Republican Blasts Dem ‘War on Whites’

Rebecca Shabad, The Hill, August 4, 2014

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) on Monday accused Democrats of engaging in a “war on whites” in the current immigration debate.

On conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show, Brooks dismissed the idea that the more conservative GOP bloc’s position on immigration is hurting his own party.

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else,” he said during the interview. “It’s a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”


“It doesn’t make any difference if you’re a white American, a black American, a Hispanic-American, an Asian-American or if you’re a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs,” Brooks said.

“Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue,” he added. “If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big. ”

Brooks accused Democrats of playing a “political game” and Ingraham said they’re “playing the race card.”


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.
  • propagandaoftruth

    Mo Brooks…

    Mo’ Mo please!

    • You might get Mo. If Richard Shelby retires in 2016, (he’ll be 82 that year), you might be looking at a future Senator.

      • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

        Roll Tide

      • proud white

        oh yes we really need diversity. because race is the only diversity out there. so how many blacks and Hispanics does it make to have a diverse population 5, 10, 15, 20?. I have a better idea why not make diversity by including countries instead of race. we could have diversity from Germany, Italy, Poland etc. I guess that is bad diversity. or how about diversity in the form of the the disabled, blind, hearing impaired, people who survived tragic disasters, people who are right handed vs left handed etc. oh that’s right that’s bad too. okay liberals I see the only good diversity is the Spanish and the blacks. I LOL at the liberals

        • adplatt126

          Social Marxists. Not liberals. The founding fathers were liberals. These people are lunatics.

    • Glen

      “It’s a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”

      Barf. It’s part of a strategy dating back to 1964, if not earlier. Sorry. I can’t get excited by ineffective, aracial, dishonest Republican “opposition” to the war on whites.

      “Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue,” he added.

      Yes, because we all know that racial issues are brought up only by emotional demagogues instead of thoughtful, rational people – like GOPher MO!

      “It doesn’t make any difference if you’re a white American, a black American, a Hispanic-American, an Asian-American or if you’re a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs.”

      Why are black, “Hispanic,” and “Asian” -Americans included in this line of demagoguery? Because the strategy implemented by “the Left” in 1964 (or earlier) was successful.

      A Republican “activist” recently informed me that the 14th Amendment was a Great Thing, despite Lincoln’s desire to ship ’em back to Africa. And, of course, we’ve heard for decades that Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a conservative Republican forced to perform in Democratic drag.

      • Bobbala

        I think you meant the 13th … and it would be a good thing if it applied to all people.

        Now go make that wedding cake for your master and his groom! It doesn’t apply to you.

        • Glen

          I knew my post re GOPher Mo would twinge a GOP sensibility or two (or three dozen). Unfortunately, Republican failure is more than century-old phenomenon.

          No, I’m not referring to the 13th. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 for the benefit of Republican Reconstruction governments in the South and is used, nowadays, to facilitate the chain immigration of the Third World on the grounds of birthright citizenship.

          Unlike some eaters of cake, I mean what I say and say what I mean.

          • adplatt126

            Well, the birthright citizenship clause should be removed, post haste. I thought however that the 14th was being used to strike down allegedly racially discriminatory, tough new state immigration laws. How is it being used via birthright citizenship? I’m curious. I ask with genuine interest.

          • Bobbala

            It’s like Obamacare … the GOP loves the power going to the state but they still have those dam pesky voters to tolerate just a little bit longer.

            Obama doesn’t have to still put on a show for his voters. They don’t care about your freedom when they’re being told that they get your stuff.

            “I won’t have to worry about puttin’ gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about payin’ my mortgage.”

            — Peggy Joseph

            Now about that 13th … Can you imagine a world where ALL servitude was voluntary? You could open a school and reject any “student” for no reason — freedom. You could live in a neighborhood that only allowed whom you wanted to be your neighbor.

            It would be paradise for blacks and Hispanics — No white racists would get near their families and children. Racism would be abolished. They could all live in their own Africa if they wanted.

  • MekongDelta69

    When I saw that on TV, I was trying to figure out how many minutes he had before every other spineless politician scrambled to run away from him as quickly as possible.

  • D.B. Cooper

    You should see where this article appears on other sites. LOTS and lots of white people who think Brooks is the enemy, while they proudly proclaim to be democrats. You see, to them, the world is either racist white inbred bigots, and then there’s everybody else.

    • Usually Much Calmer

      I called his office today to bolster his staff.

      They didn’t seem beleaguered, I was pleasantly surprised.

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      White people hate white people who want to help white people.

      • Nonhumans

        Help me, Help you, help a nonhuman or illegal….with your taxes, against your will, and contra to good common sense (of course).

    • LACountyRedneck

      Currently plenty of pro-White comments in the original article on “The Hill”.


    I wonder how long it will take for him to try and walk this statement back.

  • The problem is that the Republicans are co-conspirators in making war on whites. Mo will take a hit for his comment because he’s from Alabama and everyone KNOWS that Alabamans are toothless, barefoot racists. (sarc) Laura considered it over the top, but truth is truth in my book.

    • jane johnson

      The South is rising again. Jeff Sessions, Trey Gowdy, and now Mo Brooks.

      • Archibald_Cunningham

        Steve King belongs in that group, even though he’s not from the South. Very, very few Republicans have the testicular fortitude to stand up to diversity like he did the other day. Obviously Rand Paul doesn’t. https://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=PI8rCleTbSo

        • shatwood

          Rand Paul had already promised to do an interview with someone else. When the “activists” showed up, he left to go on camera with another group, hence he’s not debating those two idiots Kings was trying to enlighten.

        • jane johnson

          Jim Jordan of Ohio is another good’un.

