Why Republicans Are Worthless

Earl P. Holt, American Renaissance, October 28, 2014

Politics is more than economics.

There is a war being waged for the soul of the Republican Party. It consists of a loose alliance of Tea Party groups and traditional conservatives, who are trying to wrest control from the politically moderate businessmen who have misguided the GOP for decades.  Just as Clemenceau warned that “war is too important to be left to the generals,” the battle to preserve Western Civilization is too important to be left to businessmen. Since avoiding controversy seems to be an almost universal concern among businessmen–bad publicity could lower profits–they are vulnerable to manipulation by the Left and the media that act as its PR organ.

 More than economics

While it is a true that “those who pay the piper get to call the tune,” the influence of large, corporate contributors actually works to prevent the crafting of a sound Republican message with broad appeal. Most Republican businessmen fail to recognize that surviving ideological assaults requires engaging the Left on many fronts that go well beyond narrow public finance issues and tax policy. Their shortsightedness has prevented the GOP from attracting more Americans, particularly those who call themselves independents.

Indeed, the economically oriented nature of Republican corporate contributors has often led to defeat because it avoids many compelling “social” issues with which we can win. This lack of enthusiasm for social issues seems to define most “moderate” and “establishment” Republicans, who seem to be particularly contemptuous of paleo-conservatives who have always preached the need to engage the Left on every front.

In fact, the forced integration of schools and neighborhoods, the pervasive nature of black violent crime, the tsunami of legal and illegal immigrants, and so-called “affirmative-action” in hiring and admissions play a far greater role in the lives of most Americans than do changes in marginal tax rates or interest payments on the national debt.

Duck Dynasty

The Left’s assault on the West involves a great deal more than economics: It targets every historical and cultural tradition, as well as every institution, principle, and value. And Since many “social” issues are not amenable to the kinds of cost-benefit analyses at which businessmen shine, Republicans are disarmed when faced with non-economic issues, and tend to address them in conformist and cowardly ways.

When Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty said a few things that annoyed homosexuals, Cracker Barrel immediately removed many Robertson-endorsed items from their shelves, in response to the predictable outcry from homosexual groups. How any business could so badly misperceive the sentiments of its own customer base is hard to imagine. In any event, an enormous public backlash forced Cracker Barrel to reverse itself within a few days, and return these items to its shelves.

The outcry against Cracker Barrel’s cowardice was only partly due to the popularity of the television series. It also reflected public outrage at homosexual organizations that seem to have no difficulty forcing their agenda on the majority of unsympathetic Americans. For Cracker Barrel to have submitted to the demands of a tiny, loud and militant minority–that is totally at odds with the values of most of its patrons–should have been a humiliation to the company, and a wake-up call to corporate America.

 Questionable political judgment

When CEOs are not queuing up to support unpopular public policies, such as Obama-care or affirmative action or immigration amnesty, they can usually be found lobbying their mortal enemies for legislative favors. I am old enough to recall how most high-profile GOP businessmen preferred Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush to that “controversial” and “extremist” candidate, Ronald Reagan–the man who won 49 states in 1984, defeated Communism, and helped create 22 million new jobs.

During his quest to win the Cold War, some of President Reagan’s most entrenched adversaries were Republican businessmen addicted to Soviet trade who, by the late 1970s, seemed determined to fulfill Lenin’s prediction that Communists would “hang the capitalists with the very rope they sell us.” The same businessmen tried to convince Reagan to jettison his pro-life stance, and convinced George W. Bush to support amnesty for illegal aliens. They are the same people who advised John McCain never to mention Jeremiah Wright in Mr. McCain’s timid 2008 campaign against Barrack Obama, and they now warn Republican office-holders to support amnesty for yet more illegal aliens.

By emphasizing economic issues, Republicans have actually adopted a peculiar form of Marxism: They have joined the Left by endorsing economic determinism. A Republican Party of businessmen preoccupied with economic issues at the expense of everything else will remain a minority party forever, and will eventually disappear like the Whigs.  Without the efforts of Paleo-conservatives and Tea Party and other patriot groups, there would be no real opposition to the Obama administration. We will never get effective leadership from people who can think no further than the corporate bottom line.

Topics: ,

Share This

Earl P. Holt, III
Mr. Holt is a retired entrepreneur and former anti-busing school board member in St. Louis, Mo, where he is grateful no longer to reside.
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.
  • Ronald

    What the political parties are doing seems to be taken from the motivational theories that were developed by Abraham Maslow in his heirachy of needs work. As soon as there is a danger that the masses might be aspiring to achieving higher level needs, lower level economic needs are substituted in their place.

    • B.A_2014

      Ronald Reagan supported free trade and gave amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegals. I’m not from the US but I think I’m right in that, aren’t I?

      Also he did not defeat communism. The soviet union fell apart because of its pathetic economy growth, the Afghan war and the Chernobyl disaster which cost them dearly. The satellite nation’s were becoming rebellious and it was extremely unlikely that the Russians were going to send the troops into Poland, East Germany or Romania. It probably could have survived in Russia, fortunately Gorbachev and Yeltsin had the decency to bring the curtain down.

      • The Worlds Scapegoat

        Communism is a like a hermit crab. It just discarded Russia and found a new larger shell (USA) with more money and weapons.


        • Jacobite2

          “Communism” is a creation of one group of people, if you know who I mean. They imposed it on Russia, tried to impose it on Germany, and have finally imposed it on the US. History has shown without exception that there is only one successful defense to domination by this group — violent and merciless resistance. Otherwise, they win.

      • Sick of it

        The Soviet Union had to “collapse” in order for Communism, and those who propagate it, to survive. If that makes any sense. Folks over there were ready to start butchering everyone associated with The Party…and actually did in places like Romania.

        • bilderbuster

          The same ethnic group that ran the USSR is now the oligarchies of the new “Capitalist Russia”.

          • Sick of it

            Communist leaders, Capitalist leaders, Mafia leaders…they sure are a versatile group!

          • bilderbuster

            The Masters of every sort of vice.

          • The Worlds Scapegoat

            “Communist leaders, Capitalist leaders, Mafia leaders…they sure are a versatile group!”

            pedophiles, perverts, etc…


          • Sick of it

            Don’t forget serial killers…

          • Periapsis

            They are all one and the same. In other words, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

        • none of your business

          A certain group much admired by Engleman ran Russia from 1918 to the fall of the evil empire in 1990 more or less. Having looted the country and the E. European satellite nations they collapsed the old soviet union and looted again under some sort of capitalism. Jeffrey Sachs and other American co ethnics helped them loot.
          Now Putin is in the process of re taking Ukraine.

          • Realist

            “Now Putin is in the process of re taking Ukraine.”
            Wrong! You spend too much time reading and, worse believing, American propaganda.

          • Jade1

            Wrong Russia plays a pivotal rule in the end times.

          • Realist

            I believe you mean role, not rule.
            “…the end times” you’re kidding right?

          • Sick of it

            I wish the Ukrainians would kick out “their” government and remain wary of the US, EU, and Russia. That would be the smartest play.

          • Periapsis

            That may come sooner than you think. Overthrowing the Jewish junta in Ukraine only for Russia to rule the country yet again is not acceptable either, not to ethnic Ukrainians who harbor just as much resentment towards Moscow.

          • The Worlds Scapegoat

            “A certain group much admired by Engleman ran Russia from 1918 to the fall of the evil empire in 1990 more or less”

            Young naked Asian woman ran Russia?

