Pro-White Soundbites for Donald Trump

Presidential debates are stuck on 1992 anachronisms about the economy and on 1980s-era hand-wringing about “inner cities.” White voters go along with those talking points as with ritual incantations to be recited for the sake of good manners. Dead liturgies have their purpose. They keep shut the doors behind which pace the wolves of our survival instincts.

So what can Donald Trump say to connect with things that matter to White Americans? Trump’s goal is to win the election, not to burn out with a swan song. But there may be a time and place he deems fit to push the blade deeper into the Narrative’s bloated gut and communicate that which Suburban_elk captures with eloquent simplicity:

[R]eal concern and real vision, and from the heart, about how white people are suffering for having lost their country, and even more than that, having lost their purpose and their identity; their very soul.

Here are a few of my suggestions for avowing a people that dare not speak its name:

1. Apathy. “I remember when every home in hard-working communities had these pretty flowers in front of it, little American flags lining the street. And these people had pride in their neighbors, in themselves — because they believed that they have a future. And today, they don’t care any more. Why? because they feel that they have lost their country, their public space. Folks, when the people who built America drop out, we are all hurting.”

2. Ethnic Cleansing. “Good people cannot afford to live in their own communities! They watch their aspirations, their work go to ruin when their neighborhoods change character. Their property values are wiped out. I want Americans to have the homes, schools, and families like their grandparents and great-grandparents had.”

3. Despair. “And you know who else is hurting? White Americans. Yes, Whites. Like the families I met in central Florida. They have friends, or even their brothers or sisters, who live with no hope. No appreciation from their leaders. They have watched these beautiful young people fall into methamphetamine addiction. The drug of despair, folks. It never had to be that way. And this is going to change.”

4. Family Formation. “Americans who trace their heritage to Europe do not feel like they can build their own future. I’ve talked with folks in New Jersey, they are afraid to start a family. Or to have a second baby. Schools, affordable neighborhoods for young families are hostile in character. So many young, bright people want to have children but they are choking on their student loans.”

5. Founders’ Posterity. “Listen to me. The only meaningful job of the government is to secure a future for its people and their posterity. It’s right there, in the preamble to our Constitution. That spirit is in the Declaration of Independence and in Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.”

6. Guns. “Let’s be frank about something: our Founding Fathers had a good reason to articulate your right to bear arms. My opponent wants is to disarm you. It is tyrannical to take away an American’s right to defend his family from anyone who would threaten the peace of his home.”

7. Immigration. “No, it’s not just about the economy. Or security. It’s about Americans watching the country of their great-grandparents turn ugly, day after day, one administration after another. There are those who say that America is already great. They are lying to your face.”

[Can’t you just hear Trump’s drawn-out, emphatic enunciation in that last sentence?]

“You’re seeing your towns become third world. You know what, folks, Americans no longer see friendly faces. They feel like this isn’t their country any more. And they are right. And they don’t like it one bit.”

[There is so much to be said about immigration]

8. Neighborhoods. “The politicians give you their tired clichés like it’s time to bring communities together. Wrong! Maybe we should take a time-out on togetherness. We have a beautiful diverse America but we get on each other’s nerves. All people need their space.”

9. Neoliberalism. “Very powerful people who run our government and our economy have sold your birthright to the world’s low bidders. Whom they invite here to replace you at work — and guess what: they don’t do half the good job you do. They just work more cheaply and put up with the abuses you wouldn’t accept. And they also drown out your voice at the voting booths.”

10. Our Future. “The American people, the posterity of brave men and women who fought in the War of Independence, who risked everything to settle the frontier and help build this great country. They are vilified. They are not protected. They are told to shut up and pay their taxes. They are being pushed aside — and they are still very patient about it.”

“I want to talk about our future. Many Americans don’t feel like they have one. This is a crime, folks: their heritage is being erased, their history twisted into shrill accusations. And they are good, beautiful, hard working, relentless, creative people. Without them, there is no America. With Donald Trump as your president, you will look forward to the future, just like your ancestors did. Together we will make America great again!”

***

Trump knows. I had a short post in February, titled Reframing Compassion: You Can’t Come Here that pointed to his good instincts. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism, he said in his foreign policy speech last April. And remember his White Genocide retweet?

Advertisements

“Because We Live Here” in Hungarian

Hungarian security forces are affixing eerie masks on their southern border fence to stop migrants from crossing into their country. Predictably (and oblivious to the obvious alternative), the director of the so-called Human Rights Watch strongly criticized Hungarian politician Gyorgy Schopflin of the nation’s ruling Fidesz party and then tweeted: “Refugees are fleeing war & torture, Hungary. Your root vegetable heads will not deter them.”