      • adplatt126

        Sessions? Really?

        • jane johnson


          • adplatt126


    • TruthBeTold

      Yes, the Republicans have ceded a great deal of their authority to speak on this issue because they have been complicit in supporting Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

      • 1G25

        I will never forget seeing George W. Bush on national television, reacting to our shutting down the phone lines in DC back in 2006 against the big amnesty legislation push… he looked into the camera and said,

        “These people just don’t want to do what’s right for America.”

        That was it for me.

  • I could have done without the racial universalism, but still, that a sitting Congressman, (albeit one that was an assistant AG under Jeff Sessions while he was Alabama AG), acknowledges that there are such people as white people and that other people have it out for them, is a very good start.

    But not everybody approved. Some goof who calls himself “Jason Pye” tweetwed a whole bunch of “No” in reaction. I looked him up, and his big claim to fame was being the legislative director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia from 2008 to 2010, though since there were probably no elected Libertarians to anything in Georgia from 2008 to 2010, it makes me wonder why they even needed a legislative director. Meanwhile, Mo Brooks has won 10 elections in his life.

    • TruthBeTold

      Let’s take what we can get and run with it.

  • Ringo Lennon

    Democrats will never get the white male vote. I don’t know about the white female vote. I know they get the single female vote , but how do they do among the total white female vote?

    • propagandaoftruth

      If White males stood up and stopped apologizing more White females would come to their senses.

      Also the Republican party has to find a way to tack more center in terms of overall ideology and the welfare state. They need to run on MERIT and not shy away from hard debate with their enemies.

      Ms. Le Pen could give them some tips.

    • alex

      If Republicans were smart, they would let go of their preoccupation with abortion, gay marriage, contraception, etc. and increase their opposition to uncontrolled immigration. Unfortunately, they are not.

      • propagandaoftruth

        My theory is that there is a great swelling discontent among the last vestiges of moderation in the Democrat’s party. Whites still in that web of genocidal lies are awakening and desperately searching for a non-wolfenstein alternative.
        I don’t know if the R

        • Groovy

          My iq is over 130 but I don’t know what a non-wolfenstein alternative is. Your was a wasted post because of your language

      • Bossman

        To millions of white people the issues of abortion, gay marriage and contraception are the most important things defining a community. In the past few elections, immigration was way down the list of people’s concern.

        • adplatt126

          What white people concern themselves with is dependent upon what the oligarchic power class allows them to concern themselves with. Much like the major parties. People get in trouble for merely saying or thinking or even emphasizing the wrong things on the wrong things.

      • BattleCall

        I see what you’re saying. Illegal immigration/invasion is CURRENTLY the number one tool being used to erase us, our culture, identity, history, and way of life.
        But so is gay marriage/gay rights. It is clearly a deviant behavior caused by a mental disorder which, when embraced and celebrated by our culture, has a corrosive effect on our principles, values, and society. It, too, is a tool that is being used to erase us.

        • adplatt126

          Homosexuality is being used to erase white people? LOL. How so?

          • “Homosexuality has been tolerated for a century or more in most Western societies”

            The problem is, it’s not being “tolerated” anymore, it’s being pushed on everyone, especially children, as being not only acceptable, but delightful, fun, normal! Perfectly A-okay! Give it a shot, you might like it!

            Your post is, as far as I’m concerned, more or less in line, I think, with my own views on homosexuality. With the exception that I think there is the genetic defect, present in several mammalian creatures, wherein a small (typically less than 1%) portion of the population has a switch which got flipped the wrong way. And I also think there is a purely… deviant type of homosexuality, oftentimes manifesting as someone claiming to be “bisexual” this is an individual engaging in homosexual acts based purely on the physical pleasure aspect, making a more or less conscious choice to be “gay”

            I think up until the relatively recent push to make homosexuality “normal” the vast majority of that second category were probably “created” by traumatic experiences, molested while they were young, raped, etc. Causing a great deal of confusion as to what was normal, and leading them down a path of abnormal sexual behaviour themselves.

            But now that second group is being supplanted by state mandated “equality” education, where children are literally being taught in school that if daddy wants to get it on with another man, why it’s not just “okay” it’s perfectly grand! Just the same exact thing as daddy and mommy do! I have a difficult time thinking this WON’T lead to kids “experimenting” with homosexuality, finding out “hey, this stimulates the bundle of nerve endings in my sexual organs, I kinda like it” and then heading of down that second path of homosexuality.

            It’s not being used to erase white people in some ridiculous sense of “lowering birth rates enough to genocide us” (although it’s certainly not helping) it’s erasing white people in that the push for homosexuality as normative behaviour is destroying one aspect of morality, leading to us becoming, as a whole, less “right” for lack of a better word.

            It’s corruption. Homosexuality has been more or less tolerated throughout history because it didn’t really affect anyone but the homosexuals. The whole “effeminate, flamboyant” lisping gay man is a fairly recent invention, it’s a character, ask your parents if you’re not old enough to be aware of this yourself, a gay was, at most, a coworker who was just a little bit “off” somehow you couldn’t quite put a finger on, not a rainbow flag waving “printhess”.

            And as far as them being one of the most oppressed groups in history? Please… you’re joking, right? Or would you like to elaborate how? All those times the evil Nazi’s rounded up those poor gays in order to do test runs of their new people cooking ovens? Or perhaps the “homersekshul huntin’ Thursday” practiced by the KKK for thousands of years.

            They weren’t oppressed, beyond marriage and the legal rights associated with it, until they rather suddenly stopped flying “under the radar” and just living their lives, and suddenly began prancing around, waving sparklers around, and proclaiming how proud they were to be gay.

