Uncategorized

The Republican Party Is Doomed

Article by Kevin MacDonald.

A consequence of the anti-White revolution wrought by immigration is the racialization of American politics.  Richard Spencer’s talk at the recent National Policy Institute Conference (now the featured TOO video) is an excellent summary of the case that the the Republican Party is doomed unless it switches to a pro-majority strategy—a topic discussed several times here as well. The basic fact is that around 90% of the votes of the Republican Party are from Whites. Non-Whites—even well-off non-Whites (including Jews)—tend to vote strongly Democrat, while the Republican base is now made up of  Whites of all social classes.   But as Whites become a decreasing percentage of the population, the Republican Party will inevitably become a permanent minority party as its constituents become a minority of Americans.

The video below features Pat Buchanan and Ron Brownstein discussing this issue with Cenk Uygur, a Turkish-American who seems quite gleeful that the Republican Party is “heading over a cliff.” (It doesn’t take long for non-Whites to see what the game is in American politics.) Again the same depressing statistics on White displacement, along with the projection that Obama could win Georgia with only 25% of the White vote and the point that Obama’s ads are featuring young non-Whites—the soon-to-be majority. Whites are expected to vote even more overwhelmingly Republican in 2012, which could mean that they win some states they didn’t win before. But, as Buchanan says, the Republican Party is doomed in the long run. And,as he notes, it doesn’t make sense for the Republicans to try to recruit Latinos because Latinos want lots of big government programs (not to mention bringing more people like themselves to the U.S., legalizing the illegals, etc).

Brownstein blames Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy of getting Southerners to break their long allegiance to the  Democratic Party as the ultimate reason why the Republican Party is now heading over a cliff. But it’s hard to see why Southern Whites would want to vote for anything like what the Democratic Party has become. Even by the 1960s, the Democrats had begun loosening their ties to the White working class in favor of embracing racial diversity, the civil rights movement, massive non-White immigration and the culture of the left (e.g., the homosexual agenda, radical feminism). Buchanan says the Southern strategy had a “good run”—keeping Republicans competitive for more than 40 years.

Of course, the problem is not that the Southern strategy was necessarily short-sighted. It just didn’t include any attempt to keep the country White. For this entire period, the Republicans have been complicit in the displacement of White America. Their mistake was to think they could still win elections when Whites become a minority—the myopia of a political class focused narrowly on the next election. The really sad thing is that if the country had remained 90% White, the White working class would have been far better represented in the Democratic Party than they have been in the Republican party dominated by globalist elites bent on open borders and free trade, with an occasional bone tossed to social conservatives.

The good news here is that it’s hard to believe that Whites won’t begin to identify as Whites and begin to act accordingly when they see that they can’t win elections any longer, even with very strong White majorities voting Republican.

But for people on the left like Brownstein, Whites have no choice but to fund their displacement so that non-Whites will make them comfortable as they head off into the sunset (“Bound Together: Why America Must Bridge the Gap between Brown and Gray“). The message is that White folks have to come up with the cash for the “huge, heavily nonwhite generation of youths that needs public investments in education and health care to ascend to the middle class.” All it will take is money, but the problem is the “sharp move to the right among older whites resistant to activist government and uneasy about the rapid demographic change transforming the United States.

Exactly. These Whites never voted for this massive influx. Legal immigration has been taken off the table by mutual consent between Republicans and Democrats, and now  the Obama Administration is giving stealth amnesty to the 16,000,000  illegals.   So all they have left is their uneasiness.

Actually, it’s an unspoken rage—unspoken because they can’t talk about the real problems without being called “racists” and such. (James Edwards does a great job of illustrating the pervasiveness of this form of thought control in his talk at the NPI conference—the second talk on the currently featured TOO video.)

