The Negro Problem – National-Socialist Worldview

Jewish Influence caused the Death of George Floyd as well as the Violent Reaction that Followed

Hadding — Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:16:00 +0000

Knee-on-the-neck is a standard technique used by the Minneapolis Police Department. According to NBC News, Minneapolis police have used that technique and variants thereof at least 200 times since 2015. They got it from the Israelis.

Police attended an Israeli “counter-terrorism training conference” in Minneapolis in 2012. (J. Collins, MPR News, 26 June 2012).

Ultimately it will have to be admitted that Derek Chauvin did what he was trained to do, and, to the extent that George Floyd was not the cause of his own death, Israeli training of American police will be exposed as the problem. Chauvin at present is being scapegoated. A civil suit against the Minneapolis PD would make more sense than a criminal prosecution of Chauvin.

Even then, the fact that George Floyd was a drug-abuser (high on fentanyl* at the time of his death) and had a bad heart should be a mitigating factor. Anybody with such problems can die in a stressful situation. If you can’t take stress then don’t do crimes.

But the biggest humbug in all of this is that it was “racist.” It was not. The Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence, reveals himself as an idiot (in case there was any doubt) by giving credence to this accusation.

In fact, with his uncritical admiration for the State of Israel, Pence himself is part of the problem that he rushed to condemn.

In this situation we are experiencing what some call a kosher sandwich. It means that Jewish influence is fundamental on both sides of the problem.

Jewish-controlled mass-media have taught Americans to have a high regard for the State of Israel. As a ramification of this, many American police departments have accepted training in heavyhanded Israeli police techniques, such as restraining a suspect with a knee on the neck.

On the other hand, Jewish-controlled mass-media also agitate against “White racism.” Their default interpretation of any misadventure of a Black criminal (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown) is “White racism.” When they do this, a general reaction against White people (by non-Whites and by some do-gooder Whites) is the result.

How can the standard procedures of the Minneapolis Police Department represent White racism when the chief of the Minneapolis Police Department is Black, and at least half of the officers involved in the arrest of George Floyd, Tou Thao (Vietnamese) and Alexander Kueng (apparently of mixed race), are not White?

Black criminality — based on hereditary aggressiveness, low intelligence, and poor self-control — is the main reason why Blacks disproportionately go to prison and have misadventures while committing crimes.

But the cause of this particular crisis — the reason why suspects are dying unnecessarily in police custody and riots are resulting from it — is Jewish control of mass-media, and the Jewish influence that comes with it. There is a pressing need for Jewish influence to be recognized as a problem. Until we do that, White people will be taking the blame.
__________________________
* which, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, causes “problems breathing.”

Dinesh D’Souza misjudges his audience’s opinion of MLK

Hadding — Thu, 23 Apr 2020 01:22:00 +0000

Somebody tells Dinesh D’Souza to go back to India, citing his conviction for campaign-finance fraud as a reason why his presence is undesirable. D’Souza responds by rhetorically asking his interlocutor, who most likely is a Democrat, if he would have said the same to Martin Luther King — obviously relying on MLK’s status as a sacred cow who was arrested many times, and assuming that he could analogize his victimhood to that of MLK and induce the Democratic critic to relent.

Bad move.

That particular interlocutor, the Democrat, easily dismisses the comparison by pointing out that MLK was born in the USA and D’Souza was not.

What is striking however is that, contrary to what D’Souza must have anticipated, the responses from other readers of his Twitter page are overwhelmingly in the affirmative. You can check it for yourself on Twitter. Yes, the overwhelming majority of Dinesh D’Souza’s followers on Twitter would send Martin Luther King back to Africa!

It confirms my explanation of D’Souza’s success, which is that he has been valued mostly as a non-White exponent of White grievances. D’Souza is more than anything else a stalking horse for conservative Whites who are afraid of being called racist. I suggested in 2018 that he should make a movie exposing all the dirt about MLK. We see here that such a movie would have been highly popular with D’Souza’s following.

D’Souza however will probably claim that these people cheering a proposed deportation of MLK were all Democrats, if he ever has to say anything about it.

Here is a sample of the responses:

Was the Civil Rights Movement opposed to Identity Politics? Balderdash!

Hadding — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:15:00 +0000

The self-proclaimed conservatives of the Republican Party have a sickening tendency to try to minimize controversy by not challenging the sacred cows that the anti-White left sets up for us all. Thus we hear, for example, Rush Limbaugh speaking in reverential tones of “Dr. King” and “what Dr. King had in mind.”

Has everyone forgotten that the Republican presidential candidate of 1964 opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the Republican president elected in 1968 had campaigned on opposition to forced busing — meaning continuation of de facto segregation?

Amnesia is the great enemy of conservatism. If we fail to remember where we were, if we fail to keep in mind what we were trying to preserve and what we were trying to prevent, we end up gradually adopting all the positions of our persistent enemies.

This has been the story of so-called conservatism since the Second World War and it is a tendency evident even in Tucker Carlson.

Last night I heard something very stupid on Tucker Carlson’s show. Tucker and his guest lamented the growth of “identity politics” and together declared that identity politics was never what the Civil Rights Movement was about.

Well, let me give you this red pill.

The NAACP — the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — is more than 100 years old. It has identity-politics in its name.

The term “Black Power” was coined in the 1960s.

In the 20th century, the so-called Civil Rights Movement was ALWAYS accompanied by identity-politics. It was about achieving gains for specific groups.

First the Blacks were mobilized against Southern Whites within the infamous Black-Jewish alliance, then Northern Whites were targeted too. Jewish Cultural Marxists would mobilize any group with a conceivable grievance against straight White males, and even create such groups by proselytizing deviance.

When I hear Tucker Carlson agree with Tammy Bruce that the Civil Rights Movement was opposed to identity-politics, it makes me think either that he is weak, or that he has no memory.

All of this genuflecting toward the Revrun Docta Martin Loofa King — the figurehead of the Civil Rights Movement — should be coming to an end now, with all the information that has been published about him.

We used to have identity-politics for White people in the USA, and we were not ashamed of it. We wanted to maintain a White majority and the Immigration Act of 1924 reflected that. A real conservatism would try to defend that status quo. It is the reason why Donald Trump was elected. The fact that we cannot even openly declare this purpose, and our acceptance of the premise that there is something shameful about it, makes this preservation of our country and our people very much harder to accomplish.