            Or where you referring to the other group that never does anything wrong, and must never by mentioned?


        • Jacobite2

          There was never the slightest de-Communization if Russia, as we imposed de-Nazification on Germany. Read up on how that program was executed by the Allies and note than nothing close ever happened in Russia. Putin ruling Russia is like Adolph Eichmann being the first post-war Chancellor of West Germany

      • none of your business

        Reagan also promised to abolish the then very new US Department of Education which is an anti White anti American institution. He did not. He also abolished the old PACE exam. It was an exam required of all applicants for federal jobs that required college degrees. It was a basic high school exit exam. It required 10th grade math and 12 grade reading and writing ability.
        The exam was abolished because most blacks with college degrees failed it. The end of that exam is why the federal civil service is inundated with illiterate blacks, mostly women who hate Whites.
        The day after the election a Christian, who belonged to a small Church the liberals call fundamentalist told me proudly ” We Christians elected Reagan and he promised us he would get rid of abortion.”
        The pundits and pontificators claim the White working class voted for Reagan because of pro marriage, pro Christian, pro American values. I believe we voted for Reagan because we hoped he would end affirmative action.
        He did not.
        Reagan was no more pro White than any other Republican since Lincoln.

        • Carter actually abolished PACE.

          However, Reagan didn’t do anything to try to restore it.

          • Stan D Mute

            You know you’d have done a far better job on this article than the author.

          • I know the author. Back in the days when he and someone else had a radio show in St. Louis, I was a guest co-host several times with him when the other regular host was out of town.

            So the answer is no, I would not have done a better job. The reason is that Earl has a knack for right-sizing his prose, in that whatever he writes is no shorter or longer than it has to be to make all the points that he wants. OTOH, my writing is either too short (tabloid/sound byte) or too long (day job material). This is why I have never written anything for AR, because I’m really bad at medium form, on top of my writing style being too sarcastic.

          • none of your business

            The article was well written but since I detest both parties it does not really appeal to me.

          • Casper Flannigan

            Sarcasm can be a literary smack in the face. It often wakes up drowsy readers while they are on the second cup of coffee recovering from the night shift. Keep posting QR. Enjoy your stuff.

          • Casper Flannigan

            Sorry, meant QD. Damn night shift!

          • My sarcasm isn’t a literary smack in the face, it’s a literary bucket of hydrochorlic acid in the face.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Sincere Apology:

            If I wrongly accused you, I humbly apologize. (obviously, I was VERY P.O. at the gratuitous sniping that accompanied my first submission to AR…)

          • Check your e-mail box.

          • Garrett Brown

            I would love if you wrote for Amren, if only once. I have learned more from you than any other poster on this site.

          • Barring that, maybe I should start my own blog.

            Today is your lucky day:


            I’ve been at it for eleven years and over 14,000 posts now, almost all of which are mine.

          • Garrett Brown

            That’s your blog?

          • The one and only. My snark gives me away every time.

          • Garrett Brown

            I thought you typed you had to start one? You meant start it up again?

          • dukem1

            I knew that! I read you too!
            Love your work, man!

          • Stan D Mute

            So you need a good editor. That’s the editor’s job – to distill and massage so the message is cogent and succinct. The author is a Reagan sycophants. It’s no good to be concise if you’re flat wrong.

          • Perhaps so, but I don’t really care about trying to make money off the things I write that don’t have anything to do with my day job, and that which I have to write for my day job is only loosely political and not closely related to our cause.

            Our cause, even using a narrow definition of “our,” is not wanting for people who are great writers. I just so happen not to be one of them.

            I’m perfectly happy snarking away on my own blog in almost pure anonymity about things that interest me, that anonymity prevents me from having to deal with conflict of interest headaches; anyone can come or go as they please.

          • Stan D Mute

            Well just know that you do write well and you do present ideas either not presented elsewhere or poorly presented elsewhere. And from experience publishing in far more demanding venues than the Alt Right has, a good editor will take those novel ideas, clean up the places where you get into the weeds, delete unnecessary tangents, and allow your ideas to help change the world.

          • There’s another thing. I’m not big on the concept of “power of ideas.” More important are the “ideas of power” or the will to power.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            This article experienced quite a bit of editing. What would YOU have said that I neglected?

          • Earl P. Holt III

            He’s welcome to try any time. However, the author has published well over 100 times, and has been paid for his work at least 20 times. His work has appeared in National Review, HUMAN EVENTS, NEW GUARD, THE FREEMAN, FRONT LINE, The Citizen’s Informer and several other publications.

            Instead of just picking at the efforts of others, the author has actually sat down and written his thoughts, then submitted them to editors sitting in judgement over his work, rather than just jealously sniping at those who only talk a good game…

          • Stan D Mute

            Clearly he’s not sticking his neck out very far if National Review is still publishing him…

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Anyone who writes for publication is, by definition, “sticking his neck out.”

            This would be in sharp contrast to all the petty, jealous and anonymous snipers, who couldn’t muster a coherent article or essay if it were ghost-written for them…

          • Stan D Mute

            Utter nonsense. I’ve been published in several mainstream international publications yet I’ve never stuck my neck out a single inch. If I had, I’d look like Nicholas Stix, John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Peter Brimelow, Jared Taylor, etc. In other words, I’d be heroic like they are.

            Being a Reagan fanboy isn’t “sticking your neck out.” Being a Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin isn’t dangerous, it’s lucrative.

            No, the fact is that this author is a coward just like I am. Just like I assume you are. We are either too frightened of what would be done to us to speak truthfully or we are closet leftists. Either way, for me, it’s soul-crushing. That’s why I post prolifically – it helps expiate my cowardly guilt.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            That SURE did take you a while to write, “Stan.” Since you haven’t the courage to use your real name, I have no way to confirm the validity of your statement.

            However, when I used the expression “stick my neck out,” I was actually referencing the idea of offering something original for the armchair quarterbacks and sofa-snipers to pick at out of jealousy, envy, and pettiness…

          • Stan D Mute

            If “Stan D Mute” wasn’t an obvious pseudonym then I’m not sure this conversation has any real prospects. I’m not sure what the “SURE took a long time” remark is supposed to mean except perhaps that I have other things to do with higher priority than responding to comments at AmRen. Regardless, it appears we disagree on the meaning of “stick your neck out” with me assigning the phrase much more severity. I’ll stick by my own definition. I don’t think that taking a mainstream position matters one bit. It’s a space filler and editors, especially the ultra low cost online only editors, are starved for content. That’s why so much of it is poorly written and even more poorly edited. Your concern about “armchair quarterbacks and sofa-snipers” picking at such pointless space filler is laughable. So what? That is “sticking your neck out?” Really? What a safe and orderly world in which you must live! By that standard, I must be James Bond both personally and professionally for the controversies I’ve created and risks I’ve taken. And here I’ve been thinking all along I was a coward. Anyway, I’m off to go bask in my newfound glory thanks to your opinion. Thanks!

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Every time I communicate with you, the terms “Narcissist” and “Megalomaniac” jump to mind. And the remark about your username being a Pseudonym?: That was exactly my point, although well over your head, apparently. You see, I use my REAL name, and do not cower behind some username. Finally, you don’t know what courage is until you have tried to end the black/leftist monopoly on a large-city school board as I have done.

            You, sir, are a sofa-sniper…

          • Stan D Mute

            And you’re a real champ! Just what any political movement needs, someone who cannot communicate without ad hominem insults. WooHoo! I’ll bet you win all your disagreements this way. Congratulations!