Mr. Schopflin agreed-and-amplified: “Might do so. Human images are haram. But agree, pig’s head would deter more effectively.”

mask5

But perhaps instead of masks, Hungarians could have posted signs in appropriate languages that state something like what I drafted here:

“Dear travelers from the Middle East and Africa, we understand that you have your reasons for desiring entry into Hungary. However, letting you in would subject our nation to one or more of these scenarios: one, having to accommodate your growingly intolerable presence; two, becoming you through the intermarriage of our daughters with you; or three, a civil war. None of those things are acceptable to us because they would inflict preventable suffering on the Hungarian people, and we have nowhere else to go. In fact, we are fond our ancestral homeland.

We also understand that many of you ask for no more than our permission to pass through our country toward your final destination in the U.K. or Germany. On that matter we considered the headaches with the EU and the Americans we’d be saving ourselves by playing the game of “eat us last,” but the answer is still No.

If this forthright message does not convince you to turn away from our border, then we will display creepy masks. Should those fail to make it clear that we don’t want you invading our home, we will enforce our territorial integrity with the use of deadly force. We wish you a safe and pleasant journey back to your homes. Goodbye.”

Nah. The masks already say all of that. As reported:

The account posting the images said that the masks were made in part out of carved sugar beet root and that no migrants had reportedly crossed in the areas where the scarecrows had been put up in the past month.

The Hungarian government understands something I’ve said before: non-Whites are deeply superstitious. Find their button and watch them run. For example, U.S. Southerners used cheesy Celtic rites and costumes to spook would-be black predators during the lawless Reconstruction era.

Is Anti-Racism A Religion?

Peterike forwards a post from Those Who Can See blog titled “When Progressives Get Religion,” which shows the parallels between religion and Anti-Racism (here capitalized). Specifically, the linked post addresses Anti-Racism’s similarity to Communism, which the blog’s author M.G. calls a nontheistic religion:

Communism, has been intriguing scholars for the last 100 years for its likeness to spiritual belief. The millions of pages written on the subject have taught us this if nothing else: The leftist, in his own way, seems just as prone to religious thinking as the rightist.

M.G. compares the tenets of Anti-Racism to traditional religion with generous use of visuals in a historical sweep from the Bolshevik era through Rotherham:

  1. Living our Faith (with subsets zeal and confession, sacrifice, and acts of piety)
  2. Dogma (subsets being doctrine, indoctrination, and utopianism)
  3. Fighting Heresy (with science denialism, ethnic denialism, and purging of heretics)

There is, however — and this is my contention — a key difference between religion and Anti-Racism: religion is adaptive for its adherents and Anti-Racism is maladaptive. Rather than sustaining its people, it devours them. That makes Anti-Racism, like Communism before, not a religion but a psychotic episode that at best mimics the outward forms of religious practice. The victims of both systems are the masses of people who had never consented to this new faith, yet they carry all of its burdens with none of its benefits. And that makes Anti-Racism not a religion, but a Jim Jones cult with partly-indoctrinated hostages.

A distinction without a difference? Not entirely. Genuine religions last millennia while left-wing zealotry burns itself out once it consumes the human fuel it feeds on. Revolutionary Marxism-Leninism died in Stalin’s purges in the mid-late 1930s and with his hit on Trotsky. Yet Communism’s destructiveness during its terror phase was unprecedented on the historic scale, the Ukrainian genocide being a better-known example. Wikipedia’s entry on the Holodomor’s death toll:

A 2002 study by Vallin et al.[…] estimates the amount of direct deaths for 1933 as 2.582 million. This number of deaths does not reflect the total demographic loss for Ukraine from these events as the fall of the birth rate during crisis and the out-migration contribute to the latter as well. The total population shortfall from the expected value between 1926 and 1939 estimated by Vallin amounted to 4.566 million. Of this number, 1.057 million is attributed to birth deficit

Birth deficit. That’s a statistic that the raw numbers of murdered don’t show. See the faces of Holodomor behind the numbers:

holod1

holod2

And now, the faces of the victims of Anti-Racism:

faces

Radiance inside a ring of shit. That’s what I dub that collage from M.G.’s post. No, it is not dismissible as a sad compilation of people struck by a bad-luck event such as leukemia or a traffic accident; those things are not preventable in the aggregate, which would make the collage a meaningless invocation to futility. It is also not a representation of a free society’s rough edges because a free society provides its law-abiding citizens with avenues of recourse and deterrence against their victimization, and ours made lynching illegal. What the collage does, is it gives a human scale to liberal America’s animus against Whites. By using weaponized Blacks — and now the terror attacks in European cities and child rapes — our governments enable those outrages in order to demoralize and pacify us. What is the White birth deficit in desegregated America?