The real threat to the future of the United States is not from identity-politics but from the failure of the White population to practice identity-politics with sufficient vigor as to retain control.

What kind of “dogwhistle” was that?

Hadding — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:04:00 +0000

The gubernatorial nominee of the Republican Party of Florida stated during the speech following his nomination that it was important not to “monkey this up,” meaning that Florida’s economy should not be burdened with the kinds of massive social programs and other changes advocated by the Democratic nominee, a Negro named Andrew Gillum.

Some are saying that this was a “dogwhistle” to appeal to White racist voters.

A dogwhistle is something that a political candidate says or does to make White racist voters believe that he’s their man, or at least preferable to the other candidate. In 1988 George Herbert Walker Bush engaged in dogwhistling with his advertisements featuring a Negro murderer named Willie Horton, who had been allowed out of prison and thus given the opportunity to commit more crimes — assault, armed robbery, and rape — by Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, who was Bush’s opponent in that election. With that advertisement, voters were given to believe that Bush was not soft on Negroes the way Dukakis was.

Back before I heard the term dogwhistle, I used to call this practice winking, which I think is really a better metaphor. A wink is a signal that implies, “I’m on your side,” without clarifying what benefit if any that is supposed to confer. The term dogwhistle has become so widespread, though, that there seems no point in fighting it.

The great master of the dogwhistle was Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. In a 1981 interview, Atwater described how overt racism became sublimated into talk about tax-cuts:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”: that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now. You’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is, Blacks get hurt worse than Whites. [Lee Atwater, 1981]

Atwater then tries to backtrack from what he has said, and suggests that “tax-cuts” may have had merely a subconscious racial appeal, but as I recall there was nothing subconscious about it. The “Black welfare queen” and Affirmative Action were familiar to everyone, and tax-cuts and less government seemed as if they might be ways to attack these problems indirectly, while avoiding overt discussion about race. Did it work? No. The main effect of this general approach was to lull White people into avoiding conflict, into thinking that racial preservation would be accomplished indirectly while in fact the cause was not advanced at all.

For the voter, the problem with choosing a candidate based on dogwhistles is that whatever is conveyed by the dogwhistle carries no obligation, because it was never actually said — and we know that there has been calculated dishonesty in this kind of racial signaling.

George H. W. Bush needed to mobilize the racial feeling in White voters, because otherwise there was not much enthusiasm for him as a candidate. It was a dishonest manipulation, however. Although Bush won White votes with the Willie Horton ads, he was anything but pro-White. It was he who signed the calamitous Diversity Lottery into law, which among other deleterious effects has certainly increased the number of murders in our country.

DeSantis’ utterance makes no sense as a dogwhistle. Why? Because everybody already knew that Gillum was a Negro, and a rather dark one at that. There was no point to dropping hints about it. By the way, did you notice that my opponent is a Negro? That is what the “monkey this up” comment was supposed to convey, according to the dogwhistle-theory. But there was no need to say that, and nothing was to be gained by saying it, because everybody could see it.

The idea that DeSantis’ “monkey this up” comment somehow functioned as a dogwhistle is very stupid.

The mention of “socialism” could be seen as a kind of dogwhistle, insofar as Southern White voters tend to think of socialism as redistribution of wealth from Whites to Blacks — an interpretation of socialism that will immediately spring to mind when a Black is advocating it, especially amid the influence of recent reports from South Africa. Republican media always euphemistically explain the dispossession of Whites under Black rule as an effect of “socialism.”

“Socialism” is not a correct explanation of what causes things to go wrong when Blacks take power, but this is how Republicans have become accustomed to talk. Racial concerns are cloaked entirely in non-racial terms. One just hopes that the original thought behind all this dissimulating rhetoric has not been forgotten.

If DeSantis ran advertisements discussing the disastrous effects of “socialism” while showing scenes from South Africa, thereby associating Gillum with anti-White violence through being a “socialist” — that could be an effective form of dogwhistle. People would hear socialist and think criminal Negro parasite.

But DeSantis doesn’t have to go that far. It seems highly unlikely that Florida, a state that doesn’t even have an income-tax, would elect a far-left Negro governor — at least, not yet. If demographic change continues unabated, however, many bad things will become possible.

Things being as they are now, all the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth over the monkey-comment won’t hurt DeSantis, and may to some extent help him, if he just follows the example of Donald Trump by not acting overly concerned about it.

Most Serial Killers Are Black

Hadding — Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:31:00 +0000

Source: Serial Killer Statistics

There is an old canard that serial killers are always White and that Blacks are never serial killers. This myth has been so powerful that some criminal investigations (for example, about the murders of Derrick Todd Lee from 1992 to 2003) have been hindered by the presumption that the perpetrator, since he is a serial killer, must be White.

In fact, as this chart reveals, Negroes have always been overrepresented in serial murder as in other violent crimes — just not as much.

Until 1980 the total number of serial killers classified as White exceeded the total number of serial killers identified as Black in each decade, but that is no longer the case. For three decades now statistics have shown more Black than White serial killers.

Since the statistical shift happens to coincide with the invention of DNA profiling in 1984, it seems entirely likely that improved detection, rather than a sudden change in Negro behavior, is the main reason why so many more Black serial killers are now appearing in statistics.

Chicago Negroes Express Hatred for Donald Trump by Kidnapping and Torturing White Man

Hadding — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:54:00 +0000

This man most likely got into this situation partly through being non-racist and trustful of Negroes. Fox TV’s Chicago affiliate describes him as “mentally disabled.” Apparently he was lured into a stolen vehicle and taken from his suburb to the location in Chicago where this video was made.

Additional details are now available. On Saturday (31 December) the victim’s parents had dropped him off at McDonald’s in Streamwood, a town west of Chicago, to meet somebody from school that he considered a friend. From there he was taken 30 miles away to Chicago’s Homan Square neighborhood in a van that had been stolen in Streamwood. On Monday (2 January) his parents reported him missing to the Streamwood police. They received text-messages claiming that he was being held captive. The Streamwood Police discovered the Facebook video of the man being tortured. On Tuesday evening Chicago police found the victim wandering battered and bloody in shorts and a tanktop, with no jacket in the freezing weather about one block away from where the torture-video had been made.