            Oh, and just in case it isn’t self-evident, one uses a pseudonym when speaking truth in a marxist state because he has something to lose. So I guess you’re the double winner here since you apparently have nothing to lose. Way to go champ!

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Your petty and bitchy and effeminately snide remark concerning my first publication on the AR webpage earned you those personal attacks, and a bloody nose if ever we meet…

          • Stan D Mute

            Wow! And you’re the toughest guy on the internets too! I’m in awe.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I’m NOT afraid to use my real name, and never have been. I used my real name on my radio show, even though I owned rental property in all-black north St. Louis, and ventured up there every day.

            I used to tell the Republican Commissioner at the Election Board to “send me so far north, I’ll need a bobsled to get there,” and was usually obliged by being assigned to polls where I might not see a white person all day long.

            People with courage simply refuse to allow their fears to paralyze them. It’s just that simple.

            I’m still waiting for an answer to what you have done other than snipe at others…

          • Stan D Mute

            You’re sure a big fan of yourself aren’t you? Do you wear a shirt that says “I’m my world’s number one fan?”

            Pretty fragile ego though apparently. Maybe you should try to get some thicker skin. You seem like you’re about to burst right through yours. Then again, this looks like “internet tough guy syndrome” as if you were really this thin skinned you’d probably be typing away furiously from a prison library that foolishly allows Internet access.

            So I’ll simply suggest that you might learn to get over yourself. At least insofar as online comment fora. Criticism comes with the venue. Always has. The flame wars of the 90’s were epic. A “bloody nose?” Really? If I were the “sniper” you accuse me of being you’d never have the chance would you? Grow up. Get a real life. Take a nap. Buy a stress ball. Go scream at your TV. Whatever.

          • none of your business

            I remember it well. It was still being given in 1982 after Reagan was elected. It was actually the EEOC under Reagan’s appointee Clarence Thomas that decided abolish PACE. Reagan let it happen.

          • none of your business

            The last year the PACE exam was given was 1982 when Reagan was President and his appointee Clarence Thomas was head of the EEOC. The EEOC noticed that most of the blacks with college degrees failed the test so the EEOC decided to abolish it. Reagan did nothing for Whites. Maybe Christians and patriots felt better but he continued the anti White policy begun by Eisenhower when he sent the army to shove bayonets in the backs of White kids as they were driven to black schools.

          • dukem1

            As I recall, The PACE exam replaced the Federal Service Entrance Exam…The FSEE was basically a simple math and English type test,to see if folks had some skills to read and cipher…You got extra credit for having a degree…
            Not enough of the right kind of folks passed it, so the PACE came along..
            It was one of those tests which asked you to figure out how some shape was different than the others, thereby somehow eliminating the obvious bias in trying to measure essential, obvious academic competence.
            Not enough of the right kind of folks passed the PACE, either…
            ( A guy I worked with did get a 100 on the PACE, tho,,,but he was really smart, a white guy, who went on to have a nice career)

        • JohnEngelman

          In 1980 Ronald Reagan probably could not have won without the Moral Majority. In 1976 most Evangelicals voted for Jimmy Carter. In 1980 Jerry Falwell persuaded them to vote for a man who spent his formative years in Hollywood, who divorced his first wife, who signed a bill legalizing abortion in California, and who seldom attended church.

          What did President Reagan do to advance the agenda of the religious right? Nothing. What has the Republican Party done? Nothing.

          Republican politicians say what they need to say in order to be elected. Once elected they do what their sponsors in the business community tell them to do.

          • none of your business

            You are absolutely right. I remember some Christians I knew were convinced Reagan would abolish abortion. Huckabee and other Christians now have their anti abortion hopes in affirmative action black Dr. Ben Carson. And we think blacks are stupid.
            You fail to realize that the same donors fund the Democrats.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Some people are NEVER satisfied: Reagan could not Constitutionally “abolish abortion” any more than Obama can grant “Amnesty” to 40 million illegal aliens.

            Reagan appointed Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices. He observed the ban on federal funding of abortion. He fought the usual suspects — including his idiot wife — to defend the Pro-Life plank in the Republican Party Platform, and demanded that George H.W. Bush do the same.

            In 45 years of political activism, I have found that the guys who bitch the loudest usually do the least…

          • anony

            “Republican politicians say what they need to say in order to be elected. ”

            That’s the definition of politician.

      • Rhialto

        Geopolitics are complicated. Fedgov has recognized Russia as an enemy since the 1930’s. There was a temporary alliance to defeat the axis coalition, then the struggle was renewed. I believe the FedGov’s policies were a primary cause of Russia’s economic problems. These policies forced Russia to divert a non-sustainable part of its economy to military expenditures.

        The Korean war stopped Communist expansion in Asia; the Vietnam war stopped it in Indochina. In both wars Russia, while in a geopolitical sense did not lose, was seen by China and others as a “paper tiger”, because American planes flown by American pilots, were attacking Communist positions, while Russia did not reciprocate.

        As you point out the putrid economy, Chernobyl, and Afghanistan were the final blow. Also add some clever diplomatic maneuvering by the FedGov to install/use Yeltsin, and totally fragment what was left of the USSR.

        • Stan D Mute

          Complicated yes. But USSR was doomed to fail because nationalism and communism. The former will always prevail over arbitrary lines cartographers and politicians draw. The latter will always fail unless savagely brutal method employed to force submission. There are complications and nuances, but nationalism and communism were the root causes.

          • Communism was, like libertarianism, just another ideological cult that was eventually doomed to fail.

          • Stan D Mute

            Call me a hopeless romantic I guess, but I believe a von Mises economy could work in a white ethno state. Provided of course that ethnonationalism was carved in stone. When the first negro or mestizo was admitted the state’s failure would be preordained.

          • My two favorite 20th century economists are Wilhelm Ropke and Hans Hermann Hoppe, both good Germans, both real Germans. Both were from the Austrian school, but neither one is an Austrian school cultist/purist, and neither one would be happy with the antics of some of the modern day economists and politicians that call themselves “Austrian school,” e.g. Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul.

          • Guest

            Hoppe liked Ron Paul. He is less P.C. than him though. At one time Ron Paul was less P.C., like the newsletters from the 90’s.

          • Pathfinder75

            “Wilhelm Ropke”

            Röpke’s book,”The Humane Economy”,can be downloaded for free at the following url:


          • Mike

            Not only ‘could’ it work but it’s the only thing that works. Protectionism causes stagnation and a lower quality of life for everyone. Open borders is a totally different subject than free trade. Trade and immigration policy are two separate things. Utilizing cheap unskilled labor lowers the prices of goods which creates abundance and opens up opportunity for higher paying better quality jobs for Americans with higher IQs like whites. Why should a white American with a 100 IQ be forced to work a job that someone who has an IQ of 80 could do?

          • none of your business

            That is the theory but immigration has just lowered wages and raised the price of housing for everyone. Plus, so many of the higher quality jobs are given to Asians and Indians. Check out Silicon valley. I was in the Bay Area and in and around San Jose back in the day. There were virtually no Asians or Indians there until about 1985. Now there are few Whites working in Silicon Valley or even medical jobs in N. California.
            It is true that in many places all the janitor, security and food jobs have been taken by Hispanic immigrants. But the upper level jobs have been taken by other non White immigrants. So whites lose under any economic system because of affirmative action and non White immigration.
            Affirmative action and the federal courts long ago abolished the idea that intelligent, qualified people should be hired. Now the law is that only the stupid, unqualified and incompetent should be hired.

