About Hunter Wallace 12390 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

17 Comments

  1. When and where is the corresponding organisation, the NAPWP (“National Association for the Preservation of WHITE People”) having its convention?

    What famous public official will be seen there, speaking to us? (Not Romney!)

  7. Mosin Nagant says:
    July 10, 2012 at 8:33 pm
    When and where is the corresponding organization, the NAPWP (“National Association for the Preservation of WHITE People”) having its convention?

    What famous public official will be seen there, speaking to us? (Not Romney!)

    Jack Ryan replies:

    We had a National Association for the Advancement of White People. It was founded and led by David Duke in the 1980s and early 90s. I was the Wisconsin/N. Illinois Director of the NAAWP in the early 90s. I got on local TV, was published in many regional papers like the Chicago Tribune, did a fair amount of talk radio. The concept is sound and will work for a bright, younger college educated White guy – keep the talking points less controversial, finesse the Jew issue a bit/a lot. Don’t try to refight World War II and concentrate on issues like illegal immigration, crime against Whites, unfair depiction of our people in the mass media. The NAAWP concept is very sound and I recommend. it.

  8. The Mexico City Times reports:

    “Four years ago, Barack Obama captured 95 percent of the black vote. But this year, in an election in which every vote may matter, Mitt Romney is not giving up on that front.

    “On Wednesday, Mr. Romney will make a pitch to the nation’s premier civil rights group, testing President Obama’s overwhelming support among black voters by trying to pry away some defectors with his pro-jobs message at a time of 14.4 percent unemployment among African-Americans. ”

    This is objectively insane and more proof (and none should really be needed) that Willard deserves no European-American support whatsoever.

    First, it should be clear that going before an organization aligned on the basis of race and designed to advance racial interests and asking them to consider the “national interest” is a pointless exercise.

    Second, as the NY Times report states clearly, blacks vote as an absolute block. Willard gains absolutely nothing by appearing and will almost certainly lose as the mainstream media will run with 2 days of implied “Republican=Racist” themes, like “Romney Makes Pitch to Skeptical Civil Right Organization,” “Republicans Seek to Sway African-Americans”, etc.

    Third, his entire line of argument is based on the premise that blacks care about their unemployment rate.

    Come to think of it, as bat-shit crazy as the first two points are, the third one is even nuttier.

    I already knew that Mr. Temple-Garments was yet another greedy financier, a liberal New England governor, a power-grabber with no real conviction, an incredibly stiff and poor public speaker and a lousy dresser.

    Now I’ll have to add “clearly staunchly in favor of Cocoa Puffs” to his list of accomplishments.

  9. Romney is appealing to Blacks at the NAACP. To those of you who are Romney supporters; if this won’t convince, what will? What more evidence do you need?

  10. Another fact about Romney.

    Romney was an indirect reason Obama Dream Acted 1,000,000 illegals by executive order.

    The fact are these: under Obama, deportations have increased. Obama has deported more illegal aliens than George W. Bush.

    What does this have to do with Romney? It turns out Romney’s proxies were getting ready to attack Obama for deporting too many Latinos, with the implication that Obama is anti-Latino. One reason for Obama’s executive order was to deflect this line of attack. Romney was planned to argue he was more pro-immigrant than Obama.

    Cite:

    David Plouffe/Mitt Romney speak via the New Yorker (read the bold portions as many times as it takes until they sink in):

    Obama’s advisers believe that the politics of immigration may be the only chance for bipartisanship after Taxmageddon. After a party loses, it goes through a period of self-examination. If, despite the lacklustre economy and a general dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, Obama manages to defeat Mitt Romney, the explanation may be a simple matter of demographics: the Republican Party can no longer win the Presidency without increased support from nonwhite voters.

    “If we win, Latino voters will play a big role in that,” David Plouffe said. “The Republican Party is going to have to make a decision. I don’t think it’s much of a decision, actually. They’re going to have to moderate.” The White House is so convinced of the centrality of Hispanics to the current election and its aftermath that Plouffe told me he has been preparing for months for an onslaught of advertisements from a pro-Romney group attacking Obama from the left on immigration, arguing that Obama’s deportation and border-security policies have been too Draconian.

    One of the lessons from “Mandate Politics” is that the magnitude of a victory is not as important as defying expectations. Republicans won’t coöperate with Obama simply because he’s won, just as Bush’s 2004 reëlection did nothing to move Democrats. But if the 2012 results reveal that the G.O.P.’s weakness among minority voters, especially Hispanics, is dire, political opportunities that seem unlikely today could quickly become conventional wisdom after November. Romney understands this. “We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party,” he recently said at a private fund-raiser, unaware that reporters could hear him. Failure to do so “spells doom for us,” Romney said. A rule that holds up quite well in American politics is that the longer a party remains out of power the more moderate it becomes.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/18/120618fa_fact_lizza?printable=true

  13. White and ball-less is no virtue

    Going after the negro, beaner and woman vote is a good portion of why Romney is going to lose. Not only does pandering to them drive off the White vote, he’s wasting resources, (time and money) on people that will not vote for him anyway

    My guess is the GOP doesn’t expect many votes from negros, beaners, and chicks, and the real reason the GOP court negros, beaners and women is to prove to “male” DWLs the GOP isn’t racists and sexist. Which also doesn’t work.

    Let’s face it, the GOP and its candidates are, for the most part, the moderate leftist of our age. As leftist, they believe in the superiority of the negro, beaner, woman etc vote over the White man vote. Not that their vote actually counts for more, but that their vote is the morally superior vote

    The last GOP candidate I can recall who was even moderately pro White is Pat Buchanan.

  14. Stonelifter says:

    Going after the negro, beaner and woman vote is a good portion of why Romney is going to lose. Not only does pandering to them drive off the White vote, he’s wasting resources, (time and money) on people that will not vote for him anyway

    You are right that negroes and beaners won’t vote for him. I’m sure he realizes that much. He risks alienating some Whites of course, but it’s a low risk gamble. Let’s face it, most White folks will think it is a good idea, reaching out to all citizens regardless of race.

    Oh, what a magnanimous gesture! Very presidential! Although it’s required.

    And most of the voters he loses would probably go back to him by election day in all likelihood. They will want Obama ousted no matter what.

    He’ll gain some women especially, and a good chunk of the population who are nervous about him being, you know, a bit too White, too Mormon and possibly harboring some latent racist attitudes. He’ll assuage their fears and they won’t feel so guilty voting for a man whose family photo was depicted as looking like a Klan gathering.

    Stonelifter says:
    The last GOP candidate I can recall who was even moderately pro White is Pat Buchanan.
    True.

  15. Will see Sam, but I don’t think mittens is going to do well with White voters, and I’m not sure they’ll even track the number of White non voters or look into why they are non voters. It’s much easier to try and shame us by saying we shirked a responsibility then say the GOP/DNC didn’t field a candidate that appealed to us.

    Which is the only point I see in voting third party. Its some form of registering the other two parties suck. Not sure its an affective way

  16. Stonelifter says:

    Will see Sam, but I don’t think mittens is going to do well with White voters

    Remains to be seen, but you may be correct. I just took a glance at the stats of the 2008 election. Obama beat McCain by more than 10,000,000 votes. We know Obama will take the vast majority of minorities. They may not be as energized this year, but there will not much of a drop off. Voter fraud will make up for the loss.

    Therefore, Romney will have to overcome that huge deficit by attracting 10 mil. White voters to bridge the gap and he will need to secure even more to win. Odds don’t look good.

  17. ““Too White” may be his only virtue.” – Faux opposition, they know damned well where he stands.

Comments are closed.