In the second part the savages slice off about one square inch of the man’s scalp, in addition to beating him. “This shit is hilarious,” says the Negress wielding the cellphone.

The four Negroes are in police-custody while the White man is being treated in a hospital.

The Associated Press interestingly omitted the races of the persons involved and quoted police to the effect that it was “too soon to determine whether the attack was racially motivated.”

For those who would argue that this is not typical Negro behavior, here is a presentation about what typical Negro behavior is, and why it is what it is.

The World of Dylann Roof

Hadding — Sat, 10 Dec 2016 03:04:00 +0000

The point of this essay is not to condone Dylann Roof’s crime, as anyone who reads it entire will see, but to show it in proper perspective, and to propose a lawful alternative to such deeds. Dylann Roof’s action is the result of a failure to identify the real problem. If he had recognized the real problem — Jewish influence over the thinking of White people — he would also have seen that a spree-shooting was not a good way to address it.

On Dylann Roof’s Manifesto

by Hadding Scott

Originally published by The Occidental Observer, 22 June 2015

Before Dylann Roof set out to commit the shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church, he set up a very simple web-site called Last Rhodesian and posted there a manifesto that referred to his intended actions. I think that it is worthwhile to examine Roof’s manifesto for some clues about how he ended up doing what he did.

Roof says that he grew up in the South, having “a small amount of racial awareness, simply because of the numbers of Negroes in this part of the country.” Southerners in general probably do have a better sense, compared to White people from other places, about how Blacks behave. This was not a clear White racial consciousness however; rather it was the kind of dissimulating defensiveness promoted by the likes of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, with its rhetoric of deflective counter-accusation characterized by Roof as: “Blacks are the real racists.”

Roof was shocked out of this weak orientation based on fear of being called “racist” by the drumbeat of anti-White propaganda that began with the absurdly biased reporting on the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in 2012 and 2013:

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

Although Roof’s main theme was biased media-coverage of Black-on-White crime, this was not mentioned in an article on Roof’s manifesto by one of the leading culprits, the New York Times.

There is no question that the biased publicity over the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin caused an increase of violence by Blacks against Whites. Two months after the original incident in the case, Darryl Owens called attention to some of the ramifications of the media-coverage in the Orlando Sentinel:

Let’s call it Trayvon Piñata.

How’s it played?

Simple. Gather at least two or up to 30 players (usually black, but not always). Target some unsuspecting, blameless white person. Confront. Spout some racial pap. Stomp the stuffing out of him in Trayvon’s name.

Rip-roaring fun!

It’s all the rage — these outrageous acts of vengeance born out of misplaced rage.

Gainesville was the scene earlier this month of two rounds of Trayvon Piñata.

In the first attack, five to eight black people allegedly pounded a 27-year-old white guy as he walked home, according to the Gainesville Sun. The goons shouted “Trayvon!” before laying into him.

In the second assault, a crowd reportedly pounced on a white guy who’d chased down a black purse-snatcher and pinned him. Unaware of the circumstances, some began shouting “Trayvon,” egging on several group members who stomped the good Samaritan’s hands to free his quarry. [Darryl Owens, Orlando Sentinel, 27 April 2012 ]

The game was not limited to Florida. In Chicago 18-year-old Alton L. Hayes III and a minor accomplice robbed a 19-year-old White man, then gratuitously beat him, telling police later that they did it because of Trayvon Martin and because the man was White (Huffington Post, 26 April 2012).

In Mobile, Alabama, Matthew Owens was beaten nearly to death by a mob of 20 or more Blacks in front of his home. After the attack, one of the Black attackers declared, “Now that’s justice for Trayvon!” (New York Daily News, 25 April 2012).

The mood of vengefulness generated by mass-media during the period following the death of Trayvon Martin was pervasive and palpable, and some influence thereof could be reasonably presumed as a contributing factor in any Black-on-White violence during that period, whether explicitly stated or not.

In March 2012 in Kansas City, Missouri, one month after the publicity about Trayvon Martin began, a 13-year-old boy returning home from school was doused in gasoline and set on fire by two older Black boys who said: “This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, White boy.” (Daily Mail, 4 March 2012).

John McWhorter, writing in Time about the shooting-death of an Australian college student by a Black male in Oklahoma, says that racially motivated Black-on-White violence like the Kansas City incident is “hardly uncommon”:

So, it’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them. [John McWhorter, “Don’t Ignore Race in Christopher Lane’s Murder,” Time, 22 August 2013]

Time of course is about as mainstream and respectable as any monthly news-periodical could be, yet it plainly states that there is an anti-White and pro-Black racial bias in the reporting of violent crime. The real question is not how Dylann Roof came to the same conclusion in the wake of the Martin-Zimmerman case; rather the question is how anyone could have failed to understand it by now.

In 2014 and 2015 the mass-media seem to have been obsessed with publicizing any possible case of misconduct toward Blacks by police, beginning with the accusations against policeman Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. It was predictable that there would be retaliatory violence generated by that propaganda as well. The first such incident was the murder of two New York City policemen, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu (neither of them White, but then neither was George Zimmerman), as they sat in their police-vehicle. The fact that the young Black male suspect, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, was motivated by media-hoopla against the police was apparent in his posts on Instagram before the crime:

Brinsley allegedly posted a photo of a gun with the caption, “I’m putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let’s take 2 of theirs,” officials said. He used the hashtags ‘Shootthepolice’ ‘RIPErivGardner (sic)‘ and ‘RIPMikeBrown.’ [CBS New York, 20 December 2014]

That was only the first of a number of such scattered incidents of anti-police violence induced by mass-media. The alleged murder of Trayvon Martin, in the accusation’s original form, was also supposed to have been a conspiracy of the police.

For many who become racially conscious, it began with noticing absurd anti-White bias in the news. Dr. William Pierce, in an essay about the evolution of his thinking (“The Radicalizing of an American,” 1978) mentions that an important moment for him was when he saw bias in news-coverage about the Civil Rights Movement; he saw that television news always showed the least credible and least attractive representatives of the pro-White side, for example screeching overweight housewives in hair-curlers, rather than someone like the one-time C.E.O. of Delta Airlines, Carleton Putnam, who wrote two books defending segregation.

