They have learned nothing. They have forgotten nothing. They are doing nothing. And they may win by default.

Thus is the state of “the movement” at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2014 Anno Domini.

Much was the same as the year before. Once again, ACU organizers did their best to prevent any dissent against their preferred policy of Amnesty. Once again, speakers used militant rhetoric on tangential issues. Once again, there were laughable efforts at minority outreach, greeted with hooting scorn by an openly hostile Main Stream Media. And once again, the only person who bluntly told the truth about the dispossession of the historic American nation was Ann Coulter.

One MSM mini-meme for this year’s CPAC: “sanity” (as defined by Leftists) has been restored to CPAC. This was duly dissected by Editor Peter Brimelow, whose appearance in 2012 seems to have been nominated as the nadir by whatever replaced Journolist.

The problem, of course: the goal posts for “racism” keep being moved. Thus the collection of clickbait clichés known as Gawker dispatched one Gabrielle Bluestone who duly kvetched that “on the second day of CPAC, all of the main speakers are white men.” [A Sea of White: Day Two at CPAC, by Gabrielle Bluestone, Gawker,March 7, 2013] (Like the demographic that created the country.)

CPAC did try its usual tactic of presenting a Great Black Hope—in this case, Dr. Ben Carson, who received a raucous reception. Conference organizers also tried to head off race-baiting stories with panels on minority outreach—unfortunately for them, no one showed up, at least not at the beginning of the panel. Thus, liberal journalists were able to write triumphalist stories about how CPAC is neglecting diversity. The smug John Hudak gloated:

“The diversity panel is the path to the party being successful and making inroads into traditionally Democratic groups. If the GOP wants to see the Democratic Party struggle to elect a president, they should win 20% of the African American Vote or 50% of the Latino vote . . . If the attendance pictured above reflects the party’s future approach to diversity outreach, it is probably safe to say that for some the given future, the White House will be a solid hue of deep blue.”

[Live from CPAC: The Most Important Panel Everyone Missedby John Hudak, Brookings Institution, March 6, 2014]

The deliberate exclusion of immigration patriots was intensified this year—as Rosemary Jenks of NumbersUSA put it, CPAC has become a “kind of the corporate elites playground instead of [about] conservative principles. [Immigration hardliners: No room for us at CPACby Jackie Kucinich, The Washington Post, March 7, 2014]. The Huffington Post celebrated that “Cuban-born lawyer and lobbyist Al Cardenas has invited several Latino activists and leaders to take part in panels and immigration and health care.” [CPAC, Once Again An Obstacle To GOP Attempts To Soften Message, Shows Signs of Moderationby Jon Ward, Huffington Post, March 6, 2014]. (See here for more disgusting details on corruptocat Cardenas.)

However, there was an odd defensiveness about the entire conference this year. The organizers seemed to be just phoning it in. Thus the predictably-stacked immigration panel was largely a repeat of last year’s and the response was tepid.

More important than what was said was what was not said. Last year, Conservatism Inc. was obviously backing Senator Marco Rubio as its presidential favorite for 2016, even to the point of Al Cardenas saying ludicrously that he had “literally” tied with Rand Paul when he finished a close second in the straw poll.

In contrast, this year there were very few conference attendees promoting Rubio’s run in 2016. His straw poll showing utterly collapsed, declining seventeen points and finishing at a dismal 6%, behind the likes of Chris Christie and Rick Santorum. [CPAC 2014: Rand Paul wins the straw poll, as Marco Rubio’s support collapsesby David Weigel, Slate, March 8, 2014] A clearly cowed Rubio didn’t even mention immigration during his lengthy CPAC address.

More to the point, though immigration patriots were cut off, there were no explicit, enthusiastic appeals for Amnesty from any of the main speakers. Rand Paul, who is skillfully positioning himself as the 2016 favorite, stuck to safe territory of bashing eavesdropping by the NSA. Mike Huckabee talked about God, Rick Santorum talked about appealing to workers, Chris Christie faked opposition to Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich gave vague platitudes about big ideas. No one tried to position themselves as the candidate who could win Hispanic voters.

And it was still taken for granted by other speakers that opposition to Amnesty is a standard part of the conservative platform.

Sarah Palin said, “No Republican lawbreaker can get elected promising… rewarding lawbreakers—Amnesty.” [Sarah Palin bashes establishment GOP in CPAC keynote speechby Breanna Deutsch, Daily Caller, March 8, 2014]

And Michele Bachmann

Was greeted with roaring approval Saturday when she warned conservatives not to engage with Democrats seeking a bipartisan immigration plan. ‘The last thing conservatives should do is help the president pass his number-one goal, and that’s Amnesty,’ she said.”