***

While left wing ideology, be it Communism or Anti-Racism, is not a religion in my opinion, the utopian faith among its true believers is real. That utopianism was dramatized in Arthur Koestler’s 1944 novel “Darkness at Noon.” The dialogue below is between two characters in the story, both being Bolshevik revolution veterans during Stalin’s purges of the old guard. The prisoner Rubashov, who at this point comes to doubt his earlier revolutionary convictions, is interrogated by his former comrade Ivanov, a Party member still in good standing:

Rubashov rubbed his pince-nez on his sleeve, and looked at him short-sightedly.  “What a mess,” he said, “what a mess we have made of our golden age. […] in the interests of a just distribution of land we deliberately let die of starvation about five million farmers and their families in one year. […] We have built up the most gigantic police apparatus, with informers made a national Institution, and with the most refined scientific system of physical and mental torture. We whip the groaning masses of the country towards a theoretical future happiness, which only we can see. […] To me it sometimes seems as though the experimenters had torn the skin off the victim and left it standing with bared tissues, muscles and nerves …”

“Well, and what of it?” said Ivanov happily. “Don’t you find it wonderful? Has anything more wonderful ever happened in history? We are tearing the old skin off mankind and giving it a new one. That is not an occupation for people with weak nerves; but there was once a time when it filled you with enthusiasm. What has so changed you that you are now as pernickety as an old maid?” Rubashov wanted to answer: “Since then I have heard Bogrov call out my name.” But he knew that this answer did not make sense. So he answered instead:

“To continue with the same metaphor: I see the flayed body of this generation: but I see no trace of the new skin. We all thought one could treat history like one experiments in physics. The difference is that in physics one can repeat the experiment a thousand times, but in history only once […]

“For a man with your past,” Ivanov [said], “this sudden revulsion against experimenting is rather naive. Every year several million people are killed quite pointlessly by epidemics and other natural catastrophes. And we should shrink from sacrificing a few hundred thousand for the most promising experiment in history?

In his “Rivers of Blood” anti-immigration speech in 1968, Enoch Powell said that the supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. He was describing something that is the opposite of utopian ambitions.

Utopianism is hubris at its highest amplification. It is not religion, as those always counsel humility. But if one were to search for supernatural origins of both Bolshevism and Anti-Racism, he would discover that their animating flame comes not from the Divine, but from that other place.

“The Internationale,” a North Korean Performance

Soviet communism had stirring anthems like “The Internationale” and the USSR national anthem, both of which made your hair stand up when performed by the Red Army Choir. American communism has Beyoncé. Reader Suburban_elk perceptively captures the essence of our own communism as embodied in the dread-and-circuses ideological rally featuring a synthetic Black woman’s cocksure strut:

Beyonce came over as UGLY evil thing who struts around her vagina – literally her vagina and big butt lead the way and she follows it around, and she has that evil hard demonic face.

There is no reference to “the People’s mighty hand” in Beyoncé’s songs.

There are still countries that openly call their system of rule “Communist,” most prominently among them the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Below is a video of their military choir performing “The Internationale” in the Hangul (Korean) language.

My aesthetic sense resonates like a tuning fork hitting a pure note when I see national particularism emerge from under the blanket of universalist systems. Sometimes—such as in this case—even when those national forms are not my own. The performance below expresses aspects of the Korean identity, buried as it is under those Soviet-style uniforms and that old French melody, most essentially in the ethnically-coherent formations of purely Korean faces. Another nod to Korean sensibilities is the overlay of their much-beloved teeny-pop synth sounds over the majestic bars of the hymn.

A denunciation of DPRK’s abuses of her own people would be outside of the scope of this post. Similarly, a hypothetical blog post that revels in American line dancing should not be expected to also denounce the ethnic cleansing of Detroit and the ongoing dispossessions.

Update: see realgaryseven in the comments for additional perspective on North Korea.

Reframing Compassion: You Can’t Come Here

And they wonder why Donald Trump is to civic enthusiasm as “The Passion of the Christ” was to movie-going.

An attendee at Donald Trump’s rally in Salem, New Hampshire, questioned Trump about his hardline position on Middle Eastern migrants. Trump has said that, in addition to barring new refugees, he would deport any already in the country. From Business Insider, Feb. 8, 2016, with emphasis added:

“There’s plans in place now to relocate a few Syrian families in the [Greenwich, NH] community,” the man told Trump. “The community has been very open and welcoming of these families. Some of their children are — ages 5, 8, 10, 12 — are planning to go to school there.”

