Sarah Palin’s Insidious Whiteness

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


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


  1. LEW: There is little evidence other than her rhetoric and even that is mixed.

    You’d be willing to throw your hat in the ring for someone like that?

    Here’s something from VDARE:

    1. Illegal Immigration in Alaska soared under Palin, she did nothing
    Most explain away Palin’s inaction and silence by arguing that immigration isn’t an issue in Alaska. But a closer examination shows that this justification is very thin. While illegal immigration is not as bad as in the rest of the country, there are an estimated 40,000 Hispanics in the state, making up nearly 6% of the population. And over 5% of the population are Asian or Pacific Islander (this is not including Eskimos.) As of 2000, 6% of the population were immigrants.

    2. Palin pandering to nonwhite immigrants:
    Q. “The state has seen big growth of minority and immigrant populations, specifically Latinos, Southeast Asians, Asians and Pacific Islanders. What sort of outreach has your campaign done in these communities, and what have you learned about what these communities’ specific needs?”
    PALIN: “I have reached out to all these communities and asked them to identify their needs. Their response has been for more vocational training, senior assistance, ending gang violence, and more state outreach and communication with their communities. One of the key components of my internal campaign is a diversity task force. I turn to them often.”

    3. Palin allowed Alaska to have three “sanctuary cities”: Sitka, Fairbanks, and Anchorage.

    [See link at top]

  2. LEW,

    That’s an excellent point. David Frum has a new article in the New York Times Magazine about a “Post Tea Party America.” He has been relentlessly attacking Palin and the Tea Party for over a year now.

    Frum was fired from the American Enterprise Institute. He is now a widely loathed figure in conservative circles. His demise was one of the many positive developments that convinced me that things were finally starting to change in the mainstream.

  3. According to FAIR, there were 10,000 illegals in Alaska in 2008, along with 36,000 legal foreign-born.

    10,000 is a small enough number that Palin could have stamped the problem out. Instead she busied herself creating a “diversity task force” and allowing sanctuary-cities to exist. A strong governor would laugh at the idea of the “sanctuary city”. A mentally-lazy puppet would do nothing.

  4. Ozlyons,

    That Palin is a woman is another point in her favor. A White woman running against an unpopular negro male for president. Such a race is guaranteed to bring out racial undertones.

    In the conservative movement, Sarah Palin is seen as something akin to a woman on a white horse, the representative of middle class White America. Her appeal is based on identity politics.

    The fact that she is a woman means that White men will respond even more radically if they perceive she is being treated unfairly. Especially since her opponent would be Barack Hussein Obama.

  5. LEW-

    I was making a larger point about character, leadership and WN. Now, I’m glad you like Evola. And for all I know you think Harold Covington is a great writer, too. Maybe he is. I don’t know. I’ve never read anything by either of them. But from what I’ve heard HC is widely reviled throughout WN circles. There is a reason for that — he pathologically attacks others.

    I don’t know why he does it. Your guess is as good as mine. But for some reason WN attracts a certain type of person who comes up with their own version of the “perfect plan” and anyone who doesn’t agree with them is an idiot who has to be attacked and destroyed. The problem is, one can’t build a concensus that way. Even if one is a vanguardist they still have to compromise and appeal to the mainstream. They have to woo them and win them over. Even a dictator has to do that.

    Politics is the art of the possible.

  6. Hail,

    Every single Republican in the Senate – including Grahamnesty, Lugar, Collins, and McCain – did a complete 180 on the DREAM Act in September. You raise valid points about Palin’s record as Governor of Alaska. That is definitely a cause for concern.

    Whether or not those positions will be reflected in her campaign platform for president is a different story. I think the ground game within the Republican Party on immigration has shifted significantly since 2008. I don’t envision Palin running as an amnesty candidate. Her television show strongly suggested otherwise.

    Let’s wait and see.

  7. Re: Greg Johnson

    The struggle for the White Republic must take place on three levels:

    (1) Ideas/culture
    (2) Community organizing
    (3) The quest for actual political power

    The first two levels are metapolitical, because they are the necessary groundwork of political success. The third is politics proper.

    I don’t object to this tripartite division.

    – No one disputes the importance of “ideas” per se. The controversy arises when we get down to what specific ideas are being promoted.