[As CPAC ends, rival Republican factions remain adamant in oppositionby Robert Costa, Washington Post, March 8, 2014]

Even Donald Trump, given (or buying?) a main stage speaking slot, ripped Marco Rubio for wanting to “let everyone in” and asserted: “Immigration. We’re either a country or we’re not. We either have borders or we don’t.”

Hostile reporters, who come to CPAC explicitly to point-and-splutter at quotes like this, have been howling ever since. [Trump Attacks Rubio For Supporting ‘Amnesty’ in Front of Entire CPAC Audienceby Igor Bobic, Talking Points Memo, March 6, 2014]

And finally, Ann Coulter launched a devastating attack on mass immigration that managed to get past the CPAC gatekeepers. After her performance last year, the ACU made sure that she would be forced into a debate. Luckily, her liberal interlocutor was Mickey Kaus—which allowed both panelists to laugh about the stupidity of mass immigration and how it obviously hurts the GOP.

Kaus said:

Democrats have a perfectly good reason to be for Amnesty, which is craven ethnic pandering that’s going to ensure our power for the next two generations, but what is the Republican excuse?

Coulter daringly pointed out that only MSNBC seems to have noticed—and celebrated—the “browning of America,” adding “but if you don’t celebrate it, you’re a racist.”

Missing the point, the Huffington Post and author Elise Foley (who has built a career out of point-and-splutter) are shrieking that Coulter is condemning the “browning of America,” which can only be noticed by those who support it. [Ann Coulter At CPAC: Democrats Want Immigration Reform For ‘Warm Bodies, More Votes,’ March 8, 2014]

Coulter ended with:

“Amnesty is for ever, and you gotta vote for the Republicans one more time, but just make it clear, ‘If you pass Amnesty, that’s it. It’s over.’ Then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.”

[Where is the C in CPAC, by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 8, 2014]

As gratifying as this was to hear, it may have been pearls before swine. There was some applause, but the crowd seem mostly confused. To many older CPAC goers, the main priority is winning elections. To younger Paulista CPAC attendees, immigration is an irrelevant issue, far behind drug legalization, gay marriage, and making sure Republicans are not called racist.

The result was a kind of strange malaise, an ideological emptiness at the center of CPAC. The young libertarians who are taking over CPAC have open disdain most older members of the “movement,” loudly sneering and hissing during speeches by Rick Santorum and rolling their eyes at the antics of Sarah Palin and the like. The kind of implicit whiteness that the Beltway Right has depended on won’t work much longer, because many young movement activists believe they have no attachment to anything but a Politically Correct abstract code of “liberty.” This is paradoxical, of course, because the Paul movement is itself implicitly white.

As for Tea Party activists and older conservatives, they are leaderless. Despite the GOP’s advantage heading into the midterm elections, conservatives are hard pressed to say what they are for, rather than what they are against.

Nor was there enthusiasm (except for Rand Paul) in CPAC exhibit halls this year, something not helped by the ACU’s over-the-top money grubbing, which discouraged side panels and independent discussion of ideas. While 2,930 registrants voted in the CPAC straw poll last year, just 2,459 participated voted this year, almost 500 fewer.

But it may not matter. Barack Obama’s flailing second term and the unappetizing prospect of another Clinton Administration means that the GOP may win by default. CPAC’s reduced emphasis on Amnesty this year suggests that Conservatism Inc. has given up trying to convince the base and is hoping to finesse it with repression and sleight-of-hand, perhaps in the lame duck session. And the contradiction between neocon-coached Establishment hawkishness and Paulista isolationism—even though Rand Paul has been trying to appease the Israeli Lobby—is muted by the fact that Paulistas see Russia as white and anti-gay, thus more suitable for intervention.

The unedifying spectacle of CPAC 2014 revealed an opulent ruin. The historic American nation is on the brink of demographic disaster, but this is resulting in no soul-searching on the part of the Beltway Right.

Instead, Conservatism Inc. is operating like it is business as usual.