What Dr. Pierce did next, and what Dylann Roof did after observing anti-White media-bias, was to look for sources of truth. Dr. Pierce read books and eventually learned about Jewish control of mass-media as the explanation for anti-White media-bias. Roof on the other hand found a trove of documentation about Black-on-White violent crime on the Internet, and this made a great impression on him.

In his radio broadcasts in the 1990s, Dr. Pierce would sometimes begin a discussion by referring to an instance of Black-on-White crime, as a way to catch the interest of White listeners, but the ultimate focus was never on Blacks. It was on the real powers — especially Jewish control of mass-media — that made Blacks into the problem that they had become.

A defining factor in Dylann Roof’s course of action is that he retained the commonplace but mistaken idea about where the real problem was. Because unruly Blacks were obvious, and because mainstream conservative media and even much of White-advocacy media never mentions Jewish activism as contributing to the Black problem, Dylann Roof mistakenly regarded the Black problem as primary, writing 1484 of the 2444 words in his manifesto under the heading “Blacks.” Roof describes Blacks as “the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is the biggest problem for Americans.”

What Roof writes about Blacks is generally true, as far as it goes. As we all know, relative to Whites, Blacks have a low IQ and poor self-control, and commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime. Roof also correctly states that Blacks act with much more racial solidarity than Whites.

Roof offers two theories as to why Black misbehavior is tolerated. One is that Blacks are held to a lower standard because, whether we admit it or not, we regard them as inferior and expect less of them: therefore they get indulgence. The other theory is White guilt, particularly on account of Black sufferings under slavery and segregation. Roof thinks that Black suffering under slavery and segregation have been exaggerated:

We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons.

The indulgence given to Blacks because of this spurious guilt, he says, causes suffering to the principal victims to date of the anti-White revolution — poor and working class Whites who do not have the means to get away from Blacks:

But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”? And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances to live among Negroes? No one, but someone has to.

Dylann Roof looks around himself and finds again and again that in racial matters, what is done in the name of justice is usually gross injustice. Once upon a time a minority of Whites owned Negro slaves. Now poor Whites whose ancestors probably never owned slaves must bear guilt and other sufferings for it. There is no justice in that.

Roof also sees no justice in what has been happening in Europe, where the same racially destructive processes are being imposed without the justifications that are offered in the United States, which suggests that those justifications are really only excuses:

I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race.

Roof mentions “the Jewish problem” and “Jewish agitation of the Black race” but treats it as less important than what he seems to regard as an inherent tendency in Blacks to take offense when no offense is intended. Roof seems to have no inkling that Blacks were not always as unruly and dangerous as they have become in recent times. He is unaware of the origin of the current troubles between Blacks and Whites in the “Black-Jewish alliance” that E. Michael Jones discusses here:

Obviously, the Council of Conservative Citizens, by publicizing factual information about Black-on-White crime, is not responsible for Dylann Roof’s action. If CCC could be held responsible for that, then it would certainly be reasonable to hold television-networks liable for the killings of police that resulted from their biased reporting of the Darren Wilson case, etc.

Nonetheless, I do not believe that the conflict between Black and White is really where the focus of pro-White media (like CCC’s publications) ought to be. Pro-White media should be making White people aware of the less obvious but much more important problem.

Roof says that he “found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race,” but he does not treat the Jewish problem as primary. He knows that Jews agitate Blacks but he does not seem to consider it a key cause of the trouble between Whites and Blacks. Under the heading of “Jews” in his manifesto Roof wrote only 138 words. He says that “unlike many White Nationalists” he regards Jews as White, and concludes with:

I don’t pretend to understand why Jews do what they do. They are [an] enigma.

It is evident that Dylann Roof never spent much time reading The Occidental Observer. If he had, he’d have had some idea about why Jews do what they do.

Another reason for Roof’s course of action seems to be that he underestimated the importance of ideas (as Americans often do). I have occasionally encountered people who take the attitude that educating people is a useless activity, apparently because its effects are not immediately visible. In some cases they tried to tell somebody something once, and because that person was not immediately convinced, the effort was abandoned. They didn’t have the patience to keep trying. Affecting people’s attitudes and thinking is a slow process that requires perseverance. Then after thinking has been changed, the new thinking still requires opportunities to be implemented. Anybody who thinks that educating people is pointless or futile probably is expecting tangible results much too quickly. From this impatient perspective, educating people is just talking, and talking equates to doing nothing. That seems to be Roof’s attitude:

To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I don’t see anyone doing anything about it. And it pisses me off.” To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.” … We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

Note the wording. Roof dismisses talking; he wants to “see” somebody “doing” something, and he makes it clear that this means violence. Shooting people of course produces an immediate visible result, but the net result to any such premature illegal action is almost always counterproductive.

One point that I believe Dylann Roof has right is his point about the ability of quality to prevail over quantity. He rejects the view that a non-White majority means that Whites will be unable to master the situation:

To this I say look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. … It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of the population we could take it back completely.

The most famous example from history of the supremacy of quality over quantity consists of the various conflicts between the ancient Greeks and the diverse, multicultural army of the Persian Empire. Grossly outnumbered by the motley Persian assemblage, the Greeks beat them again and again.

That observation, that all is not lost even when we are a minority, would seem to be a note of optimism, and an indication that patient and well-grounded approaches to the problem are to be preferred over hasty and desperate actions. I agree with that. Yet in his next sentence Roof says:

But by no means should we wait any longer to take drastic action.

Non sequitur. It seems to reflect Roof’s own impulsiveness rather than the foregoing argument. At best, one might suppose that he feels an obligation toward the White children in Charleston who must attend schools with Blacks, and hoped that a general race war would ensue from his initiative. It is hard to imagine how he thought his actions could have a significant effect on the Black population of Charleston. It is also not credible that there would be enough White copycat shooters to have any significant effect, except perhaps in terms of gratifying the craving of anti-White media for White-on-Black killings to report. The illegal action that Dylann Roof undertook is utterly ineffectual for whatever pro-White goal he may have had in mind — certainly, even counterproductive.