            I wonder if maybe… just maybe, that was intentional?

          • adplatt126

            1) It is* perfectly A-OK. Gay male sex is no different than anal sex between two heterosexuals. I see no threat from the normalization of homosexuality. None. All the arguments against it, like those against gay marriage, are completely empty. They have nothing to do with white interests. I am not a cultural determinist. I don’t think human beings are so simple biologically that because someone tells them being gay is fine, they’re just going to instantly or even gradually convert. We are more hard-wired than that as people, particularly in a sexual sense. Homosexuality, like the IQ gap between ethnic groups, has strong hereditary components.
            2) I disagree. I think our tolerance of homosexuality separates us from the truly unsophisticated and backward races. In many parts of Africa people are hanged for being gay to this day.
            3) Gays were persecuted and executed in mass numbers by the Nazis as a matter of policy. They’ve been persecuted to some degree or another, in most of the societies historically of which they’ve been a part. The level of your obtuseness betrays the level of your ignorance. In nearly every religious society in history (i.e. every society) gays were openly intimidated, attacked with impunity and often without protection of the law, forced underground, and in many instances killed outright. Simply examine the case of Oscar Wilde roughly a century ago. The Buggery Act of 1534 in England made homosexuality punishable by death. In Iran today people are still executed for sodomy. The primary cause of homosexual suffering is simple: religion. And if there’s a debate as to which is the sickest, most unholy joke ever foisted upon mankind it isn’t the gay agenda, it’s the religious one. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Gays weren’t particularly oppressed in recent (modern) centuries in Western countries. That’s true (in recent centuries). Rest assured however, they were elsewhere and continue to be. Your bigotry is truly off-putting. You just don’t like gay people, which is lamentable as they’re usually quite tolerable. You don’t empathize with their plight. You just don’t care for them or about them. That’s the gist of it. But don’t imagine you’re right or ethical in your position. Gays needless to say, are nothing like the third-world hordes amren is supposed to be about stymieing the flow of, broadly speaking. And they are no threat to Western civilization. Sorry, You’re delusional.

          • “You don’t empathize with their plight. You just don’t care for them or about them.”

            Of course I don’t. Why should I empathize with their plight? Do you empathize with the plight of blacks, Indians (dot, and feather) Asians, Arabs? Are they your people?

            I have no reason to fight for the “plight” of homosexuals when it is a nonexistant one in white lands, it’s no concern of mine what blacks do to their homosexuals, or Muslims, or (fill in the blank). As they are not my people, and not my concern.

            And your assumption that I don’t “like” gay people is silly, to be kind. I don’t “like” the fact that homosexuality, despite being likely 1% or less of the population of any given country or group of people, is constantly pushed and advertised to the masses as “OK”. And despite your assertions of the same, it is, quite simply, not.

            “I disagree. I think our tolerance of homosexuality separates us from the truly unsophisticated and backward races. In many parts of Africa people are hanged for being gay to this day.”

            Our tolerance of “______” can be held as exactly what led us to the place we’re in today. You hold tolerance up as some kind of righteous virtue, when really, tolerance is just another word for letting standards slip, for holding no convictions, for complacency and weakness.

            Are you, yourself, gay? You seem to take this a little more personally than an outside observer. Regardless, I’m not going to waste time trying to convince you of anything, as this is clearly a “cause” for you, and you’re therefore powered by the fuel of self righteousness, and could certainly scream “hater!, homophobe!, bigot!” Much longer than I’d like to endure.

          • adplatt126

            1) I did not say gay sex was “the same” as standard heterosexual sex. I said it was essentially the same as heterosexual anal sex, physically speaking.

            2) Yes, I do sympathize with black people. I care for my dog too. My moral network extends well beyond my family and my extended family and my race. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t imagine myself to be a very good person, because I wouldn’t be one. I want to ease the plight of black people. I want to ease the plight of white people too, which is why I support policies that keep them away from black people.

            3) I strongly disagree with your characterization of tolerance. For example there is ideological and religious tolerance, all of it highly commendable. I don’t exactly agree that tolerance is what got us where we are today. Extreme tolerance to genuine threats maybe. But that’s different than mere tolerance. Homosexuality is not a threat, just like novel or oppositional ideas are usually not threats, and should be tolerated, even though naturally we might have strong reactions to them. Homosexuality is a very small, statistically negligible part of all mammalian populations. It is a natural subset of people, but they are people and therefore morally significant. Many of them are decent people, many of them are white people. Unlike black or hispanic people, which you could say the same thing about, they do not reproduce like rabbits, they are not inundating my hometown, they are not overthrowing a formerly democratic government, they are not parasites etc. See the difference? They are not a threat. They are not a nuisance. If they were to reach 20% of the community say, the community wouldn’t begin to look like the third world. If they were genuinely screwing something up you’d be able to anecdotally or statistically indicate how gays are really screwing things up in your community or others, given their numbers in the general population. But you can’t because they’re not. That is why you speak of an abstract gay agenda (which I acknowledge exists, though its effects are usually minimal to most people’s lives), and vaguely of supposed problems they create and the alleged threat they pose to the West. They are not draining resources. They are just people. Other than what they do in their bedrooms, they are essentially indistinguishable from any other contributing member of the community.

            4) I see nothing as lower than anti-gay bigotry, which you possess in spades. It really is the sign of a twisted soul, someone who likes to pick on the truly powerless. People who see gay people as effeminate and weak and like to impose themselves upon them and ridicule them because it makes them feel big inside. The right-wing pundits talk about the problem with gays because they’re too damned cowardly to discuss the real demographic issues that face the nation. I’d bet in your life, a gay person has never wronged you. I’d bet you’ve never seen a gay person engage in violence. And yet you talk about what a problem they are and call anyone who disagrees with your little pathology “gay” themselves. I’ve screamed none of those things. I’ve exposed your illness for what it is by reason, not hysteria. You have a pathological fear of gay people, perhaps because you’re gay yourself, and you’ve conjured up an image of them that is threatening, but you’ve nevertheless failed miserably to communicate let alone demonstrate what real threat they pose to white western civilization, because prejudice is all you have.