    My position is that promoting some ideas (like anti-Americanism, avant-garde neo-fascism, anti-Christianity, anti-republicanism) are outright harmful to our cause because they 1.) increase the distance between White Nationalists and White America and 2.) make White Nationalists less effective.

    – That you consider community organizing a “metapolitical” struggle reflects the extent of your knowledge of the subject.

    – Your prescription for political success is abandoning the political system altogether and making it easier for our enemies to get elected and run up the score on us.

    My metapolitical work focuses on level (1) but also includes level (2) by organizing networking events for nationalists.

    Let’s talk specifically about your metapolitical work. There are multiple essays on Counter-Currents today about some Frenchman named Rene Guenon. Apparently, this radically alienated individual abandoned his own country and fled to Egypt to become a Muslim, but not before trying his hand at everything from Hinduism to Freemasonry to Hermetic alchemy to Taosim.

    Should White Nationalists emulate Rene Guenon? His life story is exactly what I mean by taking alienated people and making them even more alienated and ineffective.

    It is too early for the pursuit of actual political power. Duke’s one win will not soon be repeated. We need to make the metapolitical investment first.

    This is false.

    (1) In the 1990s, David Duke ran for political office, succeeded in getting elected to the Louisiana House, and then became a national figure with nearly successful campaigns for other statewide offices.

    Duke nearly succeeded in spite of the fact that George H.W. Bush and the entire GOP establishment campaigned against him. The lesson that should have been learned from the Duke campaign is the weakness of the Republican establishment and the success that mainstreamer candidates could have had in Deep South states where explicit White racial conscious is still high.

    Instead of following up on David Duke’s success, White Nationalists retreated to the internet, where they have spent the last sixteen years “spreading ideas” to little effect.

    (2) The Duke campaign in Louisiana was played out on the national stage. It did more to close the gap between implicit Whiteness and explicit White Nationalism than a “metapolitical struggle” ever would.

    (3) There are already 70 elected members of the House of Representatives who favor cutting legal immigration, deporting illegals, and ending birthright citizenship. There are over 90 members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus now.

    At the state level, there are hundreds of little Tom Tancredos, and now that the Republicans have been swept into power in the state legislatures and governorships, they are poised to pass Arizona-style laws.

    Thus, it is simply nonsense to say that engaging in mainstream politics is “premature.” When will it be the right time? When America is less White than it is today? When the vanguardists have succeeded in digging us a deeper hole from which to climb out?

    Note: What Hunter proposes here will not achieve real political power for White Nationalists.

    That’s exactly like saying communists cannot achieve real political power by running as civil rights activists. Almost everything we can hope for on immigration is now mainstream. We can press this issue and start scoring points on the board right now … or we can wait for this “metapolitical struggle” to produce results.

    It is premised on letting mainstream politicians spend our money and direct our volunteer efforts in order to advance their message and their agenda, not ours.

    Mainstream politicians are advancing our agenda: ending birthright citizenship, deporting illegal aliens, cutting legal immigration, militarizing the border, building the border fence.

    Your agenda is avant-garde European neo-fascism, anti-Americanism, National Socialist dictatorship, and anti-Christianity. I can see why you believe that your agenda isn’t being advanced in the mainstream.

  8. This article may help some here to understand why “Vanguardists vs Mainstreamers” is a false dichotomy made of disordered conceptual containers. Emphasis on “may help …”. And I’m not holding my breath.

    It is not a false dichotomy. We have seen that repeatedly here over the last two weeks.

    (1) You can either reach out or pull away.

    (2) You can either adapt your message to your audience or strike an even more rhetorical radical tone.

    (3) You can work within the system to advance our goals or reject working within the system.

    (4) You can start from the point where your target audience is today or start from where you would like them to be.

    These are either/or choices.

  9. “Palin is the creature of the conservative base.”

    Wrong. Palin is the creature of FOX News. They’ve built her up and given her a forum since her V.P. run. Without FOX she would have faded into the obscurity of the Alaskan wildnerness.

    Palin is a Republican Johnny come lately on illegal immigration. Some Republicans (Mcamnesty, Grahamnesty) are busily doing 180’s on illegal immigration because they know their political careers depends on opposing amnesty. Palin is now attempting to cast herself as a staunch border control advocate since that gives her the best chance of getting elected.

    Of course, Palin only desires to secure the borders of Israel with American tax dollars.