Now Whites are expected to throw huge amounts of money down the drain trying to overcome the “daunting achievement gaps between white and minority students”—the utopian quest to get Mexicans (average IQ around 90) and Blacks (IQ around 85) into the middle class. This after decades of trying to raise Black IQ with no success. (In the National Policy Institute video, James Edwards lists the dozens of programs that have already been aimed at improving Black achievement—all for naught.)

For liberals like Brownstein, the only conceivable problem is lack of money. (In a previous column, he explicitly exonerated Blacks for their weak family ties. Implicit message: Whites have to fix things for Blacks; Blacks have no responsibility to change their behavior.) Aging Whites are supposed to make this massive investment even though it is common knowledge that the programs benefiting seniors are in fiscal trouble. I suppose in Brownstein’s ideal world, Whites would cut back their benefits from Social Security and Medicare in order to fund educational programs for non-Whites. But, as all the research shows, people are less willing to contribute to public goods in ethnically non-homogeneous societies—especially when the beneficiaries are uninvited guests of different ethnicity. Brownstein is blissfully ignorant of all the social science research, whether on race differences in academic potential or on the disastrous consequences of multiculturalism.

Then there’s his elated recitation of the decline of Whites in the last ten years:

In 2000, whites comprised about 61 percent of America’s children and almost 84 percent of its seniors, for a 23-point gap. By 2010, the gap had widened to about 26 points, because whites still comprise 80 percent of seniors, but plummeted to less than 54 percent of children.

Followed by a threat:

“Unless America can equip its young people to obtain good-paying jobs, Social Security and Medicare will face increasing financial strain.”

Right, but it would be much less strain if American didn’t have this uninvited burden placed upon them. The anti-White revolution is now on auto-pilot, and aging Whites are expected to pay for it.

Here’s another threat. The American economy can’t possibly grow enough jobs to employ the immigrants now here, especially since most of the manufacturing base has been shipped overseas (see Buchanan’s comments in the video). The recent data on poverty show the highest levels in 50 years, with around 25% of Blacks (39% of Black children) and Latinos below the poverty line. Unemployment levels remain historically high and are doubtless the biggest threat to Obama’s reelection.

Yet the political class and the mainstream media are silent about how immigration exacerbates the problems of poverty and unemployment.

If Brownstein really wants a livable America, he would oppose immigration and favor programs for repatriating illegals. But being a liberal, his only solution is to have White folks tighten their belts and fund yet more programs for non-Whites. The metaphysical ideal of a non-White America trumps every other consideration.

Categories: Uncategorized

18 replies »

  1. We are headed towards another Reconstruction-like environment. In struggle we know how things turned out – when Whites were forced to endure Black rule they fought back and took over, even in Mississippi and South Carolina where they were minorities. They did so via open revolution in those two States. It worked. And they ruled for the next hundred years until Federal intervention again set us on course for non-White rule. But attitudes are changing again. This is not 1968. White guilt is wearing thin. The Internet is exposing the lies of the current system.

    The decline of the GOP should be embraced since it never was of any use to ordinary people. Even at its best it was just ‘the lesser of two evils’ and at its worst it was the greater evil. As Whites approach minority status they will develop more of a consciousness – something that was discarded over the last two generations.

    The era of White guilt is over. It no longer has much appeal, especially to young people. Now is the era of survival, a time to unlearn the false ideas of the last 50 years. It will be followed by the era of taking back what has been given away and lost. Expect for things to get very messy as this plays out.

  2. PalmettoPatriot, you live in a world with a very strange relation to reality, to say the least. If you think that the instantaneous worldwide exchange of ideas, commerce, and friendship is going to encourage racism then you’re idiotic enough to be harmless. Dirty backwaters will have to close off commerce and communication to preserve their nasty little local power structures and the resulting alienation from the world’s talent pools will condemn them to a richly deserved poverty. The internet will continue to eat you alive unless you play the North Korea strategy and shut out the world, in which case you will starve.

    Keith~

    You once said there weren’t any Klansmen in your forum. We both know that you lie when expedient or when it’s a Tuesday, but that particular lie is getting a bit transparent these days, don’t you think?