            5) No, I’m quite straight. Are you? Are you sure?

          • RPG

            I think Wholly Unconvinced summed it up nicely: “’s erasing white people in that the push for homosexuality as normative behaviour is destroying one aspect of morality, leading to us becoming, as a whole, less “right” for lack of a better word.

            It’s corruption.”
            Corruption indeed. It is inarguably a deviant, unhealthy lifestyle. Tolerating it is one thing. Embracing, celebrating, and promoting it is another.
            All you have to do to know that it is unhealthy for us as a people is look at who is promoting it. Then ask yourself why. Why do you think the gay agenda is being rammed down our throats(no pun intended) by the elite?
            Admittedly, it is a small piece of the puzzle. But it IS a piece of the puzzle, nonetheless.

          • adplatt126

            Yes, I agree with your first point. But most people don’t celebrate and promote it. The fact that a small fraction of them do at their own little parades once a year, really does not constitute a threat to Western civilization. It’s being rammed down people’s throats because the 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and protection before the law, even if average jerk-offs don’t want to grant those rights to those deserving, because they don’t like gays, since their sacred fantasy book tells them not to, and so public referendums reflect the unjust nature of the American laity. Also, the oligarchy always has some Marxist egalitarian axe to grind. It doesn’t mean part of their argument isn’t right (occasionally).

      • JP Rushton

        It would take a Supreme Court decision to turn around abortion and why Republicans are so against abortion when it keeps down the Democrat voting numbers is beyond me. There is a parallel universe where Democrats are against abortion because it’s “racist” and they realized it keeps down their own numbers.

        Gay marriage is a lost cause, now every judge is saying that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

        Only hard core Catholics care about contraception and the plan “B” contraception should be along the same lines as abortion.

        Democrats won on those issues a long time ago, no need to keep fighting a losing battle.

        • Who Me?

          My stance on abortion is probably very different from most of the rest of the people on here. I think if a woman doesn’t want a child for any reason, it is better for her to not have that child. Whether from poverty, or just because it’s “inconvenient” at that point in her life, the child would probably be insufficiently cared for. The so-called adoption route is totally bogus. Yes, there are thousands of people who are desperate for a child to raise, but those desperate people (almost 100% White people) all want a perfectly healthy, White child to raise, not one whose mother received no maternity care, took drugs, smoked and drank, possibly suffered from STD’s and maybe even malnutrition (or poor nutrition, at least) during the pregnancy, Not children of mixed racial background, or who are mentally or physically impaired.
          The majority of women getting abortions are in exactly one or all of those categories, and the less children they bring into the world to suffer and to be subsidized by taxpayers until they turn into full-fledged terrors on their own the better.

          • adplatt126

            Agreed. The ethics of an abortion are entirely dependent upon who is doing the aborting and who is being aborted. Your views are not so uncommon here. There’s a lot more thought here on amren than the oligarchs would have you believe.

      • adplatt126

        The things Republicans focus on are dependent upon what the power structure/oligarchy allows them to focus on.

    • Ella

      Sadly, I have so called white “male” family members who vote mostly democrat. I ask how they can vote against themselves. It makes me sick when I see the self-aggrandizement in their eyes.

    • BattleCall

      Romney received 56% of the white female vote in 2012.

    • Pro_Whitey

      I don’t have a good link handy, but Steve Sailer has compared the figures for each state of the average number of years white women ages 18-45? have been married to the presidential election results in that state. He arrives at a pretty stunning correlation, that states where white women have on average been married the longest, the GOP wins, and where they have been married the least, the Dems win. But for usually one state that has a higher average and went Dem, matched by one state with a lower average that went GOP, the GOP gets all the high average states and the Dems get the low average states. And this pattern has held up over the elections from 2000 to 2012. His analysis seems to indicate that the more white women are married and the longer they are married, the more they identify their husbands’ interests as their own, and vote with their husbands. I know I’ve had that effect on my wife. It also indicates the Dems knew what they were doing when they pushed to liberalize divorce options in the 1960s and 1970s, and there are many anecdotes out there of married couples seeking welfare when they are in a rough patch, only to be told that it would be much easier if they divorced.
      I recommend that the GOP de-emphasize the pro-life, pro-normal marriage points in 2014 and 2016, not because they have to abandon them, but because the Dems and the media know that it splits off a chunk of the white women vote. They should emphasize maximizing the job opportunities, wages, and working conditions of Americans, especially by immigration control/enforcement, but also by committing to getting our international trade balances back in balance. Such measures would decrease the supply of potential laborers to Americans, and increase demand for their services. They might also help keep white marriages together.

      • Who Me?

        “His analysis seems to indicate that the more white women are married and the longer they are married, the more they identify their husbands’ interests as their own, and vote with their husbands.”

        This is absolutely true. My husband and I have been married 40 years. Somehow, somewhere along the line that “me” and “I” became “we” and “us”. Everything from, “What do we want for dinner tonight?” to, “Who are we going to vote for, and why?”. Not said in a cajoling, patronizingly way, like talking to a small child or a nurse to an ill patient, but in a very straightforward manner in a “we are in this together” type of way.
        I believe this is a natural, healthy aspect of human development and creates sustainable families and tribes and ultimately, nations.

