About Hunter Wallace 12366 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Don’t be surprised if this plagiarism thing undoes not only Trump’s campaign but his marriage. Meredith McIver’s apology, such as it is, is at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/20/meredithstatement.pdf and includes the following:

    “In working with Melania Trump on her recent First Lady speech, we discussed many people who inspired her and messages she wanted to share with the American people. A person she has always liked is Michelle Obama. Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama’s speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama’s speeches.”

    Can you make any sense of that?

    1 — “In working with Melania Trump …, we discussed … ”

    Is that simply poor grammar? Maybe McIver meant to say, “In working with Melania Trump, I discussed with her … ” On the other hand, maybe the “we” is cagey and means something like, “In working with Melania Trump …, we [meaning McIver herself, maybe Donald Trump, maybe other persons] discussed … ”

    2 — “Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama’s speech as examples.”

    Examples of what? As someone in a comment at Slate, I think, already has asked: Did Melania make clear to McIver that these passages were from Obama speeches?

    3 — “I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in … the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama’s speeches.”

    So you’re saying what, Ms. McIver? Melania Trump read you these passages as “examples” of–what? Of the kinds of things she’d like to say? Okay–and she didn’t make clear to you their source? Okay–and then, when you presented to her the speech that you’d assembled and in which you’d included these “examples,” she didn’t say anything about their source? She didn’t mention to you, if she’d not already mentioned it, that the passages were from an Obama speech?

    In a comment I posted to Captain John, before the release of McIver’s putative apology, I wrote the following:

    “Once the original speech [by writers other than McIver] was deemed unsatisfactory, Trump (Donald) might have shifted the assignment to McIver, who might have been the one who focused on Michelle Obama’s speech.”

    That conjecture, in which I envisioned McIver as the culprit, was born of my affection for Trump and Melania. What I really wonder now is whether the culprit is the Donald himself. Is it possible he’s the one who, as is easy to imagine, simply looked at video of Michelle Obama’s speech and told Melania and McIver to say what Obama said? If that is so, then McIver’s public apology amounts to the Donald’s throwing not only McIver but Melania under the bus.

    McIver’s apology goes on:

    “This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant.

    “Yesterday, I offered my resignation to Mr. Trump and the Trump family, but they rejected it. Mr. Trump told me that people make innocent mistakes and that we learn and grow from these experiences.”

    As has been said in more than one internet comment I’ve encountered, that passage renders Trump benevolent and forgiving (as long as one doesn’t ask why it took his campaign a day-and-a-half or whatever it was to act as if any apology had been required). Maybe I’m not the only one here, at Occidental Dissent, who will wonder whether McIver, not to mention Melania, has simply taken the fall.

    Interesting piece by David Frum, yesterday (July 19), at the Atlantic:


    (“Ten Reasons Why Melania Trump’s Speech Will Have an Impact”)

    Among the numbered points Frum makes are the following, which I quote in part:

    “2) The speech has unleashed a cycle of internal finger-pointing and blame-shifting that will consume Trump’s already dysfunctional campaign. Even more fatally, the cycle of recrimination now threatens to extend into Trump’s most intimate advice group: his family. Suppose now that Donald Trump’s children by his previous marriages succeed where Melania so humiliatingly failed. What does that unleash in Trump’s delicately blended family?”

    “5) Trump has just vividly demonstrated that his campaign—never mind the campaign, he himself—have zero skill at crisis management. Confronted with this comically absurd failure, their instinct is not only to lie, shift blame, and refuse responsibility, but to do so in laughably unbelievable ways.”

    “6) The incident throws a harpoon into the heart of the Trump campaign’s racial politics. Trump’s message: Non-white people are ripping off hard-working white Americans who play by the rules. “They” cheat; “we” lose. Could there be a sharper reversal of that racialized complaint than Melania Trump in her designer dress stealing Michelle Obama’s heartfelt words?”

    “10) The mood of Republicans at this convention was already embattled, defensive, and pessimistic. Conventions are, among other things, important fundraising opportunities—and as Ken Vogel reports in Politico today, the state of Trump’s fundraising remains calamitous. Even Trump’s own named finance directors are not giving money. That mood of pessimism must be even grayer the day after Melania’s speech than the day before.”

    That final point, 10, includes the following, July 18 Politico link:


    (“Big-name donors skip Trump event”)

  2. Having had the pleasure to travel the width of the South today, here is NY report: weather, superb, hot but not crippling. Sky, amazing, a red white and blue sunset!

    Economy, strong, traffic manageable. Mischief, nowhere to be seen.