He continued: “I think we all probably know what your general policies are toward refugees. I’m wondering if you would be able to look at these children in the face and tell them that they are not allowed to go to school in the community?”

Trump said he could, in fact, look those children in the face and tell them the US wouldn’t accept them. The Republican front-runner warned that their parents could be aligned with the Islamic State, the terrorist group also known as ISIS.

Trump’s answer—that he would look the migrant children in the eye and tell them that they can’t come here—was principled and right. The explanation he gave, that their parents could be aligned with ISIS, is factually sound but it doesn’t come from first causes. The fundamental answer, one that may have created an unnecessary distraction on the campaign trail, is that the purpose of countries is to secure a future for their own native children.

A response to that Greenwich rally attendee that reframes the compassion fallacy at first causes would look something like this:

I’m wondering if you would be able to look at these White children in the face and tell them that they are not allowed to have a school, or a community, or a future of their own?

Nobody ever asks about American kids, or White kids. Any talk of compassion for White children as such would draw a blank look on the average modern man’s face. Under the globalist world order and in the minds of hate-crazed anti-Whites, our communities and all of our social capital have legitimacy solely in their function of being nourishment for non-Whites.

From the most recent Democratic debate, moderated by a Black woman Gwen Ifill and featuring Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders:

IFILL: Let me turn this on its head, because when we talk about race in this country, we always talk about African-Americans, people of color. I want to talk about white people, OK?

SANDERS: White people?

IFILL: I know. (Laughter)

Hyenas cackling over the lion cubs.

A human being with a healthy moral alignment and a non-cucked worldview sees the world from the perspective of his concentric circles of loyalty, all of them anchored on the axis of his blood lineage. A healthy man makes all practical judgments in accordance with how they serve the well-being of his posterity writ large but delineated by outer limits to keep his generosity from diluting itself in universalism.

What about Christian compassion to others, in the context of asylum-seekers? I mused about the notion of shelter-giving in my post about hospitality, where I wrote something that is apropos here:

A generous humanitarian gesture toward a large numbers of foreigners seeking safety — assuming they are deemed asylum seekers and not non-uniformed invaders — should be a temporary sanctuary in a confined campus, with mandatory return once the hostilities are deemed to have ended. And no possibility of release to integrate with the host state’s population.

In no moral law is it written that asylum for refugees must become an open door to changing the national character of the host country. A good host will feed you and board you, not dispossess his son or give away his daughter for the guest’s sake.

And the above assumes that the refugees are fleeing certain death, rather than coming here “for a better life” at the price of making our children’s lives worse.

***

It has been pointed out in ironic tones that Donald Trump could pass for a moderate Democrat twenty years ago. That may be true at face value but this glib dismissal also understates Trump’s campaign as an existential threat to the system. The globalist world order—which had kicked into implementation phase with the end of the Cold War—operates on two principles: (1) a perpetual expansion of the economic consumer pool, and (2) White genocide.

A charismatic, independent, national-level political figure that allegedly positions himself as a “moderate Democrat” from 1996 is not a threat to the establishment because he is two-decades’ worth of quibbles behind the program. Rather, he’s a threat to them because he represents a reversal of the present direction of national destinies from a planned blending-out oblivion to a defiant rebirth of nations. (“Destinies” in the plural, because Trump’s national populism will validate the aspirations of White patriots worldwide)

***

But, but—they say it’s just a few refugees that want to be your neighbors in Greenwich!

Yeah. That’s what they told us in ’65.

The Donald knows.

twttmp

Orwell on Leftist Media: “Once a Whore, Always a Whore”

First of all, a message to English left-wing journalists and intellectuals generally: ‘Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist […] and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.’
 —George Orwell [“As I Please,” Tribune, Sep. 1, 1944]

Something that strikes even the casual observer is that the truism about history repeating itself, or at least rhyming, proves itself reliable. In the quote above, George Orwell denounces England’s left-wing press for covering up their government’s collusion with the Soviet Union in backstabbing a war ally.

In “The Witness of Poetry,” Czesław Miłosz wrote something that strikes me as central to the relationship between the establishment media class and the objective reality they purport to write about (emphasis in the original):

We discover a certain unpleasant truth that constantly intrudes on us, even if we would like to forget it. Mankind has always been divided by one rule into two species: those who know and do not speak; those who speak but do not know. This formula can be seen as an allusion to the dialectic of master and slave, for it invokes centuries of ignorance and misery among serfs, peasants, and proletarians, who alone knew the cruelty of life in all its nakedness but had to keep it to themselves. The skill of reading and writing was the privilege of the few, whose sense of life was made comfortable by power and wealth. [Harvard University Press, 1983]

I read that book in the late 1990s and the italicized line—”those who know and do not speak; those who speak but do not know”—has had an immediate and enduring impact on my thinking. Let’s take a look at these two classes of people.