    • Bill

      Less well with the married white female. Their (the Dems) tax grabs begin affecting their households. They also have children and experience the horrors of integrated schools on their kids. Now…..the married white females who depend on city, State or Federal gov for their incomes….that’s a different story. THEY go for the Dems too.

  • dd121

    Mo for president.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Democrats have the minorities in Congress organized into pressure groups — the Conservative Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, the Asia-Pacific American Caucus — for the purpose of extracting special favors for their particular ethnic groups from the white majority. These victim groups are hypersensitive to any hint of negative impact on their particular tribes. None exhibit the slightest regard for the interests of the white majority.

  • Dave4088

    Mo Brooks is absolutely correct that Obozo and the Dems are waging a war on whites and he’s apparently the only Republican who has the cajones to say so. But he’s wrong in his stated belief that we can overcome identity politics with race neutral leadership. Hardball racial politics is here to stay, and it’s time that whites start play the game, or risk losing everything.

    • amen, what world do these so called CONseratives live in? Whites better start playing the game or things will get MUCH worse.

      • Ella

        I think some Whites have bought into the victim roles like “why try to improve myself or my life?”

    • Mary

      Ingraham is better on immigration than many, but I’m not surprised she has that unfortunately naïve view regarding race. She does have non-White adopted children.

      • HE2

        Mary, Ingraham lost me when she adopted a brown. A Guatemalan, among the worst of the low IQ, low functioning invaders in California. She has adopted three thus far.
        No thanks. As far as I am concerned, she disqualifies herself as a trustworthy anti-brown immigration candidate.

    • Pro_Whitey

      One good thing is that merely by alluding to it and raising the racial angle, he implicitly calls out to whites. I hope most whites will have enough sense to heed his call.

  • Of course it’s a war on whites.

    The open secret is that it’s almost over already.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      Nil desperandum.

      It ain’t over yet.

      • kjh64

        The USA is not 64% White, it is unknown what percentage of Whites the US has because the census counts the millions of non-White, non-citizens who are here illegally or legally as “Americans”. They are NOT. Remove the 40 million or so illegal migrants and the millions of legal, non-White foreigners and only count US citizens and the percentage of Whites goes way up. Non-citizens are foreigners residing on US soil. As to European countries or Canada, their census may have a section for citizens and non-citizens. I don’t know.

        • HE2

          kjh, I posted a response to your above comment. Alas, it is held up in moderation.

      • Anyone know offhand if Germany will let you “return” to Germany if half your ancestry is German? … that 94% almost makes me want to shed a tear of joy.

        • HE2

          Wholly, why return to EU Germany?
          It is increasingly overrun with muzztards.
          How about a Bavarian Alpine district?
          Bavaria has approx. four percent muzzie population, but I suspect in the cities, not Alpine country.

          • Eh, it was mostly in jest, the other half of my ancestry is Lithuanian, and they’re something like 99% white at the moment, and I have given serious thought to trying to move there, it seems like a very nice “old European” country, lots of tradition and *gasp* culture.

            But really, they’re just daydreams for the days when I’m filled with despair for America’s future, a nice little solace, run away and surround myself with white faces till I die and find out if God is so picky that you had to guess the right religion not to burn for eternity.

            Those days come more and more often, although I try to still hope for a sea change here, a chance to fight to save a once great nation before it’s just a smouldering pile of rubble. And now I’m rambling.

            Bavaria? I’ll have to look into it. The self detonating pedophile worshippers do tend to stay out of the countryside, fewer targets to blow up I suspect.

          • HE2

            Bavarian Alp country is beautiful. The mountain people are not intellectual giants, but who cares?
            They are much less of a threat than those in our U.S. or EU cities.

    • JSS

      I personally don’t see what everyone’s so excited about. He isn’t advocating separation but more universalist garbage.

      • Usually Much Calmer

        He said ‘white’ without sneering or grovelling and may get away with it.
        You can’t score until you have the ball. I find this encouraging.

  • David

    I believe the best response to the mass hatred online is, “Okay, so you think whites are evil. So you support a white ethnostate, so we won’t be able to harm you anymore.”

    Always remember Sam Dickson’s 2011 NPI speech (on YouTube) you can’t just whine about problems, you have to prevent whites with a solution. An ethnostate, just like Israel for the Jews and China for the Chinese, is the solution.

    • jane johnson

      Prevent Whites? Did you mean “present” Whites? If so, I agree!

  • Dave4088

    Anyone wish to take bets on how soon Brooks will get on his hands and knees and profusely apologize for daring to speak out on behalf of his own race? That is a right expressly reserved only for Jews, non-whites and self-loathing whites.

    He can atone for his sacrilege by voting for comprehensive immigration reform and issuing an apology in English, Ebonics and Spanish.

    • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

      I’m gonna bet the over on that one. Jeff Sessions hasn’t been apologizing and we (Alabamians) love him. Republicans need to start realizing that they are regional party and they will have more success.

      • jane johnson

        Love it. The Dixicans.

      • Dave4088

        That’s because Sessions has only opposed Obama, amnesty and his anti-white agenda on economic, not racial, grounds which is the safe route.

  • FallenAngelofDoom

    ‘War on whites’ needs to become a mainstream conservative meme. We need to start using this term everywhere.

    • Ringo Lennon

      If Dems can use “war on women” Repugs can use war on Whites or war on White men.

      • Who Me?

        Don’t fall for the enemies’ game of separation. Use “War on Whites” inclusively–White women will soon realize this means them and their female children as well as their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, too.