    Louisiana, scant police presence. One traffic stop, two police cars, one parked at a distance providing overwatch – smart.

    Baton Rouge, many signs and billboards appealing for peace, healing at churches and elsewhere. No other sign of discord. Billboard: all lives matter, support the police.

    People’s relationship to the convention: oblivious. Occupation: what is on their phone, particularly pokeman.

  3. As I was driving to a local custard stand to get my wife’s favorite flavor I turned on the radio and caught Ted Cruz’s speech which was mostly slogans and platitudes. He told the people to vote in November for people supporting the Constitution and and other issues but failed to endorse Trump. The crowd began to boo him. The radio commentator spoke with a couple of men from the Texas delegation that were genuinely irritated with Ted for not endorsing Trump.

    It was interesting to hear Raphael speak of Lincoln, abolishing slavery and getting rid of Jim Crow laws and in the next breath he derided power centralized in Washington, championed states rights because of diversity and how New York is not the same as Iowa. etc.

    Very confusing.

    Of course he spoke against hate and brought up the church memorials of the victims of Dylan Roof although he didn’t mention him by name.

    He said nothing of whites being killed by blacks of course.

    • Cruz’s rhetoric is weirdly incantatory. He’s always saying things like–this is my own wording: “All across America, voters are embracing conservative values.”

      No, they aren’t, Ted.

      • He said the same thing (“the voters are embracing my campaign”) right before being demolished in his last seven contests.

        • Yes. He seems to think he can get people to share his view of things if he keeps telling them they already do.

  4. Cruz is unbelievably small-minded or just plain stupid. How does he think he has a future in Presidential politics after this? More people voted for Trump than any other Republican nominee in history and he just insulted them. Therefore they are very unlikely to support him in the future. If he was not going to endorse, then he should have just not attended.

    • Small-minded? Stupid? His non-endorsement was dignified considering Trump floated the idea that Cruz’s dad was involved in the JFK assassination (based on a National Enquirer article no less)!

  5. If Ted had said he and Donald had many clashes over a long, tough, contentious campaign but for the good of the country and the futures of our children he would support and endorse DJT because we all must unite despite our disagreements to defeat Hillary, who would certainly destroy everything we believe in and stand for, he would have been exalted, praised and carried off the platform like the winning coach of a major sporting event.

    • Trump is expertly exposing the emptiness of these conservative factions. Let these pricks go mad “twirling for freedom”.

  6. I’m hoping that we won’t have Ted to kick around anymore.

    I never saw him as a “constitutional conservative.” When I think of a defender of the Constitution I think of Ron Paul, whom Cruzlims abhor.

    (Think TPA and 4th amendment when pondering Cruz’s record on the Constitution.)

    I see Ted Cruz as an “end times,” Armageddon, Dominionist religious fanatic wrapped up in the Constitution.

    As a human being he is simply loathsome.

  7. The only strong ‘ethnic’ mentalities in the US are black and Jewish. And homo(though a gendnic than ethinc identity).

    Turks and Arabs have much stronger identity in Europe, especially as European identity, despite globalism, is more fixed and specific than American identity. Even as European laws have been changed to admit anyone as ‘European’, the practice of European-ism makes it more challenging for outsiders to fit in.

    That used to be the case in the US, but even white Americans have forgotten what they are. So, being American is really a matter of waiting 5 yrs to gain citizenship. And the core of US culture is now celebrity nonsense and MTV and Hollywood.

    Blacks do pose a real challenge to America, but that’s been the case forever.

    Jews can be said to be a hostile minority, but unlike Turks and Salafists in EU, they are the insiders of the system. Indeed, that is what is so spooky about Jews in America. No people are as ‘inside’ within the power structure as the Jews are. In order to gain total access to all inner workings of power, Jews waged a total war on the Wasp culture of exclusion in golf clubs and such. So, in a way, no people are as deep inside American Power as the Jews are. But then, no people are as anti-American or anti-white-American as the Jews are. Muslim aggression in the EU happens from the outside. Jewish aggression happens from the inside. Muslims attack like an army of ants. Jews attack like termites.

    As for most other groups in the US, they have no real identity. Asians will just go with the prevailing wind. Asian-Americans are not for Asian-Asian power. Some attach themselves to traditional USA USA patriotism, some attach themselves to BLM, some to homomania. Having on strong or compelling personality or culture of their own, they attach themselves to other identities. Given the huge number of yelloids in Hawaii and California, you’d think it would lead to the kind of power that Jews have in NY or blacks have in Atlanta. But no. Yelloids are even more ‘white bread’ than whites. They are yellow cake.