Roof, I believe, was onto something when he said that Whites could prevail even against much more numerous non-White enemies. It is unfortunate that he did not follow through with the implications of that thought.

If White people are to prevail, the main prerequisite is to change their thinking. Just as Jewish activists in the media and academic world initiated a decades-long educational project to change White attitudes on race that were dominant in the 1920s, we must do the same. Whites must learn to think and feel differently about race, and about issues affecting racial solidarity. They must learn to be less impressed with quantity and more concerned with quality. This is a long-term educational project that must contend with the fact that at present all of the media high ground is occupied by the enemies of Whites, their interests, and their culture.

Dylann Roof’s impatience, his emphasis on immediate physical action rather than the battle for the mind, and his belief that Blacks rather than Jews are the main problem, all contributed to his action, and in fact they all seem to be interrelated. If Roof had recognized the paramount importance of ideas, he could not have imagined that it was Blacks telling us what to think; the possibility for a tiny minority of Jews to wield enormous power, however, would have been obvious. The answer to false information and bad ideas does not have to be violence: it can be true information and good ideas. But if the whole problem is seen as irrational violence and nothing more, then the choice becomes simply whether to fight or to retreat, which is how Roof framed his choice.

This implies something about what the focus of pro-White media ought to be. The focus should be not on the bright and noisy spectacle, but on the man behind the curtain who makes it all happen. This is something that must be emphasized.

Ideally, Blacks and Whites should be able to recognize some common interests and cooperate on those interests. There are very clear common interests in curtailing Black crime — since, according to the FBI, 90% of murders of Blacks are committed by other Blacks — and in stopping immigration.

All of the agitation of Black hostility toward Whites by the mass media, mostly on false premises, which has generated not only anti-White and anti-police violence by Blacks but also Dylann Roof’s response, certainly doesn’t make such cooperation any easier.

An Alternative to Negro Slavery

Hadding — Sat, 03 Dec 2016 15:23:00 +0000

Negroes sometimes claim great importance for their race in the development of American economic power through their role as slaves picking cotton. Roland Martin, interviewing Richard Spencer in the aftermath of his recent “Hail Trump” speech, said precisely that “free labor from Black people” was what made America great.

I do not wish to insult or provoke any Negroes, but this is really quite a poor argument.

How should one respond?

Richard Spencer’s response was: “We could have found another way to pick cotton.” But he gives no specifics.

Some say: “If I’d known that there was going to be all this trouble I would have picked my own damned cotton.”

Others offer a different solution:

“In fact I think you could teach some chimpanzees to do some things that some Negroes couldn’t do.”

— George Lincoln Rockwell on KNX radio, 9 May 1965

This turns out to be entirely correct. In Thailand, apes are trained to pick coconuts, and to perform some other simple tasks such as Negro slaves once performed in America, and still perform in Africa, where slavery is still practiced.

How much trouble could have been avoided!

The apes in this video are not even chimpanzees but macaques, a less intelligent primate.

Don’t Celebrate Too Much Yet

Hadding — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:52:00 +0000

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States represents a temporary reprieve for the United States of America as a majority-White country. It could become much more than that, but it is not yet evident that it will.

While Trump represents a move in the right direction, he has given no indication that he will take adequate measures to deal with the biggest fundamental problems in the United States:

demographic shift;
the embedded anti-White elite.

Trump talks about keeping illegal aliens out entirely, and has mentioned deportation, with priority given to those who commit crimes beyond simply being here illegally.

Of course the government should be doing this! How did this ever become controversial?

However, if President Trump deports every illegal alien and prevents all further illegal immigration, that will not be enough to preserve the White majority in the United States for very long.

In the first place, as Ann Coulter has been saying, legal immigration is an even bigger problem than illegal immigration, but Trump has not proposed to curb that.

Apart from any question of immigration, there is the differential birthrate between the non-White and White populations. There is no way for the government to address this problem without taking actions that would presently be considered unconstitutional.

The hour is very late, in regard to this demographic problem in the United States. The direness of the situation is reflected in the fact that Trump (according to current widely acknowledged figures) lost the popular vote and won only through the quirks of the Electoral College, due to the fact that Hispanic populations are concentrated in a few states and not evenly distributed like the White majority.

Of course it will be a disaster even for many non-Whites in the United States if Whites cease to be the majority. Rush Limbaugh refers to the White population as “the people who make the country work.” We can only hope that Trump, or somebody, will recognize the compelling need to preserve a White majority, and find a way, despite restrictions of the Constitution as currently interpreted, to preserve the country’s future.

The fact that there are already anti-White tantrums against Trump’s election is a hopeful sign. It was similar leftist tantrums in Germany (the Reichstag Fire being one manifestation) that facilitated Hitler’s assumption of emergency powers so that he could do what needed to be done. Let that anti-White rabble keep up its disturbances. Let them become more and more outrageous. There is hope for us in their irrational behavior.

Meanwhile you will see the anti-White elite and their lackeys like George Will scream bloody murder if Trump even presses the limits of executive power as much as Obama has done already. George Will explicitly stated this position immediately after the election, in anticipation of Trump’s not behaving like a typical Republican.

On the bright side, even before he won the election, Trump’s candidacy was very educational for the American public, in terms of shifting the range of acceptable public discourse, and bringing hidden problems to the surface.

Most notably there is the conflict between the interests of the White majority and the “Neoconservative” Jews like Krauthammer and Kristol, and crypto-leftists like George Will and the Bush family, who had embedded themselves in the Republican Party and hobbled its potential for representing White interests. Such infiltrators are now widely recognized as enemies of the White majority because of their reaction to Trump.

This lesson needs to be kept in mind, because just as they tried to prevent Trump’s election, they will now try to prevent Trump from making any significant permanent changes to stop the country’s decline. Their attempts to make nice and to pretend once again that they are really on our side of course should be rejected.

For the country’s survival, these people really should be removed from the body politic, “as a physician would purge a bacillus,” in the words of Mussolini. But it seems highly unlikely that Trump will do any such thing, as long as these subversives cannot be shown to have committed any statutory crime.

Trump’s enemies have called him a “racist autocrat” but that seems to represent what those anti-White subversives fear and expect, rather than Trump’s actual positions. We can hope that he will grow in that regard.