If there is hope for the historic American nation, it will not be found at the Gaylord National Resort.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • DelmarJackson

    Ann gave a wonderful immigration speech at CPAC last year promoting her idea that the GOP needs to focus on only one issue, reducing immigration, or face certain doom. In the time since her speech last year, I can think of only Laura Ingraham who has echoed Coulters sentiment, the rest of the pundits, with the exception of pat Buchanan, seem to be wobbly on immigration and would much rather talk about freedom, liberty, small government, cutting taxes, gays and abortion, etc. all of which is fine, but will all become quaint issues once we import millions of Nigerians and Chinese and Syrians and Indians. I am sure the 10 %

    of central America and the Caribbean population that already resides in the USA can be counted on to help us audit the FED. LOL

    Ann is hated by many, perhaps for good reason, all I know is she is talking the only religion that matters at the moment. I don’t care if our savior is krusty the Klown. If you want less legal immigration and an end to illegal immigration and maybe run a few globalists out of town on a rail, then I am your new best friend. We can let people like Rand Paul give pretty speeches about liberty AFTER we save the country.

    • WR_the_realist

      Ann Coulter has long been a shill for the mainstream neocons, and I never heard her object to a war. That is a legitimate reason to “hate” her. But she is one of the very few pundits who are right about immigration.

  • JSS

    America is an explicitly anti White country. The American government regardless of which party happens to be in office or has majorities in whatever branch is against us having any future and always will be. They are all our enemies, the democrates are just more honest about that if nothing else. But one thing I hope all racially aware Whites realize is that we aren’t going to vote our way out of this.

    • Katherine McChesney

      One has to ask WHO benefits most from immigration. I say look to the religion of the immigrants.

  • The looming death of the USA has many causes, but the one primary cause is immigration. Immigration either stops or the country is balkanized into a hundred minorities fighting over the spoils that big government creates and at each others throats in ethnic warfare. There will be one party government, the Demorat party. If this is so clear to us, it ought to be clear to the CPACers. Do they have a death wish? I don’t. Stop immigration now and send the illegals packing and bribe as many of the rest to go back to their homelands where they belong.

    • Conrad

      Obviously they have not learned anything from what is happening in the Ukraine.

  • Manaphy

    “CPAC did try its usual tactic of presenting a Great Black Hope— Dr. Ben Carson, who received a raucous reception.”

    Ben Car-jacker-son is not Conservative in the slightest. He supports (and is a result of) affirmative blacktion. He also is a member of the Evangelical Immigration Table, a far-Left, Pro-Amnesty “Christian” group largely funded by George Soros. Car-jacker-son has also spoken at may events, advocating for “foxong our broken immigration system”. Finally, Car-jacker-son also supports Governor Andrew Cuomo’s legislation which indefinitely restricts gun usage.

    Well….. At least he’s a black Republican, so none of that matters!

    • Katherine McChesney

      He also called for George Zimmerman to be indicted for second degree murder.

      I knew this guy was too good to be true. Thanks for the information.

      • DieWulfe

        Only a White European is suitable to be president. After that, eligibility must be stringently in our favor.

    • NoMosqueHere

      The Evangelical Immigration Table is an attempt to divide conservatives on the issue of immigration. Here are its pro-amnesty “principles”:

      As evangelical Christian leaders, we call for a bipartisan solution on immigration that:

      Respects the God-given dignity of every person

      Protects the unity of the immediate family

      Respects the rule of law

      Guarantees secure national borders

      Ensures fairness to taxpayers

      Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents

      • mobilebay

        With the exception of the last “Principle,” I hope these people are able to secure the rest, but only in their own countries….not ours.

      • wink wink “respects the rule of law and guarantees secure national borders” wink wink …what a joke

  • Whitetrashgang

    Well funny thing my uncle was a conservative MP in Canada when the CPP came to a vote. He was against it because it is and was a Ponzi scheme. The interesting thing is he was kicked out of the party and was told in the future immigration will take care of things. All it means is this stuff has been planned for a good 50 years. Its just what we are up against.

    • Extropico

      George Will and others have leaked that the banksters have demanded our population continually increase to near 500 million as a means of financing the debt ponzi. The banksters need cannon fodder for foreign wars and debt enslavement to finance government programs.

      Nothing will change unless this matter is directly addressed in a responsible and intellectual manner. There will be no reset either in the stock and real estate markets until this population increase via immigration matter is handled.

      • Luca

        Because it is a Ponzi scheme, the demands for increased population cannot stop at 500 million. Once 500 million is achieved, who will be the contributors for the 500 million recipients? The demands are mathematically insatiable and unsustainable under present guidelines..

      • Nancy Thomas

        Will is a sellout scumbag idiot.

  • Luca

    There is no broken immigration system, only an enforcement problem.