  • IKUredux

    Finally, someone in Congress has finally come out with it!. New graffiti meme: “WAR ON WHITES.” Use it and abuse it. Bathroom walls, overpasses, EVERYWHERE, and, to make our sentiments known: Mo Brooks for President! Do it. We have to start somewhere, finally, a PERFECT opportunity.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      It’s starting. Keep it going…

      • IKUredux

        I love it. Would say that I will do more, but…

      • ZB01

        If they were to dress up a little, it would make for such a stronger impression.

        • LACountyRedneck

          I agree. Do you have a nice suit? Back in ’06 and ’07 when I attended a few of these I dressed casually. it was easier to clean off the stuff that was thrown at us. I should post some vids.

    • Anglo

      Makes a great bumper sticker – WAR ON WHITES

      • IKUredux

        Let’s jump on this. Let’s start making “War on Whites” bumper stickers. Anglo, great idea. I know there must be companies out there that make bumper stickers. Any patriotic White bumper sticker out there willing to make and sell this message? I’ll buy!

    • BattleCall

      We should all do some independent research on Mo Brooks, and if we like what we find, we absolutely should rally around him. If not for the Presidency, certainly for the Senate. This could absolutely be a perfect opportunity for a “starting point”..

      • IKUredux

        At this point in time, I don’t care what he thinks about anything else. He is looking after White people. Period. Looking after White people is the only political issue I care about. That means: No more legal immigration. No more illegal immigration. We need someone to rally around. Mo Brooks is it. Period. If you want to make a change in this country, support Mo Brooks for President. Nothing else matters. E-mail Mo Brooks to death that he must run for president.

        • Usually Much Calmer

          I’m a little but more cautious but I appreciate your enthusiasm.

          A false start would set us back.

        • RPG

          I, too, appreciate your enthusiasm. But we should figure out if this guy is the real deal, or not. Find out if he REALLY is looking after White people. We shouldn’t throw all of our support behind him based off one comment.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Brooks asked, ‘What is the one race that can be discriminated against? … All whites.’
    He said that under federal law, minority groups have protected status, while whites ‘are treated differently.’

    Finally some sense of reality from the GOP, and it’s about damn time.

    But, like crabs in a barrel:

    “GOP strategists said the comments aren’t helpful…”

    What was it Mo said that was untrue?

    So what are we supposed to do, GOP, suck up the anti-White agenda and accept our dispossession and the blatant discrimination leveled at us while our country is being flooded by the third world and wrested away from us?

    Sit quietly by while our White children are taught to believe that their people were nothing more than barbaric tyrants, thieves, rapists, enslavers, warmongers & conquerors with absolutely no redeeming qualities?

    That our genocide is the most moral of acts and to fight it is the height of evil?

    Also from the article:

    ‘If you tell people you think they’re criminals, you think they’re simply bringing diseases; they’re bringing drugs; if you treat them as invaders … they’re going to think you don’t like them,’ said Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.).

    They are criminals and invaders bringing drugs and diseases.

    You’re right I don’t like them

    14 words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

    • IKUredux

      Excellent post! My God, absolutely stirring. Thank you.

    • kjh64

      Yeah, well if “Karon Wright” above gets her wish and Whites are removed from the earth, the civilization that they create will go with them. She will be living in a 3rd world country that is a cross between Mexico and Africa and the Mexicans will win. Mexicans won’t give a damn about Blacks. “Karon” better enjoy the good life while it lasts.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Yeah, the parasites don’t have an exit strategy.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      White = 1 billion?? That’s a little skewed. People of western European descent are somewhere in the 5% world population range. That must be counting a whole bunch of Russians, Armenians, and Yids. All of those three get diversity handouts at federal contractors and other corporations. They are indeed “infiltrators” as one AmRen poster put it. Imposters fluffing up the real White number.

  • Luca

    Veritas liberabit vos (The truth shall set you free).

  • none of your business

    If Republicans were smart, they would let go of their preoccupation with abortion, gay marriage, contraception, etc. and increase opposition to uncontrolled immigration

    Exactly right. My impression of republicans comes from Fox and neo cons. I think they are fools to occupy themselves with non issues and concentrate on their base.

  • JohnEngelman

    “It doesn’t make any difference if you’re a white American, a black American, a Hispanic-American, an Asian-American or if you’re a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs,” Brooks said.

    – Rebecca Shabad, The Hill, August 4, 2014

    Wages fell and jobs were lost under George W. Bush. Since 1920 Democratic presidents have usually had a better record on these than Republican presidents.

    • connorhus

      Not since the 1960’s when Democrats embraced the Dieversity. Unless it was government wages that only helped their special classes anyway.

      • JohnEngelman

        From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there has nearly always been more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. There was more under Carter than Reagan.

        • connorhus

          Again only if you count bloated Affirmative action government job creation since the 60’s. Redistributed jobs for social uplifting doesn’t count.

          • JohnEngelman

            Can you document that?

            Since the election of Barack Obama government jobs have declined, while jobs in the private sector have increased.

          • HE2

            @John E, this, from Center for Immigration Studies:

            Between the first quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2013, the
            native-born population accounted for two-thirds of overall growth in
            the working-age population (16 to 65), but none of the net growth in
            employment among the working-age has gone to natives.

            The overall size of the working-age native-born population increased
            by 16.4 million from 2000 to 2013, yet the number of natives actually
            holding a job was 1.3 million lower in 2013 than 2000.

            The total number of working-age immigrants (legal and illegal)
            increased 8.8 million and the number working rose 5.3 million between
            2000 and 2013.

            Even before the recession, when the economy was expanding (2000 to
            2007), 60 percent of the net increase in employment among the
            working-age went to immigrants, even though they accounted for just 38
            percent of population growth among the working-age population.