          • Peter Connor

            “Free” trade always leads to the movement of peoples and declining wages in the wealthier trading partner. That’s why the billionaires and leftists love it. Also, when one country produces industrial goods and gunboats, and the other country agriculture, what do you think is going to happen? What they taught you and me in school is a fairy tale.

          • Stan D Mute

            Because America needs to make things. America needs factories. It needs production capacity. And it needs the jobs. Last I checked, 100 was the average white IQ. So my limited math skills tell me that *half* of white Americans have iq scores under 100. What are they going to do? Become doctors?

          • Sick of it

            In my experience, there are an obscene number of white Americans with a 100+ IQ who are out of work due to globalism. The Southern economy was pretty well ruined by NAFTA/GATT.

          • Olorin

            Your point is important. All ideological cults are doomed to fail. Societies get in the biggest trouble when they try to institutionalize the survival of that which should be allowed die in its time.

            This is at the root, for instance, of all the DUHversity policies we now see. They are designed to prop up both the ideology of “everybody’s equal except where the white man keeps them down” and all the institutional instruments created to (lucratively) pursue that.

            This is why the Founders of our system based it on experience and reason rather than ideology. Read their writings, all zillion pages of it. They knew that their experiment in government had to be based on inexorable facts ABOUT HUMAN NATURE. Such as that people organize politically to act in their (perceived) self interest, and often against any form of reason. Such as that predators and sociopaths will rise to the top in any system of sheeple. Such as that any branch of government with too much power will end up with far too much power.

            This is why I still call myself a liberal–one who changes ideas and praxis in line with what is seen to work, and abandons what does not. And why I call my lefty friends conservatives to their faces. Our system was designed to allow the interplay and flow of different ideas, recognizing that ideas would rise and fall and change and morph. At the point where that Heraclitean political praxis got or gets frozen into institutional orthodoxy, it is no longer our system but something else, and very dangerous.

        • Charlie

          Alexis de Tocqueville, who was one of the foremost political scientists of the early 19th century, predicted that in the 20th century, America and Russia would become the two strongest countries in the world…I mean, that’s not too hard to ascertain, considering the fact that, both countries attained their economic prowess through acquired living space, i.e. lebensraum…Jewish financiers in America, funded the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, for they were tired of the Tsar holding the wealth of the great landmass of Russia…in fact, Leon Trotsky was in New York, just before the February Revolution…during the 1920’s, as the Western World was still licking its wounds from the Great War, there was absolutely no effort on the part of the West, to destroy Bolshevism after it gained total ascendancy in Russia, by 1922…FDR, established relations with Stalin’s Soviet Union in 1933, which, of course, was the year that Hitler came to power in Germany…the International Bankers, who held the purse strings of both the United States and the Soviet Union, could not afford to allow for a resurgent Germany, to threaten the International Banking system, i.e. the House of Rothschild…the “Cold” War, was basically a sham, designed to fool the masses of both countries, for all it did was assume an anti-Fascist, anti-Western, anti-Christian, and above all, anti-White dogma, in both countries…after 1945, every country in Western Europe, assumed the same anti-White character, in what could be called “Communism Lite”…not just the Civil Rights movement, but virtually every other non-White group, was allowed to organize, and create virulently militant, anti-White, groups during the 1960’s…groups like La Raza, started on the California fruit farms of Cesar Chavez, during the 1960’s…

      • Germanicus

        And what makes you think that Communism was defeated? Could it be that corporate leftism is powering the program through the next turns of the dialectic corkscrew? Communism was a tool tailored for the industrial age. It morphed itself and pulled close the large capitalists. It was not difficult and really was puppeteered from the beginning. The monopolists and those aspiring to something close to it have no principled devotion to free markets. But besides, free markets are not self-preserving without moral men engaged in the same. The real goal of the left is as it always has been: centralized, totalitarian power. Its tools now are electronic, informational and hedonic. What we see as problems, the elites see as demonstrated efficacy. Megacorporations can have intercourse with the morphed Marxists because both are materislistic, naturalistic and defective in principles ( to put it mildly). They both love deception through propaganda (Marxists) or advertizing (businessmen) and expediency is all that matters. But the Left has some advantage over business: the left thinks long term. The street-level Leftist dupes will settle for cheap, dirty sex as a reward, whereas the corporate drones want their dirty sex with glitz. Thus, the rope tightens.

      • Mike

        Free trade is good unlike open borders. Because it utilizes the labor of lower IQ populations so that our smarter population or what’s left of it can have access to cheaper goods and higher paying jobs.

        • none of your business

          Where do you live? Come to California and stroll through any hospital or medical clinic. You will see very few White men, only non White often non White women working as Drs, Rns, therapists and at other high paid high skill jobs. Engineering, computers and research are just as non White.
          About the only high pay high skill job left to Whites is practicing law. Might be different where you live, but non White affirmative action is the rule where I live.
          I am more of a White nationalist than an advocate that intelligent people of different races can unite against the low IQ races. I believe that at one time some Whites thought that there might be a White Asian alliance based on similar high IQ but the Asians vote Democrat and have shown no inclination to join up with Whites. Asians benefit both from their high intelligence and affirmative action because they fill the non White quota.
          The problem Whites face is not protectionism, free trade, or any economic theories. It is anti White racism.

          • Pathfinder75

            What you say about hospitals and medical clinics here in CA being saturated with non-Whites, is 100% true.Last year ,I had to have some blood work done,and I was the only White person in a waiting room packed with nearly 30 Hispanics.The medical staff,as you can understand,was an assortment of Hispanics and what looked like Southeast Asian types.

            Very depressing.

          • John R

            THANK YOU! That, I think, is the point of the article. We get ourselves bogged down by all these theories that ignore who we really are, and what is best for us. We must realize that a nation is really an extended family. And you don’t feed your family by ignoring your own children and feeding strangers because it is more “cost efficient” or the strangers’ kids have “higher IQ’s” than your own.

        • Peter Connor

          Delusional–look around you.

      • none of your business

        The country of Poland, that Polish pope and long term intrigue by the Catholic Church helped more than Reagan who was just an observer and cheerleader. Lech Walesa the Polish electrician who led the revolt was probably the most important single person.
        I don’t like Reagan for a personal reason. I voted for him because like a lot of White idiots I thought he would end affirmative action. He did not.

      • Earl P. Holt III

        If you don’t believe Reagan defeated Soviet communism, I suggest you read “Victory” by Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution…

        • ElGringo

          The only people Reagan defeated was the average White working man. He did nothing but exacerbate the progressive tyranny that has this country in it’s grip.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I suggest you read anything at all, even “Dick and Jane”…

      • Jade1

        Excuse me BA but Reagan did defeat them by building superior weapons they could not afford. And it is the Dems in Congress that wanted amnesty. There was supposed to be border control to go with it but the Dems refused to fund it. If you lived here you would know that.

        • B.A_2014

          I’m pretty sure the Afghan war, Chernobyl and the poor economic system was a far greater factor in the fall of the USSR(I’ve seen and read Soviet leaders say as much.) Reagan I’m sure did build superior weapons (which were never used) but building inferior weapons doesn’t bring down empires even if they spend a small fortune on production. Reagan did give amnesty regardless of the whether the democrats supported it or not. If the democrats didn’t defend the border, Reagan can hardly be blamed on that but whatever way you want to spin it, he gave amnesty to illegals.