    What we need is enforcement today, enforcement tomorrow, enforcement forever. That and maybe Ann Coulter should run for President.

    • DieWulfe

      Enforcement. Illegal or legal? The entire legal law needs to be thrown out. Back to when only “Free White Persons” were permitted.

      • Bossman

        That will be extremely hard to do. All white persons these days are free except those that are in jail. Also all kinds of people have been redefined as white, some examples: Syrians, Turks, Arabs, Mexicans, Iranians, Gypsies, etc.

        • DieWulfe

          Framers meant “Free White Europeans,” possibly, English; although, I haven’t found that preference stated anywhere.

        • dave

          Hispanics and other non-whites are defined as white when they are fudging the white crime statistics.

        • indoctrination_FAIL

          Wrong again. I’m not in jail, but I still have to live around you. But congrats on acknowledging the second part.

    • Conrad

      I have to disagree. The immigration system was, intentionally, broken in 1965.

      • Luca

        Correct, I couldn’t agree more. It was supposed to be contained by Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986. Had it been fully implemented, amended and enforced, we would not be in this current situation.

        • shmo123

          Our problem is more chain migration than anything. It would be one thing if the government only allowed in say 200,000 people a year; that would be a reasonable number and a lot easier to change. But the spineless fools in Washington allow chain migration and every single person that comes here legally or is allowed to stay–by virtue of 60 some different visas used to get here–is allowed to drag over virtually their entire family, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, you name it; they in turn will drag over even more. So the 200k they allow in every year quickly balloons to 1.2 million. And those politicians will not lift a finger to change it–they refuse and persist in wetting themselves and crying alligator tears over “family reunification”. It’s absolutely pathetic, and we’re doomed because of it.

    • John Ambrose

      Strict enforcement of existing laws and ending the anchor baby loophole. 10% of all births are of this variety and it’s the big reason why a majority of babies now being born are non white.

      • Bossman

        That aint gonna happen any time soon.

      • Kathy M

        Yes, that, and this …

        • Bossman

          Actually that is a nice and tender picture. Why did she choose him? Maybe she first tried to find a suitable white man and couldn’t find any.

          • Katherine McChesney

            I find it DISGUSTING and I find YOU as disgusting as that picture.

          • Whitetrashgang

            Went to the store the other day pretty 16 or so old blonde with a griod, where are the parents. If they condone this they should be shot. It really does ruin your whole day.

          • Katherine McChesney

            I’m seeing more of these disgusting couples in my community. Pretty White girls and women with black men. But, I’m seeing more saggy-pants wearing trashy black men wandering my neighborhood.

          • Whitetrashgang

            I had to leave the city I was born in after 43 years for the same reason, it doesn’t help things but it helps me.

          • Whitetrashgang

            That’s her rapist out on furlough you cant see the knife.

          • Katherine McChesney

            LOL. Thanks for the laugh.

        • John Ambrose


      • FlaVet

        Trash the 14th Amendment should be the first thing a new POTUS should do.

    • WR_the_realist

      It’s not just an enforcement problem. We’re getting a flood of non-white legal immigration too.

    • Svigor

      There’s both. Hiring illegals is not punishable with bankruptcy. That is the heart of the problem. Well, that and all the legal immigration.

  • Hal K

    She wants to reduce the problem of white demographic displacement to political strategy. She says that Democrats want amnesty so they can get more votes. This is just more mainstream conservative blindness. They think everything can be reduced to politics and that the Democrats don’t really care about nonwhites. They are sadly mistaken. Pro-nonwhiteness and anti-whiteness are at the heart of all of our political problems.

    • Luca

      Since 1965, the Democrats have been pandering to minorities (non-whites) which of course nurtured anti-White sentiment.

      Blacks started switching political parties during the FDR administration and that’s where LBJ learned the valuable lesson of how to garner votes with redistribution of wealth.

      At the heart of all our problems is the cult of rampant liberalism. Anti-White is only one component of it. It is also anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual, and anti-rich. These agendas are driven by politics, academia, Hollywood and the MSM media. Their purpose is to divide and conquer and it is working.

      • Xerxes22

        The Democratic party is definately not anti-rich. That’s just a little game they play with the voters. Wall Street loves Obama because of his support for Quantitive Easing among other things. There are probably more Democratic millionaires and billionaires than there are Republican ones. Both parties are pro-rich. It’s just that the Democrats are better at hiding it while the Republicans don’t even try to hide it.

        • Luca

          They are hypocrites. They only pretend to be all these (anti) things to further their power, wealth and agenda.