Meanwhile, the greatest good accomplished by the election of Donald Trump may be outside the United States. Of course it will be good for Russia and Syria if the USA ceases its saber-rattling and covert support for religious lunatics, but it also happens to be the case that US influence operates behind the scenes in the politics of Western Europe, especially Germany. It was US pressure that induced Germany to begin reparations payments to the State of Israel, and later to import unnecessary Turkish guestworkers. It is a good bet that behind-the-scenes manipulation has something to do with the current flood of non-White immigrants in Germany, and especially the inviting hospitality of “Mama Merkel.” Trump’s election will give Europe the possibility of taking necessary actions to recover from this.

In regard to the United States however, if Trump does not greatly alter the country’s demographic decline, it seems practically inevitable that he will be succeeded, before long, one way or another, by a real autocrat.

Roots of Trump’s Revolution

Hadding — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:21:00 +0000

I wrote this after the defeat of Mitt Romney in the presidential election of 2012, when the Uniparty Establishment of Plutocrats and Zionists was proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future could win elections only by abandoning all semblance of representing the interests of the White majority, and should instead pander to Hispanics by embracing illegal aliens. “Neoconservative” Jew Charles Krauthammer in particular advocated this, with Jew Dick Morris (who pretends to be an expert on how to win elections) seconding, and many weak-kneed Republicans followed their lead.

Rush Limbaugh was the most prominent dissenting voice. Limbaugh said that if the Republican Party tried to be like the Democrats it would cease to exist.

Limbaugh however did not articulate a viable alternative for the Republicans. Although Limbaugh recommended rallying the party’s base, his conception of how to appeal to the base was circumscribed by his commitment to “conservatism,” while the really powerful appeal to the Republican base, and the way to expand that base, was in populism (which Limbaugh had explicitly opposed when Pat Buchanan represented it in 1996).

Subsequently, in 2014, Limbaugh made a significant shift in the direction of populism, openly admitting, after decades of shilling for plutocracy, that what is good for the rich may not be good for ordinary Americans after all. In 2016 Limbaugh is still saying this.

Not being hobbled with Rush Limbaugh’s commitment to “conservatism,” I articulated a populist future for the Republican Party with this essay in 2012. Although Donald Trump has not gone as far as I proposed in terms of moving the GOP to the left economically, broadly speaking what I suggested is what he has done, notably proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future would be a workers’ party.

The key to Trump’s popularity is that he enables White working people to vote for their racial interest and their personal economic interest at the same time. In the past, the Republicans and the Democrats, as if by a deliberate plan to keep the White majority divided, consistently forced them to choose one or the other.

A Party of Plutocrats Has No Future

by Hadding Scott

Originally published on The Occidental Observer, 13 November 2012

The Ideal vs. the Possible

First I want to explain that White advocacy and electoral politics are two distinct matters. There is some relationship between the two, but they are different with their own guiding principles (especially in this winner-take-all electoral system, which rewards inscrutable blandness). To the extent that one is guided by the principles of the other, it is done less than optimally. Electoral politics must be approached with a readiness to accept some tolerable compromise rather than demanding the full realization of an ideal: “Politics is the art of the possible,” said Bismarck. But at the same time the ideal has to be maintained.

White advocacy and general political discussion must not be degraded to the level of rhetoric that is calculated to win an election. We must not internalize the limits of electoral politics as the limits of our own thinking and discussion. Those of us who might choose to engage in the grubby business of electoral politics must not become creatures of this corrupting system but remain White people with White interests, despite whatever compromises might be required by circumstances.

By maintaining consciousness of the difference between what is actual and what is ideal, our people should always realize that whatever they have gained is not all that they want, so that progress will not stop and will not be lost through a relaxation of efforts.

How the Republican Party has Failed and Succeeded and Failed Again

Many White people, especially in the South, support the Republican Party because they perceive it as the Implicitly White Party. This affiliation of racially conscious White people with the Republican Party was induced by the so-called Civil Rights movement, which had its main base of support in the Democratic Party. The South had always been solidly Democratic until the Truman Administration and its support for “Civil Rights.” This provoked a rift in the Democratic Party in the form of the short-lived States’ Rights Democratic Party, or “Dixiecrats.” A decisive shift occurred when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. That was when Senator Strom Thurmond became a Republican. Many other Southern segregationists, like future senator Jesse Helms, followed.

Before the Solid South turned Republican, the Republicans had been known as the party of big business. In other words, it was a plutocratic party. The Republicans were blamed for the Great Depression, and for not doing enough to meliorate its effects, such as unemployment. The fact that the Democrats were willing to address those effects of the Great Depression made them the dominant political party from 1933 until 1981. It was the fact that the Democratic establishment’s racial policies had offended White Southerners that enabled the Republican Party to become dominant again, beginning with Ronald Reagan.

The politics of the rejuvenated Republican Party therefore represented a synthesis of muted White racialism and plutocracy. The 19^th-century notion that dog-eat-dog capitalism was somehow eugenic became attractive as a meeting-point between the two motives. However, although budgets were cut, the effects on the underclass were far from drastic. (Nor did Ronald Reagan turn Iran into a glowing parking-lot.) There seemed to be a strong anti-social impulse in all this; not infrequently the supporters of the less-government ideology will express it in terms of owing nothing to the government or to society.

Unfortunately, as it turned out, the established plutocratic motive in the Republican Party forced the recently introduced racial motive to take a back seat. Instead of concentrating on pro-White politics (such as restricting immigration), which is the most fundamental form of conservatism, the Republicans, with an ideology of free trade, deregulation, and less government, concentrated on dismantling the economic and social adjustments that had become necessary by the time of the Great Depression.

The fact that the Republicans had become the party of unnecessary wars also did not help. Barack Obama was able to beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination because she had supported war in Iraq and he had not. This consideration also surely had some bearing on Obama’s victory over John McCain, who repelled people with talk of 100 years of Middle-East war.
The combination of dishonest wars and a wrecked economy caused the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Republican attempts to exploit some presumed amnesia on the part of the voting public, so as to blame Obama for the resumption of the Great Depression, had little success. Unemployment also became worse during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term than it had been under Herbert Hoover, but somehow that did not make people forget under which party the crisis had begun.