      • Guest

        Ummmm, I beg to differ. While it is true that Reagan supported amnesty and history will not judge him kindly for it, to say he had nothing to do with the final collapse of communism is plain effing Marxist revisionary garbage. This tripe was first mouthed by all of the “smartest” people both here and around the world after Reagan died. These were the same people who not only stated publically that communism was here to stay, they also said that we could never hope to defeat communism, only achieve a parity with it – maybe.
        Reagan, together with the Pope, Margaret Thatcher, Bill Casey at the CIA began a proxy war with the Soviets by arming the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and over the span of ten years slowly bled them dry. I saw an interview with Gorbachev many years ago on a special about the final years of the cold war and to quote him, “Once we knew that President Reagan was not going to take his SDI program off of the table at the Iceland summit, it was over for us. Our analysts told us that we would have to spend 70 cents out of every dollar (adjusted for U.S. currency amounts) just on the research alone, not including the actual development of such weapons. Our scientists told us that the United States could absolutely field the types of weapons in that program, maybe not now, not next year, but if they said they were going to do it, they would. The cold war ended that day and we lost.”
        Yes the satellite countries were becoming rebellious thanks to CIA seed money funneled to opposition groups, but Gorbachev and Yeltsin having the “decency” to bring the curtain down?! Who the hell are you fooling? They fatted themselves on what was left of the Soviet economy and made themselves oligarchs in the process, what pisses me off about the naysayers is that they got a ton of egg on their faces when the wall came down and to this day every one of them was wrong and they still can’t get over it.
        Did Reagan single-handedly defeat the communists? No, of course not, but he was instrumental in hitting it with a full court press not seen since the Eisenhower administration and finally nailed it’s coffin shut – unfortunately the faculties of Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Brown haven’t gotten the memo yet that it doesn’t work.

      • Tim_in_Indiana

        Reagan defeated Communism in the Soviet Union. They were terrified of his Strategic Defense Initiative, and Reagan proved that the US could maintain the economy and a first class military as well as develop SDI at the same time, while the Soviets could not. Yes, Reagan’s compromise with the left on immigration was a mistake, which just goes to show, never trust lying liberals.

  • dd121

    Thanks for your thoughtful article, Mr. Holt. Surely you don’t think anybody here is going to disagree with that?

    • Stan D Mute

      If he thinks there reside here nothing but Reagan sycophants, then he is in error. Reagan amnestied millions of Central American indians who cannot function well in western civilization. Many if not most of Reagan’s amnesty mestizos are today living the dream in accommodations not unlike those left behind in Mexico but aided by the federal treasury. I also recall that under Reagan’s watch we saw the beginnings of corporate America moving manufacturing out of America to Central America and Asia. Detroit at the time was wracked by the ’87-’88 market crash (Black Monday), influx of japanese and german cars spurred by the 70’s oil crisis, and the first real pains from offshoring manufacturing jobs. Recall it was in ’93 that Goldsmith wrote “The Trap” which predicted the economic ruin we see today with now dead factory towns all over the Rust Belt and in California. Many seeds of our destruction were planted during the “business friendly” Reagan regime and it was just in 1992 that Ross Perot made Americans familiar with “that giant sucking sound” due to NAFTA. NAFTA, you may recall, was promoted as early as 1979 by Reagan.

      I will give credit where it’s due however. Reagan had very good speechwriters and the best radio/TV presence of any President in the latter half of the 20th Century. His only rival for the claim of greatest ever was the socialist FDR who talked us into yet another stupid and horrendously costly foreign war.

      • Jade1

        Uh Stan the Dems were in Congress. Most of that happened because of the Dems.

        • Stan D Mute

          Reagan had the power of the veto. He also had the power of the media – any time he wanted he could directly address every person in the country. He’s just as guilty for what he did not do as he is for what he did.

  • connorhus

    If it wasn’t for the firmly ensconced two party system the Tea Party and other conservative groups would have abandoned the Republicans long ago I think. We need to weaken that system and then leave the republicans to die a political death.

    • Stan D Mute

      Except it won’t happen because money. Politics today is money. Massive truckloads and trainloads of money. Even little nothing local elections can cost well into the hundreds of thousands. The Dave Brat situation is a freak exception unlikely to repeat itself soon. So how does a third party fund campaigns?

      • bilderbuster

        They could pander to the wealthiest minority in the world.
        Wait! The two party’s are already owned by them.

    • none of your business

      Are the Tea Party and conservatives pro White? That’s all I care about.

      • connorhus

        Any level playing field will be pro-White.

      • Holden

        Sadly no, they are most definitely not pro-White. They are “race-blind” Americans who adore their great black conservative messiah, Dr. Ben Carson. Almost any Tea Party supporter would view any pro-White sentiment with scorn or at least strong suspicion. They, like the rest of America, have drunk the egalitarian, proposition-nation Kool-aid. Plus, their whole platform is based on economics. They don’t oppose immigration on the basis of demographic replacement. Instead, it’s all about jobs and the economy. Economic philosophies have no room for race, ethny, family, or any part of tradition. This is why economic conservatives can’t mount an adequate defense against the destruction of traditional values.

        Unfortunately, I don’t know a good alternative system…

        • Earl P. Holt III

          Ben Carson is one in a million, but he has never held public office: The idea that he should be drafted by the GOP and run for President is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard, and a clear indication that there are a lot of Republicans with money who couldn’t find their ass with both hands tied behind their backs…

          • Sick of it

            Too many people offer up dark horse candidates with, as you said, no record in office to justify a run for the presidency (or Congress to be blunt). The enemy is destroying us with dark horse candidates today.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            There’s a guy named John Phillip Sousa IV, who chairs some committee to draft Ben Carson for President. I get his mailings all the time.

            I’ve never heard of this guy, who is clearly exploiting his Great-Grandfather’s name. I’ve never seen the guy run for office, I’ve never seen anything he’s written, I have real doubts that he has ever even served as a Republican election judge, and he’s never been part of the conservative movement that I’m aware.

            Where do guys like this come from?

          • Sick of it

            They’re hired to do things like the above by the people who rule this country from the shadows.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            You mean from the shadows of the temples…?

    • Earl P. Holt III

      It would be easier to take over the Republican Party, and rescue it from the same fate the Whigs experienced. Of course, that can’t happen when good men throw up their hands, denounce both parties, and then sit home and watch baseball instead of voting…

      • Sick of it

        Considering it’s the only party with a ton of white support, absolutely. I’ve tried to convince white people I know to vote third party and they look at me like I’m crazy.

        • Earl P. Holt III

          There may come a time when a third party is inevitable and necessary: For me, that would be if Jeb Bush or Chris Christie were to get the 2016 GOP nomination for President…

  • jayvbellis

    Well written article . Just understand the opposition to GOP elite is often even more pro free market capitalism, Ron and Rand Paul race denying libertarian loonacy.

    • This is why libertarianism is so dangerous, well meaning conservatives turn to it thinking its a viable alternative when its really just more leftism.

      • Stan D Mute

        The problem with libertarianism is that it’s completely stuck in the ideals with zero accommodation for reality. If everyone on the planet was white or maybe white and Asian, libertarianism would be swell. But that’s not the world in which we live. I’m all for maximum personal liberty, but one must first have a nation in order that those liberties may be protected. And a nation only works with a single homogenous people, common in origin and culture and language, with a common interest in its Posterity. Libertarians just don’t get that and believe the Repugnantcon/Demonrat fantasy about egalitarianism and universalism.