  3. Aster, your use of the word ‘racism’ which was invented by communist in the late 1920s instantly puts me off. Your use of the phrase ‘dirty backwaters’ to describe geographic and demographic areas you don’t identify with also puts me off. You go on from there to use terms like ‘nasty little local power structures’ and the Marxist term ‘alienation.’ Understand, that it is impossible for me to take your comments seriously given your rhetoric. From what I can see, your rhetoric would resonate far more in 1968 than 2012.

  4. Astar, one point I unfortunately left out what your attack on Keith Preston. You claim that ‘we both know that you lie when expedient.’ That was certainly uncalled for. You spewed out a lot of hot air – do you do so when expedient? You used a lot of empty rhetoric – do you do so when expedient? I these are far more relevant questions than the mindless ones you proposed as an attack on KP.

  5. He/she can’t be that crazy, if it is Aster? Or else maybe it’s Dave Houser in disguise? (The site is from Las Vegas you know…)

  6. The political questions surrounding the U.S. Civil War are another area where it’s not a case of either/or.

    I tend to interpret the North/South conflict as a continuation of the 18th and 19th century conflicts between the historic bourgeoisie and the throne and altar tradition. The South wasn’t really “feudal” in the traditional aristocratic sense. Instead, it was ruled by what in Europe would have been the gentry of large landowners who lacked formal aristocratic title (the upper middle class in traditional European society). The South’s economy was primarily agrarian and its cultural orientation was traditionalist. This put the South at odds with the northern bourgeoisie which tended to be drawn from the merchant and banker class (a strata below the gentry in the traditional European class hierarchy) that was the basis of the emerging industrial civilization in North America. The South’s labor force was still comprised of slaves, peasants, and de facto indentured servants while the north’s labor force was increasingly dominated by wage laborers. On a cultural and ideological level, the North was much closer the French Revolution than either the South or the first generation of American revolutionaries. The Lincoln regime can at least in some ways be interpreted as an American application of Jacobinism with its univeralism and tendency towards the centralized nation-state, though its take on religion was less anti-clerical and more oriented towards left-wing Christianity.

    I think Lysander Spooner’s position of support for both southern independence and slave emancipation was the correct one. It’s also interesting that there were five American Indian nations that formally aligned themselves with the Confederacy. Reconstruction was really just an occupation regime that used racially mixed regional governments as puppets. One doesn’t have to approve of the traditional southern racial caste system to recognize that.

    The best possible outcome of the Civil War probably would have been for the South to grant emancipation to the black slaves, combined with extensive land reform and the creation of self-governing black communities on the Eatonville model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatonville,_Florida in exchange for black support for regional independence and a comprehensive alliance with the American Indian tribes, Texas, and Mexico against the expansion of the US empire. Maybe support from Spain or Russia could have been solicited. If a scenario of this type had happened, maybe the empire would have been stopped dead in it tracks and there would have been no US entry into WWI a half century later, no Versailles, no Weimar, no…you get the idea. The tenor of the times made such as result wildly unlikely, of course.

  7. I’m increasingly inclined towards the view that the Republican Party is basically a spent force historically. I think the demographic, cultural, generational, economic, and partisan trends all indicate that the GOP is fucked without much chance of recovery: http://attackthesystem.com/2009/05/31/is-something-really-wrong-with-kansas/

    In the future, I think the US will be a near literal one party state at the national level with the Democratic Party being the party of institutionalized totalitarian humanism in the same way the the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the party of institutionalized Marxism-Leninism. The Repugs may remain competitive at the regional level in the red states and may elect an occasional governor in a blue state or even an occasional president but I don’t think the Repugs will ever again be the dominant party unless they dramatically alter their political orientation which I don’t see happening.