  10. Hunter that’s some pretty thin reasoning for supporting this woman. What identity politics? She’s married to a mixed race Inuit and has mischling children. Her take on issues is deliberately vague, she campaigned for John McCain during his reelection bid and participated in that awful MLK worship fest in DC with Glen Beck and she’s not liked by many conservatives. Your support of her isn’t based on any ideological stand she’s taken but on wishful thinking that she might support the causes of White America even though she’s said nothing or done anything that would make people think otherwise.

  11. Palin has already visited Arizona and given strong support to Brewer, 1070, vs. illegals. Does she have any strong feelings on the issue? Probably not. Just an opportunist, and she’s smart enough to know which way the wind is blowing. Overall, anybody that gaping rectum Karl Rove hates has got to be something good. At a minimum, as HW indicates, a Palin Presidential run would be the most polarizing thing to happen to this country since the 1860 election. At a maximum and assuming there even is an election in 2012, she wins, attacks Iran, and crashes the whole system. For us it’s win-win.

  12. Mr. Dithers/Rodgers:

    Serious question. Given that we are going to be stuck with a system president anyway from 2012 to 2016, which system candidate do you think best serves the interests of WN and the interests of White folks generally?

    Given what we know now, I think it’s Palin by a mile on both.

  13. Who says we’ll be stuck with a system President? I think smart thinking conservatives are aware that Palin is a media creation. Ron Paul and probably a few others we haven’t even heard of before will jump into primaries. I have no intention of casting a vote for Sarah Palin under any circumstances.

  14. 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?

    Name a candidate that fits this description.

    Or is worse better here?

    “Worse is better.”

    How long must we be forced to endure this stupidity?

    Is it better in California now that Whites are a minority and Jerry Brown is Governor? Is it better now that taxes are higher? Is it better now that Los Angeles is no longer an American city? Will it be better when the millions of illegal aliens in that state get their amnesty? Is it better now that Prop 187 was defeated after Gray Davis became Governor? Is it better now that there is a thriving interracial pornography industry in Southern California? Is it better in California now that the economy is in the tank, the public schools have been destroyed, and the budget has been busted?

    Where is the thriving White Nationalist vanguard that was supposed to emerge in “worse is better” conditions? When Whites in Alabama look at California, they don’t see “worse is better.” They see “worse is just worse.”

    McCain picked Palin to shore up his support among conservatives and the “white trash” he so clearly disdains.

    It was perhaps the one good thing he has ever done. He set in motion forces beyond his ability to control.

    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.

    He created White America’s first identity politician in decades. Palin is normalizing White identity politics. That’s a good thing.

    Given that, why are we still talking about this ridiculous nobody?

    Well, we talk about you.

    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?

    This is another example of how vanguardism is a false alternative. Johnson has already rejected working within the system as a matter of principle. He posits a purely imaginary candidate against a real one.

    Of course the real candidate fails to measure up to the abstract ideal. Just a typical example of the pathology of fantasy ideology.

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

    This is coming from someone who admires a man who abandons France to go live as a Muslim in Egypt.

    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.

    Whenever I read Greg Johnson, I always ask myself: what is the effective result of his counsel?

    Well, the effective result of rejecting the system, refusing to play, and starting the “new game” is that our worst enemies get elected, strengthen their grip on power, and make life even more inhospitable for racially conscious White people in America.

    After these alienated vanguardists reject the system, what do they do?

    They come on the internet to gripe and complain, to pass the time, and to demoralize White Nationalists and convince them that nothing less than the collapse of civilization itself is sufficient to solve our problems. The only thing they succeed in accomplishing is empowering our enemies, weakening the resistance to the status quo, and making an already dire situation that much worse.

    Instead of dealing with reality, the vanguardists escape into elaborate fantasy worlds of their own creation. They constantly devalue real communities and real candidates on the basis of abstract ideal ones which can never live up to anyone’s expectations.

    Please note that our avowed enemies give exactly the opposite advice to their constituents. They vote, organize, donate, influence and work within the mainstream to press their interests and move the goal posts. They breakdown resistance with small victories. They take what victories and yards they can and press on to make touchdowns.

  15. Rodger says: I have no intention of casting a vote for Sarah Palin under any circumstances.

    All right; fair enough. But if comes down to Obama versus Palin, I’m voting Palin.

