney. The destruction of Romney by the mainstream media (like McCain before him) wouldn’t cause any lasting damage.

    The best possible scenario would be for Palin to win the Republican nomination and the mainstream media attempt to tear her down for a whole year across the 24/7 news cycle. Every time Palin is insulted as a racist, a hick, a boob, an uncouth, unsophisticated redneck provincial it will be perceived as an attack by the political class upon her supporters.

    If Palin wins the nomination, the Jews and SWPL progressives won’t be able to resist the temptation to denigrate Palin and portray her as another Christine O’Donnell, crow about their moral superiority for supporting a black candidate, and insult her supporters as backward racists. In so many words, they won’t be able stop themselves from publicly beating their chest about how much better they are than ordinary people.

    Predictably, this will touch the “you aren’t any better than me” button and set off a massive White backlash in Red America. The country as a whole doesn’t have the same demographics as Delaware and Barack Obama will lose.

    If Obama were defeated by Palin, the reaction of the Jews, SWPLs, and especially of blacks would be … interesting to say the least.

  7. Palin is a flake. If she’s not Joe Lieberman in drag?

    An Obama-Palin race would open the door for David Duke, and others to enter the race. As I’ve said before, if Duke can raise the money, he has as much chance as anyone else.

  8. Well, Palin’s top aid, Randy Scheunemann, is Jewish and on the payroll of George Soros. She boldly stated that she loved Israel in the 2008 vice presidential debate, harangued Obama to bomb Iran in 2009 and proudly displayed an Israeli flag in her Governor’s office but somehow she’s not a warmongering Zionist. It seems her love of America takes a back seat to Israel.

    Just because she races sled dogs and roasts franks and marshmallows around the campfire doesn’t necessarily mean she will implement a pro-white agenda if elected president.

  9. Hunter’s point that a Palin presidency would further polarize Red and Blues in a way a Romney, for instance, wouldn’t is indisputable. For that she’ll gets my vote. The fact that the msm loathes her, and I loathe the msm, is alone enough to secure my vote.

  10. Here we go.

    (1) The mainstream media is delighted with the opportunity the NSM has provided them to portray supporters of SB 1070 as Neo-Nazis. The Huff Post and Think Progress are publicizing the story.

    (2) The Scheunemann story has been heavily promoted on Daily Kos and other leftwing websites like Salon, The Nation, and Huff Post. Predictably, the vanguardists are already spinning it here.

    (3) In 2012, George Soros will undoubtedly throw his money behind Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates. The vanguardists will spent 100 percent of their time opposing the Republican candidates who are good on immigration.

    They will encourage White Nationalists either not to vote or to vote Democratic. Their entire agenda is based upon making life even more awful for White people and pushing a White ethnostate further outside the range of possibility.

    (4) There hasn’t been a war with Iran in the nearly ten years that have passed since 9/11. There is no reason to think the U.S. will be in any position to launch another war while facing a gargantuan budget deficit, a sputtering economy, an exploding national debt, and perhaps a dollar collapse.

    (5) If Sarah Palin is elected president, the effective result would be a wash on Israel, but an improvement on immigration and border security. Jews would have less influence over Palin because Obama is so heavily dependent upon big Jewish donors.

    (6) Realistically, if White Nationalists want to do something effective about American support for Israel, they would have to organize and work within the system to counter the influence of the Jewish Lobby. They are unwilling to do this.

    (7) The vanguardists talk hard about Jewish power. Yet they do nothing about the problem. Why should they be taken seriously?

    (8) There is nothing stopping White Nationalists from participating in the political process to knock off Jewish incumbents like Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Al Franken, Chuck Schumer, Max Blumenthal, John Corzine, Arlen Specter, Ron Klein, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold.

    The vanguardists emphatically insist that working within the system is a waste of time … unless anti-White Democrats are the ones being supported. Their advocate actions that effectively empower our worst enemies.

    (9) Addressing our problems in a serious, realistic fashion means prioritizing issues, working within the system, and making tough choices.