Those who Know but do not Speak

In 2011, an English woman named Emma West gained worldwide notoriety when a video of her emotional argument with hostile non-Whites on a tram was posted online and viewed by more than 11 million people. Consequently, she was arrested and held in jail through Christmas, in effect a political prisoner. Pictured below is Emma West holding her toddler son on that day when she became an enemy of the state and a recipient of death threats. Her crime: saying “This is my England.”

EmWst

Almost two years later another young woman, an American named April Sims, wrote on Facebook:

My boyfriend was robbed last night by 2 black males. They held a gun to his stomach and took our $85 Wyatt’s formula, diaper wipes and veggies.

She then vented her outrage with Blacks in general, quite understandably, given her boyfriend’s ordeal and also given common observations of their antisocial behavior. For that, she lost her job. (But to my respect, she refused to apologize and when pressed she wrote: “I stand by every word I said, and do not apologize.”)

Both of those women—Emma West and April Sims—voiced legitimate grievances. Given the informal medium of their protest and emotional duress they spoke under, their words were raw, spontaneous, from the heart. And as such, their speech was opportunistically used against them by their denouncers in the media.

Michał Borowicz provides insight into what drives “those who know but don’t speak” to defy their hardship and speak nonetheless. Writing in the context of World War II-era atrocities, he writes as translated here:

Man, pushed to the very limit of his condition, found once more in the written word a last rampart against the loneliness of annihilation. His words, elaborate or awkward, cadenced or disorderly, were inspired by only the will to express, to communicate and transmit the truth. They were formulated in the worst conditions possible, were spread by impoverished means and dangerous by definition. Those words were opposed to the lie fabricated and maintained by powerful groups which had the gigantic technology at their disposal and who were protected by unbounded violence. [Ecrits des condamnés à mort sous l’occupation allemande, Presses Universitaires de France, 1954]

When listening to those who speak with a metaphoric knife at their throat, look for scraps of unadulterated truth embedded in their words. The manner in which they speak is a distant secondary consideration. Let’s now look at the other class of people from Miłosz’s formulation.

Those who Speak but do not Know

In the contemporary West those people, inclusive of members of the media, constitute a comfortable class whose wealth and connections allow them to live in insulation from the very social arrangements that they promote. Tucker Carlson describes that caste in his January 28, 2016 article “Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right” in Politico magazine:

If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good. 

The people Carlson describes are pig-ignorant about the things that women like West or Sims know well, yet they are the loudest in denouncing them for crying out about their circumstances. Women from pricey ZIP codes do not leave their homes in the morning to barbaric noise thumping from car speakers or go to sleep to pre-human shrieks from their welfare-class neighbors. Tucker Carlson’s neighbor does not take her child outside to have a creature named De’Marquise hassle her for money and then shoot her stroller-strapped baby in the face.

The Disgraced Journalists

The journalist’s vocation is to become someone who speaks and knows. Instead, in Orwell’s time as in ours, left-wing news media have assumed the role of protector of the official state narrative, no matter how that narrative conflicts with facts and reason. In other words, they lie—on three levels:

One, they bury news of interracial crime that involve a White victim. Two, when reporting such occurrances, they refuse to identify or synthesize the larger social pattern that those occurrances constitute, de rigueur trivializing every instance of Black-on-White murder, for example, as “random” or “robbery gone wrong.” And finally, the media actively construct an anti-reality narrative around current events to promote sentiments and policies that drive the ongoing dispossession of Whites in their own countries.

From the desegregation of American schools at the point of a bayonet to Angela Merkel’s jihadi invasion of Europe, the unwritten volumes of human misery are a byproduct of the elites’ goal of replacing Whites in their own countries. The leftist media are a core, active participant in this effort. Mass immigration and the forcible mixing of communities deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part of the European people and their diaspora.

My message to today’s left-wing journalists: no one believes your story. Bloggers fact- and logic-check your writing, like Steve Sailer has been doing for over the past twenty years. Everybody goes straight to the comments sections of your articles for the truth. You have placed yourself in service to lies in defiance of your code of professional ethics and common decency. But your name is on the bylines and history’s forthcoming judgment will be clear:

Not only are you a whore, you are also accessory to genocide.