    Ron Paul hasn’t announced yet, but if he does, then supporting Paul clearly will be the way to go.

    Out of the other viable candidates currently in contention however, Palin is clearly the best for WN and Whites in general compared to the other choices, and I really don’t see anyone can deny that.

    Romney, Gingrich, Obama, Daniels and all the rest will be worse for Whites and WN than Palin.

  16. Rodger,

    Your myopia is a textbook example of the inability of White Nationalists to see the forest for the trees.

    (1) Whether Barack Obama or Palin wins the 2012 presidential election, there is going to be a Zionist administration that is pro-Israel. If you exchange Palin for Obama, the effective result is a wash on Israel.

    (2) Instead of focusing on the connection between Sarah Palin and her White supporters, the real issue, White Nationalists want to talk about how Palin’s children are 1/8th Eskimo, ignoring the fact that Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and two black kids are in the White House right now.

    When White America looks at Sarah Palin, it sees a representative of Whiteness. She looks White, acts White, sounds Whites to their ears. Barack Obama doesn’t. When Barack Obama’s supporters attack Palin, her supporters take it as a personal insult and are polarized as a result.

    (3) Instead of prioritizing issues, White Nationalists set up ideal candidates – an example of fantasy ideology at work – and devalue all real existing candidates on the basis of their abstract ideal.

    (4) Instead of working within the system, as every other conceivable political group does in America, White Nationalists have this great plan of waiting for the collapse of civilization to solve their problems. It is so bad that transsexuals have more political power than White Nationalists do today.

    (5) White Nationalists absolutely refuse to draw the appropriate lessons from going outside the experience of their audience and refusing to communicate with people in their own terms. They refuse to learn the importance of starting where people are today and “leading” them in a more radical direction.

  17. The effective result of the Glenn Beck rally was that the NAACP was discredited and lost its legitimacy in the eyes of White America. They are less influential than they were before.

    When they released that big report on Tea Party racism, no one listened to them. They were dismissed as an anti-White, partisan organization.

  18. My sainted mother thought women should neither preach the Word nor aspire to leadership except if there were no men, none, to do the job no matter how poorly.

    Perhaps we’ve reached that point. No matter, as it seems clear Palin will go for the brass ring.

    While admitting all Hunter’s points, and offering no push back to them as a practical matter, I cannot help but here in the distance of my thoughts a lonely voice and piano. It is an alto voice, perhaps soprano coloratura, quite soft. The words are faint and difficult to distinguish but the last few were clear, ” … don’t bother – they’re here”.

    LORD help these United States and have mercy upon the inhabitants thereof.

  19. Sarah Palin is simply not a competent candidate for president. She is dumb as a stump. A folksy image will not be sufficient to compensate for that in the minds of voters, who are themselves not so stupid as to not demand a minimal level of visible competency. Palin will not make it out of the Republican presidential primary.

  20. “He is now a widely loathed figure in conservative circles. His demise was one of the many positive developments that convinced me that things were finally starting to change in the mainstream.”

    Remember, this is the guy who said “unpatriotic” conservatives(ie those who opposed the neocon planned Iraq war) should be expelled from the movement. Unfortunately, most Freeper/Limbaugh types don’t make the connection between neoconservatives and open borders advocates. McCain is another example. Everyone hates McCain, but most of them think we should attack Iran.

  21. If she were married to a quadroon negro would make it a difference? Those are weak arguments Hunter. It’s becoming clear to me that your promoting the GOP not White Nationalism and please don’t go off into a tirade about the Knoxville rally and vanguardists because I’m a traditional right conservative. I think I will take my exit now. Good luck promoting the neocons.

  22. I wouldn’t count Palin just yet. She has past associations with Pat Buchanan, she work for his ’96 and ’00 campaigns and appears somewhat influenced by him.


    Palin’s husband and kids don’t look mixed to to me at all. If there is any Indian/Eskimo blood its pretty thin at this point.

  23. Lew,
    There is no system candidate that would help further the WN agenda even unwittingly. We’re playing the game of the lesser of two evils and hoping against hope that this will polarize the country along racial lines and lead to the change we seek. I’m not saying that won’t happen but the odds are against it. I still talk to tea party types who are convinced most blacks are with them in spirit.