    Immigration is the top priority. Polarization is the method for moving the goal posts toward a stronger form of White racial consciousness. On both counts, Sarah Palin is the logical choice for the Republican nomination.

  11. With Palin I’m more worried about a Reaganesque subversion than an open betrayal.

    Palin won’t push amnesty, but she might appoint a Jew to run ICE, who will interpret the law Talmudically to maximize the number of Mexicans and other non-whites given citizenship.

    But she’d still be better than Obama so I’d vote for her on that basis.

    In the primary I’d rather support a closed borders White Republican who’s married to a White, not a race mixer.

  12. I agree with Hunter on this one. In short, polarize and prioritize. Almost by definition any mainstream or even quasi-mainstream personality will have some ZOG connections; but in the long run the key is to triage and prioritize without going against the waves hitting us that aren’t capable of killing us. The major waves hitting us are immigration and the economy, not protecting Israel. Because of the economy and related debt levels, although possible, it is unlikely we can begin an action against a country the size of Iran. We really have shot our wad in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus we can’t afford it without Japan, China, etc. subsidizing it (which they almost no longer can do, even if they wanted to).
    In fact, as the national credit card is cut over roughly the next year the government will be forced to cut back on ZOG subsidies to our tormentors. Rejoice, the economic (i.e., regarding cutting the resources of ZOG) and political currents seem to be with us. Furthermore, the MSM is wounded, confused, and lashing out at poor Sarah and anybody else that looks and acts white. What is now unfolding is a show where popcorn and a sense of humor can do wonders. Sure, plan for the worst and keep plugging away, but who could have foretold that since McCain’s defeat his running mate would still be taking flak from the whitey haters while setting herself up for what looks like to be a good shot at the Republican nomination in 2012?

  13. If Sarah Palin wins the Republican nomination in 2012, White women nationwide would be well-advised to avoid any situation where they might find themselves alone in the presence of Blacks.

  14. Polarizing? Yes.
    Capable? Not likely. I can see her and the GOP doing just enough good to keep the country limping along the path to Brazilization.
    What a miserable choice. Maybe the best outcome is a win for BHO in the Electoral College, with Palin getting the popular vote. Let Obama continue to take the heat for the downward spiral. Let 2012 be 1856.

  15. Greg,

    This Big Von essay would be a great article for Counter-Currents:

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/new_european_fashion/

    New European fashion has to be strict. It has to be fashionably strict. Cut along the lines of imperial traditions (dating back to Ancient Rome), it has to exemplify the uniformity of the nation’s iron will. . . .

    Johnny Rotten marries Gabriele d’Annunzio: the complete synthesis of complete freedom and utter disregard for the values of the herd and the morality of the masticating masses is blended with the acceptance of lust and power as the twin principles of the New Dawn. The road to the New European Renaissance leads across the shattered bones and discarded corpses of fashion victims of yore (when the lands yielded nothing but media death and despair in blue jeans). . . . .

    Marching across fields and across rivers and across the dead armies of the enemy, the new young Europeans in their boots and black uniforms and bright outlook see ahead the road that will lead them to freedom filled with lust and romance and danger (three key ingredients in the young men’s and women’s cocktail – served in the bars of life). Across the Empire on avenues newly lined with freshly planted oak trees, the new young European men walk hand in hand with the new young European women, the men’s uniforms sleek and form-fitting and the women’s black leather knee boots dominating the asphalt, quivering under the might of the new model army. . . .

    The Greeks were naked, so we shall be naked! We shall be naked with pride and we shall be naked with the pride of men and women who willingly enter each other to produce and perfect the offspring that will in turn give joy to each other and thus perfect and hone and tune values inherent in both body and spirit.

    The period is the belt buckle and the exclamation marks are the suspenders. Where is the working class? Where is the goal that promiseth everlasting glory? Rimbaud the Frenchman has seen, Hitler the German has seen and Churchill the Englishman has also seen. What do we see? What do WE YOUNG PEOPLE see? We see what is OURS and we see what is NOT THEIRS. THEY MUST GO SO WE CAN LIVE! Their rags against our suits, their Haj caps against our proud hats, their pride in a lie against our pride in the real. The equation is nil. The question is answered. The answers are open. Our suits can be soiled but THEIR HEADS shall roll!