Why did three-million Republicans not turn out to vote for Mitt Romney?

Rush Limbaugh characterizes movers and shakers in the Republican Party as a bunch of elitist snobs who despise many of the ordinary people that vote Republican.

How many times have I told you this story? Early 90s, in the Hamptons. Dinner party, mostly establishment Republicans. And major figures, you’d know the names, big donors, fundraisers, come up to me, point their finger in my chest, actually jab my chest, “What are you going to do about the Christians?” “What do you mean, what am I going to do about the…?” “This abortion’s killing us! We’re never going to win a damned thing! They listen to you. You’ve got to get them to shut up about this!” I said, “They’re only 24 million votes. You can’t win anything without them.” “We don’t want them! It’s embarrassing!” Well, that’s 1992, 93. We’re now at 2012. That’s 20 years. That’s how long it’s been building. That is something that existed then; it existed during the 80s with Reagan. There was embarrassment over Reagan. (Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound)

While this anecdote gives a useful insight, Limbaugh seems to tell only part of the truth, probably the part that he can tell without getting into really serious hot water. Abortion is clearly only one, perhaps the least of the issues dear to some Republican voters that the bigwigs find abhorrent. Other such issues are control of legal and illegal immigration, opposition to free trade, and opposition to wars for Israel. The fact that Limbaugh managed to discuss the conflict over the rules-change at the Republican National Convention at length without mentioning Ron Paul, whose movement was at the center of the conflict, demonstrates that with Rush Limbaugh, while some things are revealed, much is suppressed.

A large part of the cause for three-million registered Republicans staying home on election day, no doubt, is the treatment given to Ron Paul’s genuine and enthusiastic (if ideologically wrongheaded) grassroots movement. The abuses include what seems to be rigging of results in some primaries, and a rules-change at the Republican National Convention that rankled not only Ron Paul’s supporters but Tea-Partiers and anybody that was not strictly with the plutocratic Republican establishment. The behavior of the Republican establishment during the primaries and at the convention represents the contempt of a plutocratic party for ordinary people who do not heed their supposed betters.

Limbaugh describes a key event at the 2012 Republican convention:

Essentially, the establishment Republicans, the RNC, the GOP, the Romney campaign, want to change the rules of delegate-selection. They want the presidential nominee in future years to be able to choose the actual delegates to the convention so that he owns them, so that they do what he wants.

And what it really is, is an effort to eliminate grassroots people from the Republican convention. That’s really what this is all about. And what that means is that the party has decided it doesn’t want to have to put up with a bunch of conservatives showing up, affecting the platform, and all other things that happen at the convention, including influencing the party. [Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound]

Limbaugh speaks cryptically about “conservatives” when it was mainly a matter of Ron Paul’s supporters. That was not the only offense against Ron Paul’s supporters at the convention:

Prior to the rules vote, there was also a contentious vote on the report from the committee’s credentials committee, which prevented half the delegates from Maine — many of them Paul supporters — from being seated after ruling that there were problems with their selections.

The credentials report also passed by voice vote, prompting chants of “Seat Maine now” from Paul supporters in the crowd. At one point, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus had to gavel them back into order as they chanted over the next speaker. [Aaron Blake, “Ron Paul supporters come up short in rules fight,” Washington Post, 28 August 2012]

Ron Paul’s opposition to war and foreign entanglements generally would have represented a real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and a change of direction that many people favor, one that would have attracted many who favored Obama in 2008 because of what appeared to be his disinclination for war.

The question for me is not why Obama was re-elected, but why anybody is surprised about it, given what the Republican establishment really represents, and the contempt with which it treats the people whose support it seeks.

The Overemphasis on Demographic Change and Why they are Doing It

Fox News commentator Bill O’ Reilly made this dire assessment as exit polls suggested that the Republican Party’s White male challenger Mitt Romney would lose to the mulatto incumbent:

The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.

And whereby twenty years ago President Obama would be roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the White establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff.

You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming Black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way.

People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things.

O’Reilly tries to cast the problem in terms of the old saw about how democracy cannot last because the people will vote largesse for themselves until they ruin the state, but he ends up interpreting that largely in racial terms (which is probably what really concerns the average Fox News viewer anyway, so that we probably should not consider this a slip but intentional pandering).

Who is the “White establishment” that O’Reilly says is now the minority? He cannot mean all White people, because White people are not a minority yet, nor did all White people vote Republican. O’Reilly is implying that the Republican Party got as much of the White vote as it could possibly get, which is simply not the case. The thesis here is that a less plutocratic Republican Party would draw a larger share of the White vote and be able to win elections at the national level.

After O’Reilly made his statement, Jewish political pundit Dick Morris stated on Fox News, “If this candidate, in this economy, against this opponent, couldn’t win … nobody ever can.” Morris specifically mentioned immigration as a position where the Republican Party would have to change. Morris and certain others seem far too eager to embrace the conclusion that demographic change is the reason why the Republicans lost, and overly determined as to what should be done about it.

Neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer was one of the first notable voices after the election to call for the Republican Party to embrace amnesty for illegal aliens:

The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.

For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. [Charles Krauthammer, “The Way Forward,” National Review, 8 November 2012]

King-Neocon William Kristol expresses himself a bit more timidly. He advocates that the Republican Party should continue to be the enemy of “big government liberalism” but should exhibit “fresh thinking” in other regards. Then he cryptically suggests that a change of the party’s position on immigration might be in order: “If a senator or a representative has a good proposal on immigration or monetary policy or education or tax reform, he or she should introduce it” (William Kristol, “Losing Can be Liberating,” The Weekly Standard, 19 November 2012)

The Zionist owner of Fox News and funder of the Project for a New American Century, Rupert Murdoch, tweeted that the United States “must make sweeping, generous immigration reform.”

The dominant theme in Neoconservative propaganda at present is that the Republican Party must become even less the party of White people while remaining the plutocratic party.

The Neocon position was echoed by Sean Hannity, who has always seemed weak-kneed on matters of racial importance, claiming that he had “evolved.”

Among elected politicians, while Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner came out for amnesty, other Republicans, who depend on the support of White constituencies, disagreed.