    There is no more polarizing figure than Obama and while he has done what no WN, either of the mainstream or vanguarist variety has done, and that is to shake whites from their apathy but tea parties still take pride in the essential racelessness of their movement. Unless and until whites view political events through a racial prism there isn’t much hope for change even with caribou Barbie in office.

    Sarah Palin could have the “Obama effect” on the left whereby they patch up their differences, organize and rally to retake Congress in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. Then I guarantee we’ll get the amnesty we all dread and it will be the fault of the conservatives for not acting fast enough or with enough resolve in dealing with the illegal immigration problem.

    As far as voting, I will cast my vote for the candidate who seems the most sincere and willing to deal with illegal immigration. Keep in mind I won’t necessarily be voting for Palin, Paul, or the Repub nominee but AGAINST Obama.

  24. Rodger,

    1.) It would make a big difference.

    2.) I’m promoting working within the GOP to support candidates who are good on immigration. I voted against George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. I voted against John McCain in 2008.

    OTOH, I voted for Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Martha Roby, and Robert Bentley in Alabama. I opposed Meg Whitman in California and Lindsey Graham in South Carolina.

    3.) What is objectionable about supporting candidates who are solid on immigration? Should we oppose candidates simply because they are Republicans? Should we oppose Brewer, Tancredo, Barletta, and Deal? That’s retarded.

    4.) Are you seriously willing to make the argument that Israel and Iran are more important than immigration? I would love to have that argument with you.

    5.) I haven’t seen anything about your posts that suggests you are a “traditional right conservative.” Pat Buchanan clearly agrees with me that immigration is the most important issue facing White America.

    There is no way he opposes Republican candidates who are solidly opposed to amnesty and even support ending birthright citizenship and cutting legal immigration.

    6.) Happy trails. One less rhetorical radical in the comments. One less voice warding off people who are realistic and practical and capable of influencing their peers.

  25. Romney’s health care plan is the same as Obama’s. If he hadn’t signed that he might be able to gloss over his flip flops on abortion, but with it he’s toast. Even before Obamacare was an issue in 2008 you should know that Romney the RINO was passionately hated on grassroots conservative websites.

  26. Roger,

    I hope you stick around.

    Mr Dithers, Good observation and analysis and thanks for the response. I’m in agreement with a lot of it, except for the part about system politicians never furthering WN interests even unwittingly. That comes down to the definition of WN and White interests. And there is disagreement over that.

    This mainstream versus vanguard distinction has become useless for me. Sometimes generalizations are useful, and sometimes they are too, well, general, hence the fallacies of composition and division. Generalizing about the WN movement based on poorly defined labels is a mistake that contributes to totally unnecessary acrimony within our ranks IMO.

  27. I don’t know why he does it. Your guess is as good as mine. But for some reason WN attracts a certain type of person who comes up with their own version of the “perfect plan” and anyone who doesn’t agree with them is an idiot who has to be attacked and destroyed.

    Look up the Big Five personality traits; Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism (OCEAN). Agreeableness is, among other things, going along to get along. Ethnopatriots tend to score relatively low on that trait, and conversely, people who score relatively low on Agreeableness are more likely to be ethnopatriots (no data, just common sense). The same thing that makes us ethnopatriots, makes us cantankerous bastards in general.

  28. Really, being a WN or ethnopatriot means you’re a walking “double-down” in terms of low Agreeableness. Not only are you low enough in Agreeableness to think your own thoughts politically, you’re also disAgreeable enough to go as far out as ethnopatriotism, and on top of that, you’re disAgreeable enough to go into a public place (admittedly, usually anonymous) and announce the fact.

    I guess that’s actually a “triple-down,” heh.

  29. Apparently, this radically alienated individual abandoned his own country and fled to Egypt to become a Muslim, but not before trying his hand at everything from Hinduism to Freemasonry to Hermetic alchemy to Taosim.

    Should White Nationalists emulate Rene Guenon?

    Assuming all that’s true, then no, absolutely not. Political junkies are to be avoided. They certainly shouldn’t be trusted. It’s one thing to change camps, it’s another to slut it up in every camp on the map in succession…because the last stop will probably right beside that one “WN” who now lectures schools on the “dangers of racism” to earn his checks.

  30. She’ll be very easy to manipulate on major issues and with advisors like Jew Randy Scheunemann that’s dangerous for us.