  16. My case for Sarah Palin:

    1) Her strong implicit Whiteness will continue to draw our enemies’ anti-White hate and hate for Red America. They won’t be able to restain themselves.

    2) Palin will shake things up within the GOP establishment. Rove, Graham, Frum and the worst of the worst of the GOP establishment despise Sarah Palin. They are already working from within to destroy her to keep the Rove/Graham wing in control. See redstate.com.

    3) The best outcome for WN is whatever is most polarizing and disruptive to the establishment at a national level. Palin will create polarization and disruption from both directions, with the anti-White left on one side, and the Rove/Graham amnesty wing of the GOP on the other both trying to destroy her. Turmoil is a good thing.

    4) The conservative base has shown good instincts over the years on immigration. Mostly nothing has come of it because the GOP elites represented by the likes of GWB, Rove, Graham, Gerson and others have repeatedly betrayed them. This is the same group that wants to destroy Palin. They hate her because she is likely to be responsive to the grass roots rather than taking their votes and walking away.

    5) We are more likely to get marginally beneficial changes like a border fence with Palin than anyone else. Anything to hold back the rising tide of color helps, even if it’s only very marginal action.

    6) Palin’s blind support for neocons is irrelevant. The neocons usually get most of what they want no matter who is in office. BHO campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless,we are still in both places, and with the neocons preferred general running things in Afghanistan and who BHO appointed. Having an “antiwar” president in office hasn’t made any shred difference in drawing down from our wars. Under BHO, the Patriot Act is still on the books and Guantanamo Bay open.

  17. Watching the mainstream media dog pile their hero Sarah Palin and drag her through the mud for a year would be the most cathartic and polarizing of all possible election scenarios for Red America.

  18. A great article from RealClearPolitics about Barack Hussein Obama’s reelection prospects:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/16/assessing_the_obama_coalition_107969.html

    The Democratic Party is really a coalition of several semi-distinct parts. At its core, it is comprised of urban progressives and racial minorities, both of which were relative latecomers to the coalition. Layered over this base, with varying degrees of loyalty to the modern Democratic Party, are white working class voters (added by FDR in the 1930s), suburbanites (added by Clinton in the 1990s), and the oldest portion of the Democratic Party, rural voters.

    Part of the key to the modern Democratic Party’s success, especially at the Presidential level, has been the Democrats’ ability to maintain at least residual strength among the very first Democrats: rural “Jacksonian” Democrats in Appalachia (western Virginia, West Virginia, Northern Alabama, etc.) and in areas of the country first settled by Appalachians (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, etc.). But as I noted a year ago, the Democrats in 2008 essentially traded away Jacksonian Democrats at the Presidential level for an improved showing in the suburbs and increased turnout among minorities. This allowed President Obama to become the first Democrat since the founding of the Republican Party to win the Presidency without any electoral votes from West Virginia, Tennessee or Kentucky. . .

    Democrats in working class districts had their worst showing all decade – perhaps ever. The list of Democrats from white working class areas who fell to or below 60 percent of the vote is lengthy. Among the more notable examples: Anthony Weiner of Queens/Brooklyn (who fell to 59 percent of the two-party vote, from 71 percent in 2004, the last time he had major party opposition); James Oberstar of Duluth (49 percent, from 68 percent in 2008); Dale Kildee of Flint (54 percent, from 72 percent); Marcy Kaptur of Toledo (59 percent, from 74 percent); Peter Visclosky of Gary (60 percent, from 72 percent); John Dingell of Dearborn (59 percent, from 74 percent).

  19. Wouldn’t it be better if the Republicans nominated a white man who is intelligent, dignified, married to a white person, and principled — somebody whom white voters and conservatives can like for reasons of substance, not symbolism or pity? Or is worse better here?