    The neocons will be happy to be the right-wing of the Democratic Party and the conservative “base” of the GOP will increasingly be relegated to the status of a cultural minority. For instance, the Tea Party primarily represented a sinking middle class of older, white people that will die out in another few decades. The growth of the evangelical subculture leveled off 20 years ago and has remained static ever since. Its leaders are either dying off or admitting defeat. Whites will lose their majority demographic status in the next few decades and conservative whites will be a genuine minority. In other words, every constituent group the GOP has is shrinking in size while the Democratic constituencies are growing.

    The wild cards in all this are the Christian Zionists and the Ron Paulistas. I can’t imagine the CZs going to the Dems given their social conservatism and the Israel Firsters will always want to cultivate them as constituency. So it will be interesting to see how that will play out. The RP movement represents something that’s growing up in opposition to the Republican establishment. It’s not yet discernible where that will go either.

    My best guess would be that the RP movement is a prototype for a larger, more radical anti-state movement in the future. If something like that were to emerge on a large scale then it might replace the GOP as the opposition force with the neocons attempting to rally the CZs in support of the state. If that happens, the then CZs might just become the conservative wing of the Dems. In recent times I’ve also heard the term “anti-American” coming from progressive liberals on a more frequent basis. I suspect the left will increasingly use jingoism to attack opponents of the state in the era to come.

  8. What I’ve sketched out above is a pretty good outline of what I think our opposition will be in the future. We will be confronted with a regime for whom hard core totalitarian humanists comprise it’s left-wing and Israel Firsters/Christian Zionists comprise it’s right-wing. That’s more or less the system we have now anyway except I think it will become far more concentrated and formalized in the future perhaps, as I said, in the form of a literal or de facto one-party state.

    One thing the Ron Paulistas, Tea Partiers, Occupiers, Tenthers, proto-secessionists, left-anarchists, et. al. have done is blaze a trail where an even more radical movement comprised of hard core revolutionaries such as ourselves eventually emerges as the forefront of the opposition. It will take decades to build such an opposition and I’ve previously outlined the kind of time frame I think we’re dealing with: http://attackthesystem.com/2009/07/24/forty-years-in-the-wilderness/

  9. Keith, speaking of this term ‘anti-American,’ I embrace this term. Of course, it’s not good press to do so before the unwashed masses, but to the folks who are interested in our (broadly speaking) brand of politics, I do embrace it. ‘America’ was a bad idea from the beginning, in my view.

  10. When considering the future of the GOP it might be worth reflecting on the 2010 British General Election. The election took place against the backdrop of chaos unleashed by the 08 financial crash, unemployment was rapidly rising and the parlous condition of the state’s finances was at last generally recognised. The incumbent Labour Party had been in power for 13 years and had recently been forced to bail out a whole series of banks, additionally it had involved the UK in two major conflicts and several other “international police actions” all of which was massively unpopular with almost everyone. It is hard to imagine any government going into an election under less favourable circumstances.

    Despite this the Republicans approximate equivalents, the British Conservative Party, an organisation which has over the last three centuries ruled for 75% of the time, failed to win. It would appear that a combination of a huge client base of state workers and ethnic minorities for the ultra progressive Labour party along with the inability of any establishment party to offer anything that might motivate the third of people not participating in even general elections means that the Tories can no longer secure an outright victory under any circumstances.

    Ironically the one thing that might buy the Conservatives an “extended play” is the dissolution of the UK which would take about 70 safe seats off the core of the Labour Party, in English elections. Otherwise, and maybe even in that eventuality, barring some self destruct event by Labour Britain is now crossing a tipping point to a one party state.

  11. On the subject of progressive jingoism, this has been practiced by “celtic nationalists” in the UK for decades and, recently, there has been a concious move by some to try and do the same for “english” nationalism. New nation, these guys are your founding fathers etc. Plus the traditional “Britain has always been a progressive nation” BS.

  12. “It was a sign for me to remain vigilant, to remain careful and to remain thoughtful.”

    …… and a sign that she should be packing heat!

Leave a Reply to Vince Cancel reply