      • Nancy Thomas

        And those who must not be named lead the charge.

  • Kathy M

    Ann Coulter will probably not be invited back to CPAC for quite some time after tearing some new ….s on immigration. At this point, she would be a better president than anyone the Repubes are going to come up with.

    • Pro_Whitey

      My hope for the moment is still Jeff Sessions, but if Ann Coulter were the nominee, yes, I’d go for that. I still have some qualms about her trying to rewrite American history to put all race restrictions on the Democrats, when, as Jared Taylor has pointed out, those trying to keep slavery out of the territories were as motivated by trying to keep blacks out of those territories.

      • Bossman

        The truth is many of those who did want any more slaves states were afraid of becoming Mulattoes. As I understand it, just before the Civil War, there were Mulattoes everywhere you looked. The big question is whatever happened to all those mulattoes?

        • Max

          It’s been >150 years. They’re all dead.

          • Bossman

            Their descendants are still around and I’m sure some of them look as white as the driven snow.

        • Whitetrashgang

          One of them pretends to runs the country the other ones rape and murder for a living.Quick look behind you.

          • Sick of it

            Nah, Obama was imported.

      • Kathy M

        Sessions has been great on immigration. I like him alot. Ann has really surprised me though. She seems to be slowly moving toward a race realist approach. I doubt Rand Paul could be paid to dare mention “the browning of America” in a negative context as Ann did.

      • FlaVet

        Trey Gowdy is my bet.

      • mobilebay

        I’m with you on Sen. Sessions, and Ann might be good in some sort of administrative position, but not at the top. Let;s get Kris Koback’s name in for VP.

        • John Ambrose

          Ann Coulter would make a perfect press secretary! Imagine having her answer questions from the hostile left-wing press every week. It would be a hoot just to watch.

          • mobilebay

            Great idea! I’d pay a $1.25 to see that.

  • David Ashton

    Now folks give the skinny blonde a bouquet not a brickbat.

  • Spartacus

    If I were an American, I’d vote for Democrats at least 100 times at each election . Both these groups of cretins are tearing into your country’s corpse, but the democrats are doing faster.

    • Max

      We already have people voting Democrat 100 times.

  • Conrad

    “Amnesty is for ever, and you gotta vote for the Republicans one more time, but just make it clear, ‘If you pass Amnesty, that’s it. It’s over.’ Then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.”

    There is no reason in this world for me to vote for an (R) [reprobate] candidate again. That party has been screwing white people for at least the past 60 years. Of course A. Coulter will come out in 4 more years repeating the same non-sense. As for me – I’m fresh out of K-Y.

    I like the part about, “Then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.” All though, they should have started in 1965.

    • FlaVet

      With the last Kennedy.

  • DieWulfe

    Alberto “Al” R. Cardenas (born in Cuba in 1948)

    With names like his and Marco Rubio, both born in Cuba, only an idiot would believe they don’t support their own kind. Same with Marco Rubio. Both want MORE Hispanics.

    • FlaVet

      Yes…that’s all it ever comes down to…their various tribes with enough vowels to make you dizzy.

      • DieWulfe

        It’s only Whites who don’t look out for themselves. That must be changed.

  • Hal K

    Disqus is not letting me reply to Luca’s reply to me.

    Luca wants to blame everything on liberalism, but he needs to realize that mainstream conservatism is what keeps white identity politics out of the mainstream. The conservative establishment uses the knee-jerk anti-liberalism of white conservatives to trick them into going along with harmful concepts, like thinking that white identity politics would be wrong because it would further the liberal agenda of “dividing people by race.”

    If Luca is not for explicit white identity politics then I would say that he has his priorities wrong.

    • Extropico

      I got a message that Luca replied to me when it is showing that Luca replied to you. Not sure what the exact error in the system was.

    • LHathaway

      One can have mixed feelings about these kind of politicians. Perhaps he’s serving best by Not callling for explicitly pro-white politics? How much he wants to condemn this, play joe mccarthy, is anyones business. We probably need some, if only a few, to be pro-white. This could be done in a acceptable manner, too, I think. Standing up for the little guy, by playing the game the way pro-people of color play sometimes play it, pointing out area’s where whites are losing.