    McCain picked Palin to shore up his support among conservatives and the “white trash” he so clearly disdains. He picked Palin because she appeals to such people in a purely symbolic way while she could be trusted to vote with the neocons on everything that matters.

    Given that, why are we still talking about this ridiculous nobody? Are we so psychologically beaten, so used to begging for crumbs from the Big People’s table, that we are grateful for sops like Palin? Why not demand candidates of substance?

    Why not grow up and stop thinking like children or beggars?

    When you know that the game is crooked, you don’t keep playing, hoping they won’t take everything you have, or hoping they will make a few mistakes that favor you. You kick the table over and start a new game.

  20. The Big Von essay is a riot! What a blowhard! Big V is the perfect role model for the WRONG approach to white nationalism. The guy is a total narcissist in love with the voluminous elocutions of his most savant speech…. what an ass. The message needs the right messenger to be heard. Big V is complete opposite of what we need. That guy needs to do some real work for a change, or, go into theatre. Acting grandiose appears to be his prime talent.

  21. Yes, I agree about Big Von. He is an internet narcissist cut from the same cloth as Hunter Wallace. People like that are not to be taken seriously.

  22. So, Hunter’s plan is to hope that a woman will be elected who’ll make the heartland boobs wildly patriotic and government-adoring. And this will help the cause of WN how exactly?

  23. Should only be a few hours now before the discussion kicks off about how Sarah Palin is a warmongering Zionist who is married to an Eskimo.

    I’m going to need to see her eminence grise, and his politics. Because IMO she’d have to be a lot smarter to be trusted on her own. Women have character issues – they tend to be unable to see past their own noses, and I’ve seen little to suggest Palin is the exception.

    Not that I’ve got any white knight waiting in the wings to promote. And a trappin’ shootin momma bear populist does sound like an improvement on what we have now. But does anyone really think she can handle Obama in a debate?

  24. Sarah Palin will not run for president. She is using the same presidential playbook to get media exposure that Newt Gingrich has done in 2000, 2004, 2008, and again in 2012.

    Hint that you are running for president so you can get on all the political shows to promote your book.

    Hint that you are running for president so TLC will give you a six figure reality show.

    Hint that your running for president so the political shows will bend over backwards to get your opinion on the issue of the day.

    Hint that your running for president so your speaking fees increase, while the state convention galas are always sold out so as not to speak to a half empty room.

    Hint at running for president so Human Events, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty and the “conservative” echo chamber will circle the wagon and provide a defense against any and all media criticism. (Hey, they may become a president with the letter (R) after their name, so they must be protected.)

    Newt Gingrich in 2016? I am certain he has book ready for the presses for that year.

  25. EAP3: “As I’ve said before, if Duke can raise the money, he has as much chance as anyone else.”

    You can’t seriously believe that, can you?

  26. Well, Palin’s top aid, Randy Scheunemann, is Jewish and on the payroll of George Soros.

    There we go.

    She boldly stated that she loved Israel in the 2008 vice presidential debate, harangued Obama to bomb Iran in 2009 and proudly displayed an Israeli flag in her Governor’s office but somehow she’s not a warmongering Zionist. It seems her love of America takes a back seat to Israel.

    If one of these Ziodiots would just USE their toadying for our race, it would be nice to see. You know: “I LOVE Israel. I think we should build a fence just like theirs!” “I LOVE Israel. I think we should make our immigration and border policy just like theirs!” “I LOVE Israel. I think states for nations is an idea whose time has come.”

  27. I just noticed there is a 600 comment thread on Majority Rights over whether or not NeoNietzsche is the Superman. – HW

    Yeah, it’s not about that actually. It’s about whose world view is right, Guessedworker or NN. Not very interesting though, all the same.

  28. Hunter writes: (8) There is nothing stopping White Nationalists from participating in the political process to knock off Jewish incumbents like Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Al Franken, Chuck Schumer, Max Blumenthal, John Corzine, Arlen Specter, Ron Klein, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold.

    Spector was knocked off by the Tea Party, who made it clear he was not going to win the primary which essentially drove him out of the GOP and back into the Democrats, where he lost the primary. Well done Tea Party!