Rush Limbaugh: Demographic Change is not the Immediate Problem

Limbaugh denies the premise of the Neocons’ rhetoric, that amnesty for illegal aliens would significantly win Hispanics over to the GOP. He points out that 75% of the Hispanic vote is more interested in the social safety-net and progressive taxation, than in immigration. (8 November 2012)
Rush Limbaugh says that that the Republicans did not lose because of demographics, but because the party had alienated the three million registered Republicans who stayed home on election-day.

It wasn’t an election lost because we didn’t get the women’s vote, the Hispanic vote. We didn’t turn our vote out. It’s just that simple. Could it be, ladies and gentlemen, three million Republicans sat at home because they didn’t see enough of a conservative campaign?

These are the things that have to be pondered, why all the party beats itself up over amnesty and single women and contraception. But I’m just going to tell you, if you think that the only reason why you’re not winning presidential races is because you’re not for amnesty, and because you’re not for abortion, if you change to that, if you moderate, modify your positions, you are going to cease to exist, because those who are with you are going to abandon you. (Rush Limbaugh, 8 November 2012: sound)

Beyond Limbaugh

Limbaugh says that if the Republican Party tries to cater to the Hispanic vote by embracing amnesty for illegal aliens, the party will cease to exist. That is very likely. However, it does not mean that the Republican Party will survive if it does not do that.

If the Republican Party is defined by opposition to the social safety-net and progressive taxation, then indeed it will cease to exist, whether it pursues non-White support or not, because these are adjustments that the conditions of late capitalism (where efficient production, exacerbated presently through offshoring of jobs, causes massive unemployment) make indispensable.

As with O’Reilly, Limbaugh’s rhetoric loosely ties plutocratic thinking with racial thinking by associating the desire for a social safety-net and progressive taxation with Blacks and Hispanics. The listener is given the hint that the Republican Party’s policies are a good way to give a relative advantage to Whites over and against non-Whites. The downside to this is that the White working class is put in the position of choosing between an impersonal racial interest and personal economic interest. Of course many choose the latter, especially outside of the South.

The Non-Southern White Working Class

A new report on the White working class by Elisabeth Jacobs of the Brookings Institution indicates that the White working class was the key to Obama’s victory in Ohio. White working-class voters everywhere tend to be more culturally conservative than other White people, but outside of the South White workers are more influenced by economic policy. A movement away from the plutocratic less-government ideology would bring the Republican Party closer to being the party of all White people. Here’s a chart from Mother Jones showing the White working class vote in various regions of the U.S.:

Since the Southern White working-class voters who now vote Republican were once solidly Democratic, and have adopted plutocratic rhetoric as a (perceived) sneaky approach to racial politics, we can say that these voters are not really wedded to the less-government ideology and, if they can remember why they started mouthing that rhetoric in the first place, will abandon it when they see that the racial interest is better served in some other way.

What about the Black vote?

It must be recognized that White people are not the only population in the United States that suffers from a false leadership that despises it. The Blacks also have their Judas goats, most notably Ben Jealous of the NAACP and Al Sharpton. The NAACP was created by Jews and is essentially controlled by Jews today, through funding. (When the NAACP started to take an independent course under Ben Chavis in the 1990s, it suddenly ran into funding problems.) Al Sharpton, who has a daily radio show and a television show on MSNBC, supports the cause of illegal immigrants, to the detriment of Black people in the United States.

Despite the effect of these Judas goats, about half of the Black population understands that illegal immigration adversely affects Black people, and they oppose amnesty.

Jealous and Sharpton together were prominent in stirring up irrational anti-White rage among Blacks regarding the Trayvon Martin case. This irrational hostility hinders understanding and cooperation for the common good of Black and White as natives of the United States, and helps the Neocons and others who want non-White immigration to continue.

While the false Black leaders try to maintain racial animosity, the false White leaders try to overcome that animosity using inducements that are transparently bogus.

The arguments that the Republicans have been using to try to get the Black vote are ridiculous. Those arguments are (1) that the Republican desire to take away the advantages that Blacks currently enjoy is really good for Blacks, and (2) that the Republican Party happily puts on display token successful Blacks and other non-Whites at its convention and even appoints some of them as figureheads in the party.

The reason why Blacks are not impressed with the Blacks who speak at a Republican convention or are made titular head of the RNC may be that they understand something that Whites should also understand. Those people speaking at Republican conventions do not represent any racial identity: they represent a cosmopolitan bourgeois identity. Bourgeois Republican Blacks no more represents the Black community than Mitt Romney represents the White community. They are simply money-people.

Here’s the real argument, which some Blacks should find convincing: if non-White immigration continues, if the United States of America cease to have a White majority, it will be very bad for Blacks. It’s a genuine argument, not an attempt at fooling them with empty symbolism and slick talk.
About half of Blacks are already hostile to immigration. What is needed is an effort to make Blacks think about immigration more and to treat it as a key issue in coming elections. This can be done through publicity that emphasizes the conflict between Black interests and immigration, and by getting Black preachers, who exercise considerable influence, to support that position. They need to understand that they are on a ship that will sink if they do not limit their demands and cooperate with others who want to prevent an incipient disaster.

Conclusion

The Democrats’ period of dominance from 1933–1981was based on addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, but they spoiled that with anti-White racial politics. The Republicans’ recent period of dominance has been based on being Implicitly White, which even now should be enough to win a presidential election, but they are ruining that by not addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, White and otherwise.

It is clear that the Republicans must change something to broaden their appeal. The Neoconservative answer is that the Republicans should try harder to appeal to Hispanics by embracing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and become in that respect a copy of the Democratic Party. There is a respect in which the Republicans should become more like the Democrats, and even go far beyond them, but immigration is not it.

Non-White immigration is the main threat to all of society in the United States today. There happens to be a ready constituency for curbing immigration, but to win it the Republicans must abandon plutocratic economic and social thinking. That constituency consists of White working-class people everywhere (many of whom have not been voting Republican), as well as about half of the Black population.

What I propose is that the Republican Party should continue being Implicitly White and culturally conservative but take away from the Democrats their main source of appeal, the social state. Given the economic conditions of late capitalism and the post-colonial period, it is in any case inevitable that the party that makes this adjustment will in the long run defeat the one that refuses it.