      On affirmative action, I have mixed feelings. In my opinion, affrimative action, for everyone who is not a white heterosexual male, will continue until whites as a group, or at least some brave whites call for affrimative action for white men, too. I know non-whites who’ve felt ‘white men have been discriminated against’, at least in the reproductive realm, significantly since the 1960’s. George Will gave a speech where he suggested this has been going on, in some area’s of big cities, since the 1950’s. Once white men are denied, affirmative action, too, it will begin to end for everyone who else. So, what should my position be? Even though I know we will never have it, I think it’s a good idea for white men to agitate for it.

      • Hal K

        One can have mixed feelings about these kind of politicians.

        I am not sure whom you are talking about here. Disqus is acting up.

        We probably need some, if only a few, to be pro-white

        We need mainstream white identity politics. Just one mainstream politician would be a step in the right direction. This is about changing the psychology of white people, not political strategy. No one is going to win elections right away by talking about white group interests explicitly, but we have to get this into the mainstream. No race will have its group interests represented without explicit group identity politics. Whites are in a vicious circle now, and they have to get out of it somehow.

        White identity politics doesn’t have to be for any one position on affirmative action. Some could argue for ending affirmative action, and some could argue for extending it to whites. What is important is that it is done explicitly on behalf of white people. The white psyche is badly twisted now, and this applies to both liberals and mainstream conservatives. We have to work on untwisting this so they start feeling comfortable about advocating for their group interests. The specific policy we argue for is of secondary importance.

    • Luca

      And I would say you are on the wrong website. I am trying very hard to be a realist. Whites have never gotten along and bonded on racial issues and never will.

      Minorities were never a problem until radical liberals enabled and emboldened them under the false banner of civil rights. If Liberals were to magically disappear tomorrow, so would the “minority problems” as they would be handled in an intelligent manner as opposed to a politically-correct emotional manner.

      Liberals start fires and pour gas on them. Do-nothing conservatives bask in the warmth it provides them while watching them burn.

      • Hal K

        And I would say you are on the wrong website.

        You are out of line in saying this.

        In reply I say that it is unfortunate that you feel motivated to repeat neoconservative bromides on race so long-windedly.

        William Raspberry, a black columnist, wrote “It’s always illegitimate for white men to organize as white men.” You are arguing for the same thing, but wrapping it up in liberalism-bashing “realism.” We don’t need more of the same. Whites need to get outside of this box they are in.

        • Luca

          This is not a White Nationalists website although there is obvious freedom of expression, to a point. If this were a White Nationalist website, then I would be out of line.

          The problem of White racial unity is, first, Whites do not bond along racial lines, therefore the concept is immediately rendered impractical. Whites always have and always will fight along political, ethnic, religious and geographical lines. Just look at the various Balkan states. Secondly, even if there were a Whites-only State, it would soon descend into disorganization as to different levels of Whiteness, the question becomes who is really White? At what point do you start excluding or including Jews, Iranians, Spaniards, Armenians, Greeks, Lebanese etc.?

          Minorities bond along racial lines only because it is productive in a hyper-tolerant liberal environment. In their own home countries of origin, they too would descend into chaos over geographical, religious, ethnic and political lines.

          The fact of the matter is, there is no pure White race per se, Whites contain DNA groups that include, northern, southern, eastern European DNA, as well as Mediterranean, Iberian, western Asian, Caucasus etc. Have your DNA tested and you’ll see what I mean. Whites are a mixture of different DNA groups.

          It would be far more realistic to have a freedom of association State, whereby citizens are included or excluded based upon a common belief/values/moral system.

          At the end of the day, it all comes down to the political structure of a society, regardless of race. Political government creates, destroys, causes, tolerates, allows or excludes laws, religions, wars, business, media, academia, and the welfare of its constituents. Race does not do these things, therefore it will not solve any problems that political governments have created.

          You have to recognize the problem before you can arrive at a possible solution.

          • Hal K


            In a way, you are the one who is trying to divide and conquer. You assume that since I argue for explicit white identity politics I must be a “white nationalist” and then jump to the conclusion that I want a “whites only” state, and since that would be alarming to many people here I must not belong here. This is the sort of connect-the-dots game anti-white organizations like the SPLC play. They say, since A is associated with B, and B is associated with C, and C is frightening to some, A must either renounce B or be denounced. This is the wrong mentality for a pro-white site.

            Whites are still in the majority, but that is changing fast. You want whites to keep thinking like a majority, and that is the wrong advice.

          • Luca

            Let’s clear up semantics. A “Whites-only” anything in America will not get off the ground. That does not mean that is my wish or intention, it is simply current reality as I see it, for the reasons I stated before. I truly wish all Whites WOULD unite around a common cause, because we are under attack. But there will be no exclusive White-identity politics, nation, State, county or baseball team, you name it, it won’t happen.