        • It’s worse than that. Modern libertarians exist to break down the concepts of homogeneous ethnonationalist nation-states. It’s not the only ideology that does it, but it sure does it, and must be analyzed in those terms and held to account for it.

          One other problem is that for the short time in American history where libertarian-ish principles had some credibility, it was because we unlibertarianly kept Indians and blacks in check, and we were isolated from the invading armies of the rest of the world by oceans. Meanwhile, if you were somewhere in central Europe, at anytime you could have a mass marauding invading army from the east or from west, or in one instance, both at the same time. That’s not to mention the two large scale Muslim invasions of Europe, first from the Caliphate and then from the Ottoman Turks. And then there the Vikings in the early middle ages wreaking havoc on the continent. Continental European governments could never be libertarian because they couldn’t afford it.

          The main practical modern problem with libertarianism is that it is one of many ideological cults whose adherents cite it for everything that goes right and blame the lack of it for everything that goes wrong. Aside from the particular problems with cult libertarianism, one of which is that it’s the right’s opiate, the devil is in any form of ideological cultism, left, right, or whatever, that inordinate and unhealthy adherence to abstract ideology is a form of mental illness that white people need to ditch like a bad habit as soon as possible.

          • Petronius

            A good thumbnail definition of conservatism: the opposition to ideology in politics.

          • That is, assuming “conservatism” isn’t an abstract ideology itself. What passes for “conservatism” today in white Western political cultures is just that.

          • adplatt126

            I don’t entirely disagree with you, but a few points/matters of critique:
            A) What is not abstract ideology? Pragmatism?
            B) Pragmatism is often as despicable as abstract ideology, particularly when it leads one to excess or to moral bankruptcy, as it usually does.
            C) I do not diagnose abstract ideology as the problem, but total ideologies as the problem. All of these total ideologies are inane around the margins. Moreover, an idea should be evaluated by its actual historical record and not its supposed inherent worth. This is basically the imposition of an actual scientific paradigm on ideology itself.

          • A) What is not abstract ideology? Pragmatism?

            Ethnonationalism and tribalism and blood-and-soil nationalism.

            B) Pragmatism is often as despicable as abstract ideology, particularly
            when it leads one to excess or to moral bankruptcy, as it usually does.

            It can be, unless pragmatism is a means to an end and not the end unto itself.

            C) I do not diagnose abstract ideology as the problem, but total
            ideologies as the problem. All of these total ideologies are inane
            around the margins. Moreover, an idea should be evaluated by its actual
            historical record and not its supposed inherent worth. This is basically
            the imposition of an actual scientific paradigm on ideology itself.

            Well said, even though I think when you say “total ideologies” and I say “abstract ideology,” we’re talking about the same thing. Sam Francis would have felt right at home reading those last two sentences. When it comes to ideas and related groups of ideas, what matters is what they accomplish and who they benefit and hurt, not their pie in the sky theoretical promises. It’s easy to deduce who peddles given ideas for who benefits from them, the cui bono axiom.

          • adplatt126

            Ethnonationalism is quite fine in some degree. But when you get past the core standards of citizenship there naturally arises a serious debate about what kind of values this nation is going to have. It will arise even if we suppress it. People will start discussing ideals, what kind of principles they want to live by, etc. The major shift in American politics and the one that sank us, wasn’t that people started becoming more ideological. It was the kind of ideologies the people began adopting. Abstract ideology has the ability to elevate and empower us as much as it has the power to destroy us.

          • Rurik

            Libertarians believe in Homo economicus. Various other groups of Conservatives (and even some opponents on the left), believe there are additional measures of human purpose.

          • UncleSham

            Libertarians seek to reduce government interference in every aspect of life, one of which is economics. It is the mainstream Republican party, dominated by businessmen, that reduces humans to mere economic units. Both groups generally fail to recognize the significance of ethnicity. However, libertarians are more like to have an epiphany concerning race. This is because its almost impossible not to eventually notice that their ideology appeals almost exclusively to White men; no other culture shows even the slightest interest in it.

          • none of your business

            One of the best posts I have ever read.

        • Germanicus

          Cogent. We are not dienbodied spirits. We need to eat and compete. This priduces natural law realities that libs cannot grow up to accept.

        • Touchstone, King of Fools (for

          “The problem with libertarianism is that it’s completely stuck in the ideals with zero accommodation for reality.”

          Upvote for this.

      • Garrett Brown

        Any movement that is open borders doesn’t make sense for Whites to support.

        • none of your business

          Excellent. I might add it does not matter if it is some Central American stone age indian with an IQ of 60 destined to wash dishes 16 hours a day 7 days a week for $50.00 or it is an Asian with an IQ of 120 given a tech job simply because he is Asian.
          No matter what their intelligence level, every non White immigrant means a White American loses.

    • Or, alternatively, in these times when all polling suggests that people are less and less happy with all the “mainstream” political parties, factions, ideologies and presences, when ethnonationalism property articulated and credibly led would have a chance to make real inroads, watch out for the media to start floating libertarianism and Rand Paul as the “outside force,” when all that will accomplish is to fly all our energy into the ground and wreck it.

      • Stan D Mute

        Populist ethnonationalism would indeed make big inroads today with the massive unemployed/underemployed population and looming economic and demographic nightmares. Therefore we won’t see or hear even a whiff of such “racist xenophobia” through the mainstream media. Instead we will get another “maverick” like McCain or (whatever the h3ll he is pretending to be today) Paul (Jr. or Sr.). And as you said, it will just further demoralize and alienate more Americans from the process and outcome.

        • none of your business

          You’ve said it better than I can another excellent post.

  • TruthBeTold


    • phillyguy

      Like I always say, we need a nationalist leader just like the ones that came into power in Europe in the 1920’s

      • bilderbuster

        1933 Germany.

    • Stan D Mute

      Only if it’s a military coup. Nothing else would succeed.

      • none of your business

        Absolutely true. Although the military is a black brown gay sewer now.

        • Stan D Mute

          Not in combat forces. They are overwhelmingly white with a number of very patriotic mestizos making up the balance (the sort of mestizos who speak in Texan).

      • I would never support a military coup, whatever the objectives the brass had in mind.

        • Stan D Mute

          Never? You wouldn’t support a General Pinochet over socialist Allende? Or General Suharto over the Indonesian Communist Party? Or General Franks over President for life Barak Obola who with his 30 million plus new voters will declare the two term limit rule (22nd Amendment) to be Racist and thus invalid?

          America has been invaded by a foreign occupying army of peasants, our election system is fraud filled and results cannot be trusted, our President himself is probably constitutionally disqualified from holding office, and the opposition party will do nothing to stop any of it. What solution do you think there is? Citizens revolting?

    • none of your business

      We need a major backer, like the French government that provided most of our armaments and even tents and clothes, lent us millions and used its navy to harass the British troop ships during our revolution. French troops were important in some battles especially Yorktown, but their money was far, far more important. I cannot think of any entity in the world that would back or help a White revolution.

  • anony

    Rupublicans are not worthless.

    The Republican party is doing exactly what it is supposed to do which is to give its voters a false choice. Same for the democrats.

    Divide and conquer.

    • Pathfinder75

      “Divide and conquer.”

      An essential strategy we must likewise use against enemies of the White race.

      • Kenner

        They’re beginning to turn on each other without any help from us: Blacks vs Hispanics, Hispanics vs Asians…

      • anony

        When one thinks about the two-party system, one can easily conclude that it has been designed to accomplish just that, “divide and conquer”.