    As for browns, they are an interesting case. By browns, I mean mestizos than Hispanic whites. Browns are already a defeated people. Race-mixing destroyed them forever.

    When imperialists rule over a populace that is still indigenous and homogeneous, the native majority will eventually come together to overthrow the elite minority rulers. It happened in India, Africa, and Asia. Dotkin Hindus drove out the Brits. Viet gookins drove out the French. Black Africans drove out the Europeans. Even South Africa eventually turned to black rule. All the non-white world eventually reverted to native rule.

    The exceptions are in Latin America. (North America, Canada, Australia, and Israel are nations were the imperialist-colonizers got to stay because they got to form huge majorities over the native populations.) In Latin America, white elites are still the minority in most nations. Yet, even after centuries, they still have a firm grip over the native indigenous folks. Why? Race-mixing led to confusion of identity and history among the natives. The mestizos don’t know if they’re white, indigenous, or whatever. Some are even mixed with blacks, even with Asians or Chino. Such a confused people are less likely to rise up.

    This is indeed why Jewish elites promote massive race-mixing among the gentiles. As whites, blacks, yelloids, and others all mix into a mongrel race, they won’t know what they are, and as such, they will be like the mestizo masses of Latin America who still live under white minority rule after all these yrs.

    Mestizos may not identify with white elites, but they are also loathe to identify with pure-blood natives who are at the bottom as quasi-untouchables.

    Oddly enough, it could be that there is more of a sense of Brown Power in the US than in Latin America. Because of the gradations of race in Latin America, it’s hard to tell where white ends and where brown begins and ends and where indio begins. So, even though there are racial tensions, there are no stark contrasts. The contrasts have been smoothed by gradations and clines.

    But in the US, anyone with some brownness stands in contrast to white Anglos and black Negroes. What is murky back home becomes more clearly delineated in America where browns are more likely to stand out as different.

    Also, ethnic pride is paradoxically an outgrowth of ethnic shame or inferiority. The fact that a people must emphasize their pride and power so much suggests a need to compensate for their innate sense of inferiority. We see this with homos. Deep down inside, homos cannot be proud about ‘sexuality’ consisting of fecal penetration. So, they go all out with ‘pride’ parades and rainbow colors and mania to convince themselves and us that they are indeed wonderful stuff. Consider the amount of money spent every year to perpetuate the homomaniacal cult. Without such massive Stalin-like pageantry and hype, people will revert to seeing homoness for what it is. Tooty-fruity stuff.

    Latin America has a huge inferiority complex vis-a-vis the US. Economically, technologically, militarily, politically, legally, and etc. Latin America has been far more dysfunctional than the US.

    White Latin elites are a funny bunch. In what they actually do, they try to keep above the brown and indio masses. They are quite ‘racist’. Despite official mumbo jumbo about all people being equal, they feel superior to the mud-mestizo people and indio folks.

    But when compared to American whites, they feel dark and swarthy. They feel like inferior whites whose blood is less pure. In their sexual choices, they prefer the blonde nordic types. But since they are not so white, they come up with official cult of brown pride where even Latin whites claim to be ‘people of color’ united with the muds and darkies against blanco gringos.

    Also, victimhood goes a long way to rationalize one’s failures. By invoking victimhood at the hands of yanqui and gringo, Latin America can blame all their own failings on the cowboy.


  8. In light of recent failed coup in Turkey.

    Due to demographic changes, with Muslims having more kids than secular Turks, the military no longer has the kind of power it once had.

    In the past, it could take power in the name of the people.

    It can’t even do that now.

    Religion suppressed individual vanity. It favors God, tradition, and family.

    So, religious folks tend to favor unity of family over self-centered individuality.

    In contrast, modern secularism either increases doubt & alienation(among intellectuals) or narcissism/vanity(among hoi polloi into pop culture).

    Males don’t want to grow into men and take on manly responsibilities.

    Women don’t want to live for anything than their own ego and fantasy. Even if they want a man, it must be like some fantasy dude they see in movies. Such me-centrism doesn’t do much for family development where one’s self-sense takes backseat to the good of the whole family and deeper tradition.

    Mormons still form families and have kids because they have religious sense.

    Secularism has much to offer, but if it can’t produce a culture of life, it is fated to fail and lose.

    Before there is art, culture, fun, and entertainment, there must be life.


    On Gentrification.

    In the 60s and 70s, there was much white flight from blackening cities.

    What is the new phenom?

    White Tight? White yuppies tightening within gentrified parts of cities?

    To drive out the blacks, they had to be offered something sweet for them to move.