            Now ask yourself the question, “Why is that so?”

            Is it because of blacks, hispanics, and Muslims engineering our entire society into this divisive anti-White conundrum? I don’t think they are capable of doing that.

            The answer is: it is the people who have encouraged, enabled, empowered, emboldened, cultivated and nurtured these useful idiots, as well as the indoctrinated Whites, as a means to defeat the White, Euro-male, Christian, power-base in this country and others.

            They have corrupted our society and we must take it back.

            Who are “they?” They go by many names: liberals, socialists progressives, Marxists, etc and they have hijacked the Democratic party and are slowly getting to the Republican party as well.

            If we could vote all “those” people out of office, a great majority of our problems would work themselves out.

          • Hal K

            Okay, maybe you are not trying to “divide and conquer.” Maybe you sincerely believe all these things. In that case, your thinking is seriously flawed. If you want whites to advance their group interests, then announcing that it is impossible does not help.

            How liberalism started is irrelevant now. If some white liberals think they or their descendants will be able to run things once whites are a minority, they are sadly mistaken. At this point liberalism is an anti- generic white male alliance. White liberals are motivated by a sincere desire to help nonwhites at the expense of whites. If you doubt this, then you don’t understand their true motivations. The psychology of our whole country is anti-white and anti-male, and we can’t counter this by avoiding pro-white advocacy.

          • Luca

            I would disagree slightly. There are two types of liberals, those who follow and those who lead.

            Those who follow may have a sincere desire to advance the cause of minorities but they are fooling themselves in thinking the way they are going about it is benevolent and helpful. They apply the same solutions with the same dismal results but don’t learn a thing from the failure. They don’t have scientific minds, they don’t use logic and they are in denial.

            Those who are leaders, lead the others astray and get them to do their bidding. They don’t really care about minorities, workers, single-mothers etc. because if they did, they would not perpetuate policies that keep them poor. They cultivate these groups as victims, then persuade them they are victims of Whites and that only “they” have the solution to help them advance. No one is paying attention to the fact that for 50 years all these liberal “Rights”, social justice and welfare policies have only made matters worse for everyone.

            If Whites would rally around White causes, then Obama would never have been elected twice. It was White liberal/Democrats who put him in office.

            People need to realize that the anti-White agenda, is a component of the Liberal agenda and also the Communist Party agenda. They both invoke racial, gender and class/social warfare. They divide and conquer.

            Any attempt to create an exclusive White entity of any kind will be smothered and ostracized by the massive propaganda machine controlled by the Left. This is why I find the concept of White racial unity among Whites, to be doomed from the start. It is virtually impossible and definitely improbable. I am only observing and stating the sad, true facts. If I am wrong, please show me an example of how exclusive White unity is working in this country today. The examples of liberalism are everywhere and they are enormous.

          • Hal K

            If I am wrong, please show me an example of how exclusive White unity is working in this country today.

            There are no mainstream examples. It is not because it wouldn’t work. It is because it is kept out of the mainstream by the elites. Implicit whiteness is very popular. That is where the elites draw the line. They allow implicit whiteness but not explicit whiteness.

  • WR_the_realist

    But it may not matter. Barack Obama’s flailing second term and the
    unappetizing prospect of another Clinton Administration means that the
    GOP may win by default.

    Don’t bet on that. No matter how bad a candidate the Democrats pick we can usually rely on the Republicans to come up with a candidate so unsavory that people hold their nose and vote for the Democrat. I remember in 2008 Ann Coulter’s recommendation was to “Get drunk and vote for McCain;” Well, I stayed sober and voted for neither McCain nor Obama.

    And the contradiction between neocon-coached Establishment hawkishness
    and Paulista isolationism—even though Rand Paul has been trying to
    appease the Israeli Lobby—is muted by the fact that Paulistas see Russia
    as white and anti-gay, thus more suitable for intervention.

    In all fairness I am not aware of any Ron Paul supporters who want to get involved in the Russia/Ukraine mess. The article linked to support this questionable claim was by Nathaniel Frank, who writes for Slate and the Huffington Post; neither publication is favorable to either of the Pauls, and both are organs of the Democratic Party. A war with Russia over gay rights is precisely the kind of war that the Democrats could get enthusiastic about.

    There are some non-white Libertarians, but the percentage doesn’t seem to be any higher than that of non-white Republicans. Both parties are implicitly white and both try desperately hard to pretend that isn’t so, and cling to a false hope that they can remain viable in an ever browning America.