        Set up contentious issues with which to “compromise” on, and thereby move inexorably toward your goal. This can be deftly done so that only the most vigilant observer will get even a hint of what is being done.

        Couple that with a lap-dog media, and you have completed a virtually fool-proof system.

  • The Worlds Scapegoat

    “Why Republicans Are Worthless”

    I love that title.


    • Pathfinder75

      “Worthless” is,obviously,an accurate description of the Democrats,as well.

      • When the Democrats stopped standing up for blue-collar whites in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they became less than worthless.

  • Ultimate187

    Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. Some of you may think that Republicans are the lesser of two evils, but all it means is that we’re going to the same destination slower rather faster.

    • Amused

      Majority of both are devoted to the $$$
      -NOT the country, the state they hail from and not the citizens.
      Why do so many borrow millions to finance campaigns for jobs that pay thousands,
      yet retire with millions.

    • Pathfinder75

      “Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.”

      Yes,they are two sides of the same TARNISHED coin,and their luster has likely dimmed forever.

    • UncleSham

      Exactly. Either we vote Republican, in order to give us more time to organize an opposition; or we vote Democrat, in the hope that their blatant transgressions against the people will wake up more moderates. No matter what, its going to be an immense struggle to regain power over this Frankenstein-monster of a government we have allowed to come into being.

      • Rick O’Shea

        With our race’s birth rates being what they are, and with the birth and immigration rates of other rates being what they are… I feel time is of the essence.

        We must not apply the brakes. If anything, we should start masquerading as hard core leftists (I used to be one, and could probably still convincingly pull it off if I held my nose) and push their agenda harder and faster than anyone.

        It is their overreach which woke me up and turned me from one of their rank and file to one of their most devoted enemies.

        My only wish is that within my lifetime I get the opportunity to truly push back against my former allies. I feel I detest them all the more for having as intimate an understanding of their thought process as I do. And the thing is, many of them (as I was) are very good-intentioned… though others certainly are not. So it may be confusing as to how I could end up hating people who come to their views from a place of “niceness” – but once you see the destructive consequences of that kind of toxic level of naivety, and once you begin to realize just how resistant to accepting important (but unpleasant) facts they are… hatred is a logical result. Or perhaps disgust is a better term. I don’t really HATE them and I truly hope they will follow my own trajectory and get out of that worldview.

  • Easyrhino

    The closest candidate to the Tea-Party/Paleo we’ve had was Ron Paul and the media as well as his own party knifed him in the back, misrepresented his position, conveniently lost and miscounted votes as well ignored him at every opportunity. Meanwhile both parties are shredding the Constitution and the media remains silent.

    There’s an old adage I’m starting to believe:

    “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

    • MannyR

      The media did the bidding of those who didn’t want him to have a chance at the White House. Take a guess as to whom I’m referring

    • jayvbellis

      Please get as far away from the Ron and Rand Paul Race denying cult. This crazed Libertarian Constitutionalist only seems to infect White Americans. No one else goes for it.

      If you or anyone you know has fallen for this cult …
      get help.

      Get out.

      • Bryce Armstrong

        The supporters of their 3-ring circus will NEVER give it a rest. Their supporters are more mindless and fanatical then Obama’s. If its the business men that make Republicans ‘worthless’ why support a hardcore Libertarian? Sit back and wait for the vitriol coming you’re why for stating the obvious.

        • Sick of it

          So shutting down the Fed and cutting the government would have been bad for us? And cutting taxes? I’m talking about Ron Paul, specifically. The Fed empowers those who must not be named…

          • jayvbellis

            And Ron Paul was going to do these good things when?

            Before or after he won the NBA slam dunk competition?

            After he won the heavy weight boxing championship?

            After he won the Florida GOP primary, then carried Florida in the general election winning large majorities of the elderly , retired AARP vote by promising to end Social Security benefits?

            You’re living in a fantasy dream world, the real world these Libertarian true believers win 0%

          • Sick of it

            In the world world, most voters are too dumb to vote. Thus the current government.

      • Pathfinder75

        “Ron and Rand Paul Race denying cult.” “If you or anyone you know has fallen for this cult…get help.”

        And those who have fallen into this cult’s ideological trap must understand one very important thing:

        Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

      • Easyrhino

        Can you back up your emotional blathering with any concrete facts?

        • jayvbellis

          White Nationalist leader George Lincoln Rockwell documented with 100% accuracy the utter failure of libertarianism, economic, fiscal conservative politics in US Presidential elections back in 1966 after the Goldwater debacle loss to LBJ in 1964.

          Reads GLR 100% dead on conclusions in White Power 50 years of failure.

          The American White poor, White working class ALWAYS reject Libertarianism, economic fiscal conservative candidates in Presidential elections – always have, always will.

          White old people like , demand government social security, some government health care, the TVA. Whites in San Diego CA want, vote for high government funding for the US Navy, based, yes in San Diego CA. Same applies to White voters living near the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs Colorado.

          Unless we somehow change the system where White poor people, White working class people and Whites who work in some way for the government, change the system where they can’t vote in Presidential elections, there will never ever be a White Libertarian, fiscal Conservative Presidential candidate elected President.

          No chance.


          Anyone insisting that some Constitutionalist, Libertarian true believer will SAVE US by getting elected President, guys a loon, probably has no friends.

          • Easyrhino

            All you offer is whining like some little girl who didn’t get invited to a birthday party.

            Can you name a single candidate, that’s not a Nazi, that you would vote for (assuming you’re of voting age) that meets your criteria?

          • The big thing that hurt Barry Goldwater in 1964, something that even Barry Goldwater knew was working against him, is that John F. Kennedy was assassinated not even a year before election day. It did not matter who the Republicans nominated in 1964, and but for Goldwater, it would have been Nelson Rockefeller. Lyndon Johnson was going to win and win big. If the race was LBJ versus Nelson Rockefeller, LBJ might have won all 50 states.

            However, even if that factor did not exist, I still think it would have been hard for Barry Goldwater to win a Presidential election at any time during his adult elected political lifetime, because of his dogmatic libertarianism. Toward the end of his life and career, Goldwater’s libertarianism manifested itself in the social sphere rather than the economic sphere of his earlier years including 1964. The Barry Goldwater of the 1980s constantly steamed against the “religious right.” Some confused leftists think he changed his mind, but the right answer is that it was precisely because he didn’t change his mind. He was a consistent libertarian his whole life, it’s just that, that which led him to oppose the establishment of Medicare in 1965 is the same thing which led him to oppose the religious right in 1985. Too, Goldwater’s opposition to the civil rights movement and its main legislative victories was rooted in libertarianism, not in white racial well being.

            However, Goldwater did oppose the 1965 open borders act, for mostly the right tribal reasons, even though he wasn’t in the Senate in 1965. His 1964 running mate, Congressman William Miller (R-NY), did vote against it and vociferously opposed it and accurately forecasted its consequences even as everyone in power was claiming that it wouldn’t result in racial demographic transformation.

            Two people very closely involved in Barry Goldwater’s Presidential campaign would go on to win four of the five next Presidential elections, those being Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. However, Nixon and Reagan won, Goldwater didn’t, for reasons that must be studied and understood. Even if Nixon and Reagan’s actual Presidencies turned out to be destructive and less than stellar, respectively.