    If you tear down the projects and send blacks to the boonies, they will be pissed.

    To sweeten the relocation, blacks had to be offered a chance to go to bucolic white suburbs.

    And blacks are taking it.

    Immigration aids White Tight because, if there aren’t enough whites to do the job, there are immigrants who are preferable to crazy blacks.


  9. Reportedly, Adelson at the doors of his suite rebuffed Ted Cruz. Cruz made it some percentage less likely that Adelson’s candidate will win. Dumb decision. Doubt even Jews have use for a snake with bad judgment no matter how pro-Zionist.

  10. I just watched the beginning of Mike Pence’s speech.

    Check marks in all the boxes right off the bat.

    Pence: ‘I’m a Christian, Conservative and a Republican in that order.’

    ‘I was raised in a small town in Indiana in a big family with a cornfield in the back yard.’

    ‘The heroes of my youth were John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.’

  11. The Dishonor Roll of those politicians whose word means nothing:

    ¡Yeb!, Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina, Grorge Pataki, Cruz, John Kasich.

    I’m not complaining. I don’t want them around anyway.

  12. The Trump campaign was an overall boon for separatists, but I regret that the Texas Nationalist Movement was telling folks that they were wasting their time fighting for Trump, as “they” weren’t going to let him get the nomination.

    Given a choice between TNM and Trump, people chose Trump. It didn’t have to be that way. They could have marketed TNM as synergistic with efforts to help Trump:

    By pushing secession, it would give “them” pause before trying to cheat or harm Trump. TNM would have been a kind of “assassination insurance” for Trump. If Trump wins, we could easily play that kind of role.

  13. Trump gave the speech I was hoping he’d give. Now it’s about discipline. Hammer ONLY the points made in the speech for the next 110 days. And that especially includes the underlings, no ad libbing, eg Hillary should be shot for treason.

    Stay on message!

    • Get the tribe panicking. They will start to make unforced errors galore.

  14. Cucks and jews freaking out.

    Rick WilsonVerified account
    I’ve seen GOP nominee speeches in person in 1988 92 2000 2004 2008 2012. This is the very darkest, ever.

    Michael SkolnikVerified account
    One day I will show my son this speech as the last stand of white nationalism. And he’ll be proud that we beat this nasty bigot.

    Sally KohnVerified account
    The problem is, this speech seems believable and convincing, especially in a vacuum.
    I’m scared.

    • Well, let’s see if the country chooses Trump or to be a giant, chaotic, ethnic-strife-ridden, decaying, militarily adventurist, degenerate, ultra-corrupt, economically-declining, debt-ridden, crime-ravaged ZOO. Which is the future awaiting it on the present course.

  15. While there was much to like about this convention, parts of it had left me dejected. I was particularly disappointed in the naked appeals to LGBTQ and feminism. However, after tonight’s speech I am elated. Even the pick of Mike Pence seems like a stroke of genius. Trump threw a bone to the establishment while effectively cementing control of their party. He doubled down on immigration, border security, trade deals, law and order, and his America first themed campaign. We now finally have a stark choice in a presidential election. You can tell that the political class is afraid because the talking heads don’t know how to respond.

    • He appealed to the LGBTQ’ers because that’s what the overwhelming majority of Americans want. Only the freaks are still anti-gay. You guys lost that battle. Deal with it. You know you’ve lost it when he needs to appeal to the gays in a stadium FULL of the most rabid and angry repubs anyone has ever seen. If you need to appeal to the gays in that freakin room then you you need to appease it everywhere. You bastids nay still have your racism, but the anti-gay shtick is over.

      • The perverted queers are a small number of weirdos. Trump was really trying to get the votes of the brainwashed soccer moms and the SJWs who are a larger segment of the population.

        • I doubt he was trying to appeal to SJWs, but it was definitely an appeal to women. Trump is also being extremely strategic. Trump also didn’t specifically say anything about abortion, but evangelicals know what he meant by picking SC justices that are in line with Scalia and repealing regulations that stifle free speech at the pulpit. That was enough to get their vote without specifically mentioning their issues.

  16. Will we ever hear a speech by a Republican on the national stage in which there is no pledge of allegiance given to a small, parasitical and vicious foreign country?

    • At least he only mentioned it once. If it gets a few of them to depart with their money then it is fine by me. It strikes me that when Trump says that we won’t be paying for the defense of other nations, there is one nation that particularly comes to mind.

  17. For the record, I’ll say I think this speech was another unforced error on Trump’s part. It was disorganized, repetitive, and way too long.

Comments are closed.