            Since the jobs recovery began in 2010, about half the employment
            growth has gone to immigrants. However the share of working-age natives
            holding a job has remained virtually unchanged since 2010 and the number
            of working-age natives without a job (nearly 59 million) has not

          • Now we wait and see which tried and true Engelman tactic he goes with, either A. Copy paste something borderline irrelevant he’s pasted a hundred times before, which, coincidentally, won’t counter your posts factual information, or B. Simply not respond, and move on to the next pro-asian or jew article to start his copy paste non-contributing cycle of idiocy anew.

          • HE2

            Wholly, the usual M.O. is no response or straw man.
            No problem. Just so the untruths are refuted for those who may be new to our site.

          • Yeah, I forgot C. The flimsy straw man. I’ve torn down one or two of those in detail before. One of my favorites was when I made a comment about his straw man argument, dissecting it piece by piece, and he responded with another one. It makes me wonder sometimes if he really is a robot. I can’t remember the name off hand, but there was a simplistic program written a long time ago, essentially impersonating artificial intelligence by “reading” questions and responding to key words from a preset list of responses, something like a “medium” talks to the dead by throwing out generic statements and building off your responses. “I’m sensing someone close to you died recently?…” “my uncle Ted!” , “yess… your uncle, and he was… important to you growing up, almost a father?” Etc.

            Anyway, the way Engelman posts is very reminiscent of that, mostly copy pasted material, triggered by Asian or Jewish comments, and then the straw man arguments that seem to have no real connection to the pertinent topics of discussion. He really could be some kind of “LibDemBot” just spewing out preprogrammed garbage. Occasionally with a real human sitting down to briefly engage in discussion so as not to make it too obvious.

            Whatever he is, he’s surely as annoying as a cloud of gnats.

            Oh, almost forgot, kudos to you for posting the facts, it gets so tiresome engaging with him sometimes, but if one of us doesn’t, it leaves his idiotic commentary standing as the last word, which may lead a new viewer to the site astray, which I imagine is at least part of his reason for being here.

          • HE2

            You are welcome, Wholly.
            As a rule, I do not play back and forth discourse unless there are glaring untruths contained within the JE post.
            The annoyance for me is watching threads highjacked by that game.

          • connorhus

            I don’t usually bother to do the average slate or huffpo’s readers research work for them but you can start with OPM dot gov (Office of Personnel Management) and see the average wage increase for federal workers was 10% from 2010 to 2012 to 78K while average private sector wages increased only 4% to 45K. Government sector, which includes all fed and state was also the only sector that has grown outside of part time service jobs since 2007.

    • expitch

      Millions of new jobs were created in 1941/1942. Thus ended the Depression. The new hires were spared the expense of buying threads for work. They were issued uniforms.
      Have you checked job creation between 1953 and 1961?

  • RHG

    This isn’t a strategy Barack Obama came up with, although he has no problem exploiting it. No, this is a strategy put together by the real enemy of white people, liberal/leftwing whites themselves. The likes of Ted Kennedy were the first instigators and fired the first shots on the “war on whitey”.

  • BattleCall

    This is almost too good to be true. It’s only a matter of time before this guy buckles and goes crawling and groveling for forgiveness.
    But if not…
    There will be hell to pay.
    The Weapon of Mass deception media will stop at absolutely nothing to destroy this man. They absolutely cannot allow him to get away with this. This type of truth being spoken could potentially be catastrophic for their agenda and the timidity they have worked hard to ingrain in White Americans.
    They cannot allow a precedent to be set that a white person stands up for the interests of White Americans without being destroyed. If they allow Mo Brooks to speak out, what’s stopping the rest of White America from speaking out?
    And worse yet–what if complacent, inattentive White’s hear this message, and wake up?
    They cannot, and will not let this guy be the spark that lights the inferno.
    This guy just made himself public enemy number one.
    If Mo Brooks stays strong and continues to speak truth, we all need to circle the wagons around him. We need to send a message to politicians that if they stand up, speak out, and fight back, that we will fight with them.
    Don’t let them make an example of Mo Brooks.
    Depending on his stance on America’s greatest enemy Israel, Brooks could be something special…

  • JSS

    Mr Brooks words are empty. Obama isn’t the one who divided us, we were already divided. We were never meant to be sharing the same living space to begin with. The underlying issue behind all the problems plaguing the west are racial. Denying that just makes you part of the problem. No nation that consist of “African” this “Asian” that etc will endure. The Western world is digging its grave with equality and multiculturalism. Kosher Republicans are as culpable in this as Democrats.

    • Anglo

      but it’s a start and Whites need to rally around Mo.

      • JSS

        I realize that the media will crucify him but denying that the problem is racial is nonsense. More equality and unity as he seems to advocate is a proven failure for Whites. Next he will be saying MLK would be on his side. The Democratic Party are combatants in the war on Whites but they are pawns. The heart of the problem is kosher.

        • RPG

          The problem is inarguably kosher. Democrats, as you said, are their pawns. As are Republicans. But this may be a crucially important first step. We have to play (fight) within the circumstances as they exist, not how we wish them to.
          And those circumstances are that if anyone spoke the truth that you and I and everyone here knows, the messenger would be crucified and the message would never be taken seriously by the people who need to hear it.
          I completely understand where you’re coming from, but I think many of us are hoping this may be the first baby step of many more baby steps to come. And eventually, those steps can grow larger and larger, and in time the REAL truth can finally be spoken.

          • JSS

            Maybe I’m being to cynical but I don’t see American electoral politics playing any role that’s beneficial to Whites. If the man sticks to his guns fine, I’ll give him credit. None the less his universalist “we are all Americans” message is fatally flawed. The current power structure is designed to oppress us, the point is we can’t change it. We have been trying to vote our way out of this for awhile to no avail. The fact the man felt compelled to throw in that peon to diversity proves that even our best elected officials still self censor and that he will never associate with “racist” whites regardless of the mix of truths and half truths he spoke.