    The unwillingness of “mainstream” conservatives to provide any real opposition to the Democrats on immigration is just one more reason why they have become irrelevant. Given a choice between two candidates, one who promises tax cuts and getting tough with Russia, and another who promises to enforce immigration law and to try to cut legal immigration, I know which one I’d vote for. Unfortunately I also know that in real life the other guy is what the Republicans would offer up.

  • LHathaway

    ‘Death squads’ lol. Ann is over the top, here. Lefties will be in a tizzy.

    I do think a reckoning is coming. It could think that because at this point it’s all I have to live for. Unfortunately, I won’t see it in my lifetime. Perhaps some younger readers will.

    It won’t be something to boast about or publicize, or even be proud of, and I think it should wait till after everything else is done. It should wait till we have our own country, which, I strongly suspect is coming. Nor should it be something done lightly, perhaps only to 1% our or people, perhaps much, much, less than that. But a reckoning will come. Justice demands it.

    It’s not about changing public opinion, frightening the public into changing their beliefs. It’s not about forming a conscience, or being the conscience of the nation, or the world – perhaps it’s not even about justice, perhaps it will serve no purpose at all and will be something to be ashamed of. But nevertheless, I do believe a reckoning is coming. We will collect them, brand them, and place them outside our border.

  • John R

    I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: Immigration is THE ONLY ISSUE that Republicans must consider more important than anything else. We can, as a nation, survive a NUCLEAR WAR better-in the long run-than we can survive the replacement of our core population with non-white immigrants.

    • Natassia

      The problem, of course, is that most conservatives don’t see the “we.” They refuse to think of themselves in ethnic or racial terms.

      • Nancy Thomas

        The elite owns them, so they are paid not to “see.”
        The agenda is total destruction of white society and displacement
        of whites, an agenda led by those who must not be named.

        • Natassia

          I think it is more a matter of successful lifelong brainwashing via public education and popular media.

      • Many Conservatives(mostly the GOPbots) try to pass themselves as a Supermen types who are forever stern and firm in their convictions. That is until someone throws out the “racist” accusation. Boom! Instant containment and malleability.

        Kryptonite was supposed to be extremely rare. That’s why Superman never had to worry about much. But the Earthly version of Kryptonite is not just everywhere, it’s free. Anyone can get it at any time. You don’t need a special space ship to get it. You don’t need a special license to use it. You don’t need training. No age limit. No time limit. No bag limit.

        With Earth-formed Kryptonite you can get a conservative to do anything you want him to do as far as race is concerned, and even make him beg you for more. And I do mean anything.

        You want a Conservative to hire more black and brown people? Call him a racist.

        You want a Conservative to denounce decent people who hold racialist type views? Call him a racist.

        You want a Conservative to be “okay” with his son or daughter partaking in miscegenation? Call him a racist.

        This would all make for a really good TV comedy series if it wasn’t so true.

      • Luca

        Most White people don’t see the “we”. Since time immemorial they have fought each other over religion, politics and real estate. There is no reason to believe that will ever change, they simply do not bond along racial lines. The people who advocate for a White ethnic state would have have to fight hordes of White people to be even given the chance to publicly debate such an issue. It would be shut down or ignored as “hate speech”.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      The government has become so obsessed with money and power that they are determined to swamp the founding population with 3rd world immigrants. They won’t be satisfied until whites are reduced to a tiny minority and then miscegenated out of existence. Because of mass indoctrination in multicultural propaganda, too many whites have allowed themselves to become apathetic. No, this isn’t a problem that can be solved by voting in elections or speaking to your congressman. We’re going to have to sit back and wait until the race war comes…

    • LHathaway

      I disagree in one respect, the united states will likely survive total non-white immigration. And this may be even Sadder to see, possibly, but the united states can likely thrive with complete non-white immigration. I don’t say this just to pretend I’m not asshat – perhaps I say it because it could be true. It is whites that wont survive (and this may greatly please all non-whites) non-white immigration. On this matter, I would prefer to think of the consequences to whites and not so much to the USA. Then again, that statement made me sound like an asshat, didn’t it? Do you think it did?

  • I love Ann Coulter, always and forever. She needs to stop playing around and give a speech at AmRen.

  • Svigor

    such White Americans are not worth saving. These people are imbeciles

    Indeed. The coming political war will be fought by Whites seeking to free themselves from the rule of these imbeciles.