    Russ Feingold was beaten in the general election by the GOP candidate, an outsider Tea-Party-inspired millionaire who spent $8M of his own money to win the seat. The Feingold loss is great because it has completely dispirited the far-left; Feingold was their most reliable champion. Here is some whining from FireDogLake, a leftist site that is typcial:

    “I used to have nothing against the voters of Wisconsin, however yesterday’s election changed that perspective completely. Wisconsin had, in the U.S. Senate, campaign finance reform’s most fearless advocate. Last night, the voters chose to oust him for a tea party candidate. Normally I don’t admit emotional ties to anything, but I was truly almost in tears when it was announced that Russ Feingold was projected to lose the Wisconsin Senate Election.”

    So the Tea Party has, without ever even bringing up the topic, managed to reduce the number of Jewish senators by about 10% in their first election. (Blumenthal’s win in CT means they went from 12 to 11 in this cycle.)

    The mainstream GOP had much less success: Boxer held her seat against mainstream GOP’er Carly Fiorina, Wyden held against a mainstream challenger in Oregon.

    The Dems have to defend 23 seats and the GOP only 10. Among those 23 are many more opportunities to alter the ethnic makeup of the Senate in our favor by defeating entrenched leftist Jews. It appears the Tea Party is pretty good at this, the GOP not so good, and the far right is useless.

  29. The last point “the Dems have to defend 23 seats, the GOP only 10” is about the 2012 election. It’s likely it will be another very good night for the GOP.

  30. The fact that the msm loathes her, and I loathe the msm, is alone enough to secure my vote.

    Yeah, you have a point.

    Bob Herbert on Black America’s meltdown:

    http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www10.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/opinion/16herbert.html?_r=5

    The first and most important step would be a major effort to begin knitting the black family back together.

    If you look back at what actually knit the black family together in the first place, well, I don’t think blacks want to go there. Namely, white “oppression.”

    Blacks did not have nuclear families in Africa, and they don’t have them now. The only thing in the meantime that forced them into nuclear families was a white America that clearly didn’t think much of them and their prospects, and wasn’t willing to tolerate much crap from them. Or maybe it was just inertia, manumission and Christian zeal that did it for them, gradually fading as inertia always does, until African norms reasserted themselves.

    In any event, the black nuclear family is a pipe dream. At least, it’s a pipe dream as long as black women can eke out a living on their own, or on the government tit.

    I wouldn’t for a moment discount the terrible toll that racial and economic injustice have taken, decade after decade, on the lives of millions of black Americans. But that is no reason to abandon one’s children or give in to the continued onslaught of those who would do you ill. One has to fight on all fronts, as my Uncle Robert said.

    This lie needs to be put to bed, permanently. The “damage” whites have done to blacks? “American” blacks are freer, healthier, and wealthier than any large population of blacks in the world. America’s the best thing to happened to blacks in the history of the world. It’s time people started calling them on this, in public.

  31. Wouldn’t it be better if the Republicans nominated a white man who is intelligent, dignified, married to a white person

    So you’d prefer a man up there, Johnson? And one married to a “person” at that?

  32. So you’d prefer a man up there, Johnson? And one married to a “person” at that?

    Are you fishing for a date?

  33. HW wrote:bland candidates like Mitt Romney would not [inspire whites]”

    OTOH, Romney would turn fewer people away than the mediocre-intellect Palin.

    Palin is the quintessence of “Form Over Substance.” Romney gets mixed marks on Immigration, but on the whole his rating leans towards “Good” (McCain’s was rated “Abysmal”). Romney’srecord in office is rated “Good”; the best rating any of the front-runners had in ’08. (Ron Paul received the same rating).

    Click to see Romney’s Immigration “scorecard”

    Final point: Romney strikes as less of a [potential] puppet than a Palin is/would-be.

  34. The fact that the msm loathes her, and I loathe the msm, is alone enough to secure my vote.

    That is precisely why they pretend to “hate” her — because the Establishment wants people like yourself to vote for her — or at least think that you have a “choice” in the matter.