    I’ve done some checking.

    Is there any evidence that Scheunemann is Jewish? I mean aside from being a neocon with a German last name. I’m not having much luck with Google.

    Kevin MacDonald says that Scheunemann is a Gentile:

    He’s living well, and his non-Jewish background is definitely an asset because it helps deflect public awareness that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement.

    From what I can tell, Scheunemann is actually a lobbyist for Georgia, not Israel. George Soros is a client of his firm. Sounds more like a hired gun.

  31. The superficiality of Hunter’s mind still sometimes shocks me. A case in point: Apparently the only thing he knows about Rene Guenon is that he moved to Egypt and converted to Islam. “Is this a good role model for WNs?” he asks in all seriousness.

    Apparently it never occurred to him (or he thinks his audience so stupid that he trusts that it would never occur to them) that Guenon’s value might be in the books he wrote, e.g., The Crisis of the Modern World, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, not to mention his many works on Tradition.

  32. Is there any evidence that Scheunemann is Jewish?

    I G**gled some images and I see very little chance of his being Jewish. If he is, he’s got very little Jewish blood.

  33. “Is there any evidence that Scheunemann is Jewish? I mean aside from being a neocon with a German last name. I’m not having much luck with Google.”

    Maybe I’m wrong. I remember coming across an article when Palin was nominated for V.P. that intimated he was Jewish. I’ll do some checking and see if I can confirm.

  34. Palin’s husband and kids don’t look mixed to to me at all. If there is any Indian/Eskimo blood its pretty thin at this point.

    The fact is they are mixed, they acknowledge it and celebrate it. Whether one person or another cannot see it is irrelevant.

    Todd Palin is 1/8th Yup’ik and would be considered non-White by traditional American standards which was 1/16th or less. Latin America in contrast considers 1/4th Amerindian to be White.

  35. There doesn’t appear to be any smoking gun on his alleged Jewishness. He seems to be a somewhat of a political mercenary unless Israel is involved. Not coincidentally, all of his foreign lobbying dovetails with the foreign policy goals and national security interests of Israel.

    If Palin is elected and he is still top advisor you can count on an interventionist/Israel first foreign policy as the top priority. This will come at the expense of crafting a final resolution to the out of control immigration issue. A Palin presidency would be a replay of the Jorge W. Boosh years which whites can ill afford at this juncture.

    If that happens our only hope will be a devolution of the United States into smaller component pieces with regional governments that will do the things that Washington has failed to do. This will be a sort of pseudo secession whereby the government in Washington, D.C. is still in power but so marginalized by corruption, inaction and failure that individual states begin acting unilaterally on behalf of their citizens.

  36. Everything is so carefully choreographed with this woman that it’s hard to gauge who really supports her and who doesn’t. I would bet money the neocons are salivating over the prospect of Palin getting the nomination.

    Palin is an acceptable fallback neocon candidate if their chosen candidate crashes in the primaries like their earlier favorite Rudolph Giuliani.

  37. “4.) Are you seriously willing to make the argument that Israel and Iran are more important than immigration? I would love to have that argument with you.”

    The danger is that if there is a war with Iran, the neocons will increase their power and then push for open borders while everyone is distracted by patriotard nonsense. It would be just like the first 3/4 of the Bush administration, when immigration dropped off the radar of mainstream conservatives and WN were the only people talking about it.

    Remember 2002? People like Limbaugh were openly dismissing the idea that illegal immigration was a problem.

  38. The information we have now suggests that Bush himself said no to an attack Iran even though Cheney was pushing for it.

    Palin appears to be stupid enough to do something like attack Iran if her neocon handlers tell her to, but who really knows.

  39. Alix, yes, and I characterize it as “neutral,” i.e., neither consistent nor inconsistent with Ashkenazi appearance. The rest are inconsistent. He looks like a typical Briton-type cracker to me.

  40. Todd Palin is 1/8th Yup’ik and would be considered non-White by traditional American standards which was 1/16th or less. Latin America in contrast considers 1/4th Amerindian to be White.

    This is Asperger like obsession on the most trivial issues. Todd Palin looks just like the average white working class male, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. The American People want NO part of any weirdos who they think will set up some kind of inquisition where average whites have their geneology gone over with a fine tooth comb by some political bureaucrat for “contamination.”

Comments are closed.