            On the other hand I will admit that I like seeing language like “war against Whites” being used in such a high profile manner though the context it was used in was flawed. We endlessly here about the war on women, gays, blacks, etc. So I’d like that kind of language to become more popular in reference to Whites simply because Whites seriously need to realize we are in a us VS them fight and we aren’t going to survive as “Americans” or Republicans but only as Whites.

          • RPG

            Your cynicism is rightfully placed. You are absolutely right that the structure that has been put in place by the elite oppresses us. The powerful have designed it that way. But the power that the powerful possess is only an illusion. They hold on to that power only because we allow them to. There are more of us than there are of them, which is exactly why rhetoric like Mo’s scares the hell out of them. They cannot, must not, allow White Americans to hear this message, realize what is going on, and start doing something about it.

  • Mo isn’t backtracking and is in fact sorta doubling down:

    www breitbart com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/05/GOP-Rep-Doubles-Down-on-War-on-Whites-Discrimination-Against-Whites-Acceptable

  • Ian Moore

    The War on Whites has been going on since the 1960s.

    • RPG

      The War on Whites has been going on in this country ever since the first Jew stepped foot on this continent. It was only within the last 50 years they began to make real progress. But it has been going on for far longer than that globally.
      The communist revolution in Russia, a war on (Russian) Whites, was truly the “first shots” fired in somewhat modern history.

  • Jefferson

    Most of the comments on Youtube are labeling Mo Brooks as a KKK member and a White supremacist.

    Which should not be surprising because Youtube mostly attracts the Obama voter demographic.

    • LHathaway

      These groups don’t represent me and I don’t support them in order to ‘do something’ to fight the status quo, never-the-less, the KKK, white supremacists, Nazis, white separatists, it would seem only a matter of time before all whites are these things, and the few whites who aren’t will have more to worry about that we do now.

      • Augustus3709

        Labeling White people by any of those terms stems from fear that if White people stand up for themselves, the non-White moochers will be out of luck. So Whites are kept in suicidal line though shaming.

        The solution is to take the sting out of those words by educating people about them and making more innocuous.

  • Conrad


  • LHathaway

    “they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else”

    Why shouldn’t they? That’s why ‘sensitivity’ training only targets whites, and why whites must not be allowed to think in racial terms. Surely there are certain feelings white may have but these feelings must be punished, nipped in bud, so they never surface. No doubt their ‘feelings’ at some primitive level are transferred to safer (guided by them) targets. White racial consciousness is forbidden (there is on such thing as race) white women and people of color are not forbidden from forming a group consciousness. Quite the opposite, they are constantly encouraged to express their feelings. Like a ‘2 minute hate’ they always seem encouraged to voice their feelings about white men or ‘white society’. It’s a way to get ahead, get a good grade, get published, make money, get on the news, and get appointed to a government, corporate or education position.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      “…they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else…”

      ‘…Accuse them of what you do…’
      –Karl Marx

      • Ringo Lennon

        Let the Democrats run on this baloney and Republicans can run on the fact that Dems are flooding country to neutralize white voters. See who voters believe.

  • kikz2


  • Paleoconn

    Sessions-Brooks 2016. Sweet Home Alabama to lead the country out of the wilderness.

  • Lion’s Mane

    Just empty political rhetoric. I’m sure that these Republicans are just fishing for White votes. When it comes to acting on principle and defending White Interests, they will have forgot having ever spoken anything about a ‘war on Whites.’

    • Anglo

      We’ll see; but we can hope. Maybe the rhetoric will wake up more Whites.

  • 4321realist

    Good for this guy for saying what these timid politicos are afraid to say.

    One way that the anti-white paradigm could actually shift is to have more high-profile whites talk about this very thing.

    But they won’t do it. Savage is the only one who blasts the left on it. But even he won’t attack the blacks for their obvious racist actions and rhetoric. And Pat Buchanan is certainly helpful, but he too casts aspersion only from a distance and usually won’t specify exactly what is he is truly concerned about.

    Mo Brooks is the only other guy who will tell it like it is.

    And it isn’t just the high-profile types who are fearful. Although there is definitely a growing number of brave souls who can’t be intimidated, the rank and file are STILL mostly gutless to the core as well.

    There are still too many who are so intimidated by being called racists they refuse to point out anti-white actions and rhetoric. The Blaze is full of them, and from what I can determine so far, Glenn Beck has backed off showing obvious black on white hate attacks. The non-conservative, politically uncommitted sites are even bolder.

    Throughout history it seems that it is only a certain percentage of any people who address important issues that carry some risks of discussing and the rest hide under their beds, hoping somebody will take care of the problem for them while they continue to stay out of the fray.

  • RPG

    Amen to your entire post.
    One of the biggest obstacles we face is the universalism that is so pervasive in modern conservative thinking. Not only does it have a stranglehold on the establishment, it certainly has spread to the conservative movement as a whole.


    Well, at least it’s a start on using Democrat tactics against them.

  • Who Me?

    “I really think, more than anything, we need to give people a “home”


  • adplatt126

    Good lord. One can wish.

  • adplatt126

    Yup. Pretty much.

  • Ringo Lennon

    I listen to Rush Limbaugh. I am convinced he is controlled opposition. Not a show goes by where he doesn’t mention that liberals believe Repubs are racist and bigots and xenophobes and that America is great because of ill gotten gains. After a while this will sink in. All according to plan.

  • World_War_Me

    This would make a great book. You write well; maybe you should turn this idea into a novel.