    Well, Palin’s top aid, Randy Scheunemann, is Jewish and on the payroll of George Soros.

    There we go.

    This pretty much says it all, and all that any Patriot needs to know.

  35. Earl: As I’ve said before, if Duke can raise the money, he has as much chance as anyone else.
    Jackson: You can’t seriously believe that, can you?

    If unemployment were 25%, maybe: But even then probably only the George Wallace states.

  36. Earl: An Obama-Palin race would open the door for David Duke, and others to enter the race.

    I love the idea, but there is a serious problem here: You need tens of thousands of voter signatures to get on the ballot in a state. Those names are public-record.

    How many would be willing to put their names on such a list?

  37. Thanks for the depressing considerations Hunter. Which state will Palin win – ohio or florida. So I vote for palin win or lose in the hope of exciting a red state constituency? A palin candidacy will get the minority vote supercharged behind obama. How many hispanic, black and jewish line crossers do you expect? How many fence sitting aracial whites will run to the polls?

    Your guess is as good as mine. Andrew Jackson had greater populist substance in his personal record leading up to his candidacy- I don’t see that in palin.
    But she does get a lot of press.

  38. In the promo for the show, Palin says, “I’d rather be doing this than in some stuffy old political office” and “I’d rather be out here being free.”

    So why is she running for President?

  39. It’s a rigged system. There is no quality choice. Palin is obviously not the sharpest tool in the box and sets a new low for general unfitness for high office. But what does it mean that the whole GOP establishment is lining up against her? Does anyone think this is significant? Or is it just the standard system manipulation of the masses with various factions fighting for power? The entire GWB faction of the GOP hates Palin, including Rove, Frum, Brooks, Gerson, Bartlett, and Graham, basically the faction that led the fight for amnesty. One possible explanation is that this wing of the GOP sees Palin as someone who won’t reliably betray the grass roots. In other words, they may perceive a White populist revolt emerging with the possibility, this time, of a president and Congress who won’t betray them on every issue. Frum believes this for sure.

  40. That’s not to say that Palin will get us remotely close to where we need to be. She does seem like the best choice for stirring the pot, however.

  41. @ Hal, petitions are no big deal.

    I’ve signed & circulated literally hundreds of nominating petitions, for all types of offices, you are under no obligation to vote for the candidate you signed for.

    That’s a commercial operation too. There are people who circulate petitions as a business. So much a signiture, you have your volunteers circulate them too.

    If you need 10,000 signitures, you can figure on spending at least $10,000 dollars. Buck a signiture.

  42. Hunter,

    I think you may overestimate the appeal of Sarah Palin to the white conservative base. I am not going to claim statistical knowledge of the subject here, but I would bet that she is unappealing to quite a large number of white conservative voters. Sure she is outdoorsy, but she is also embarrassingly stupid and transparent.

    You’re right about a businessman like Romney, that wouldn’t really do anything for us. He’d probably give lip service on immigration to get the votes, but at best we could hope for him doing nothing, at worst pull a GWB making heartfelt appeals for reforms favoring our little brown brothers.

    What about somebody like Tancredo (I have no idea whether he has any presidential ambitions this time around)? Given his efforts in support of real immigration reform and border security, do you not think he would be similarly demonized as a racist? Would he not be a useful, highly polarizing figure? He may not evoke the visceral reaction among the Left/SWPLs as Palin, but I feel like he has to have broader appeal among likely white voters than Palin would. Given the accusations of racism that are already flying at the Tea Party , a GOP campaign headed by a popular (he got a healthy % of the votes in the CO governor’s race, as a 3rd party candidate, beating the GOP candidate) staunchly anti-immigration candidate would surely heat things up in the polarization department. SPWL/reddit-types already demonize Tancredo as a racist whenever he is in the news.

    Palin could very easily split the conservative white voting block along the fault of those who are simply too embarrassed by how rock-like-stupid she is, and how transparent and side-show-like her appeals to middle America are. Not that they would vote for BHO, but simply that they would not vote at all.

Comments are closed.