      • Stan D Mute

        There are many race realists caught in the Paul (Jr. & Sr.) trap. They believe that in an ideal libertarian state, there would be no welfare, no affirmative action, and no quotas. That in this state the negroes would of course sink or swim (sink) and everyone would accept this outcome because it is 100% merit based. Obviously this is fantasy. The moment the EBT cards stopped working every major city would burn and we would require martial law to quell the riots. After that it’s either turn the EBT back on and pay trillions to rebuild the burned out cities or permanent militarization of every “urban” area in the country.

        To release a libertarian from the cult, ask him what happens when welfare/EBT is shut down.

        • adplatt126

          I agree that libertarianism is a flawed ideology. Hence, why I’m not a libertarian. With that said, there are many other reasons to vote for a man like Ron Paul (not his son mind you). Like his stance on foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, bailouts, corporate welfare, and I don’t know, his general probity. I never bought all of what Paul or his ilk were selling, but I at least admired him for his integrity and consistency. I’d vote for that kind of leadership. America hasn’t had it for a century after all. It could have used some.

          • One need not adopt the whole hog of libertarian (or any) ideology to get the particular line items from it that one likes.

          • adplatt126

            Precisely. But the general respect for individual liberty and choice is not a bad foundation upon which to base a civilization, so long as the costs are considered of this idea in its practical extreme and so long as there are some systemic forces reining in its excesses.

          • With individual liberty also comes individual responsibility.

          • jayvbellis

            So support the good policies and….

            Beat the Ron Paul and Rand Paul’s arse and force them to stop promoting open borders, path to amnesty, enabling Black criminal anarchy.

            Even open border true believer John McCain was forced to back down because his constituents forced him to “Build the Goddamn Wall”.

            All the patriots supposedly on our side, with all their AR15 guns can’t muster the force to make one pussy footing old man Ron Paul do the obvious on immigration, Black crime.

        • Sick of it

          I just wanted someone to shut down the Jewish money factory and get the government out of my face. I’m not seeing anyone else offering that, including Ron’s son.

          • Stan D Mute

            That money factory will come to an end of its own. They’ve become too greedy like all their pyramid scheme acolytes. Nobody got on Ron’s bandwagon because they’re all bought and paid for with the free flowing funny money. They’re getting theirs while the getting is good with nary a thought for what happens when the music stops.

          • Sick of it

            That WOULD be nice, but the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913 and those behind its creation are more powerful now than they were then. In fact, people are WAAAAAAY less likely to talk about those who must not be named today than folks back then. You know, so someone doesn’t equate them with Hitler. Everything is going the wrong direction.

          • Stan D Mute

            Yes, but remember that back then they were not printing trillions of debt dollars. And perhaps it was their fear of the mobs with pitchforks, but in any case today it’s gone and their greedy hubris will be their undoing. The questions are how bad things get and how we reboot the system.

      • UncleSham

        Libertarians are the only significant group in this country that support freedom of association. If we had that, we could legally carve out White ethno-state like communities. Do you have a single alternative with any political clout what so ever? No, you don’t.

        • jayvbellis

          I support human sacrifice of Libertarian cult members. The Amy Biehl death by Black mob zombie attacks. Watch the Walking Dead, let’s find a way to Mark the homes of these remaining Libertarian loons so the Black Zombie mobs know where to find and eat them.


          We will get no here until we stop thinking and acting “me” and start thinking and acting “we”.

          Start forming White communities , the Amish and Boers in Oriana are good models.

          The Amish are White socialists, not Libertarians. The Amish help each other build barns for the good of the Community.

          And don’t try use reason with know it all Libertarian true believers. They always have some BS spin, as bad as he worst cultural marxists

          • UncleSham

            The type of socialism you are referring to, socialism on the community level, can only exist with classical liberalism on the federal level. The Amish are a perfect example. They were persecuted in Europe because they refused to compromise on their beliefs and conform to the larger culture. They came to America because this was a land where you could form your own community and practice your belief system without another group imposing their will upon you.

            Libertarianism is just the modern word for classical liberalism. The number one political priority for Americans who care about the future of Whites in this country should be to reduce federal power and bring back states’ rights. We can use libertarianism as a means to this end. It doesn’t mean that we have to become followers of Ayn Rand.

            Socialism on the national level in this country just means taking money from Whites and giving it to non-Whites. The only justification a pro-White person in this country could have for voting for a socialist at the federal level is in order to hasten the collapse of the system so that we could start from scratch.

    • Stan D Mute

      I’m old enough to recall Pat Buchanan running. Too young to recall Humphrey who was almost certainly America’s last real chance.

      • Rurik

        Indeed you’re too young to remember who and what Humphrey was. He promised us Civil Rights would never lead to quotas, but he was lying through his teeth. He was one of the creators of what ails us today.

      • Kenner

        Humphrey was a big supporter of Johnson’s ‘Great Society’. You know, the society with Michael Brown and Vonderrit Meyers as recent ex-members.

      • none of your business

        Humphrey was pro black and anti White from 1948 on. He began campaigning against segregation and against the White southerners in 1948 and never stopped until he died. There was a joke that Lyndon Johnson from Texas which ahs too many blacks said to Humphrey who was from Minnesota when it had less than 2 percent blacks;
        “you ain’t got very many n*****s in Minnesota do you Hubert?”
        The 1968 civil rights act was more than civil rights for blacks. It was the first affirmative action legislation. Humphrey was as much an enemy of Whites as Holder and Sharpton. Remember, black on White crime doesn’t affect as many Whites as does affirmative action which affects almost all Whites. I think he even joined the NAACP.

        • Stan D Mute

          Sorry, I meant to type “Wallace” as I did in other comments in this thread and elsewhere. Then again, that should have been obvious as not many Hubert Humphrey fans would be hanging out here…

  • Sick of it

    “During his quest to win the Cold War, some of President Reagan’s most
    entrenched adversaries were Republican businessmen addicted to Soviet
    trade who, by the late 1970s, seemed determined to fulfill Lenin’s
    prediction that Communists would “hang the capitalists with the very
    rope they sell us.””

    Earl, that comment just got you put on a list. Those in power don’t want the people to know that we kept the Soviet Union going…or that certain powerful “American” families created it.

    • Somebody said communism and capitalism had a symbiotic relationship during the Cold War; Communist countries bought the surplus production of capitalist countries.

    • Stan D Mute

      The real symbiosis was that America’s war machine needed a bogeyman. Why buy trillions of dollars of weapons systems if we have no enemy? How could the elites control us without fear of this enemy who had school children across America hiding under their desks (literally) and schools built to absurd standards as fallout shelters bearing the terrifying nuclear triangle logo? At any moment those wicked amoral godless Russkies could send an ICBM aimed squarely at every factory town in America! Think of the children! Buy more nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear subs and tanks and warplanes. And so it went for decades…

      • adplatt126

        Now we know who the endless arming was really for…

      • The USA was a major naval power even in 1914; we had the third largest fleet in the world, after only Britain and Germany. Our standing army, though was about that of Greece or Bulgaria. The plan Case Red involved a US war against Britain, and Case Black a war with Germany. Case Orange was what we later did to Japan.

        The 13-inch and 8-inch guns of USS Oregon showed what we could do with them off Santiago. Oregon was also a very fast ship for her day, though she took lots of green over her bow.

    • bilderbuster

      Just like The Russian Revolution was “Russian”

    • none of your business

      You mean the family that sent Trotsky and a couple hundred Russian immigrants living in Brooklyn back to Russia right before the revolution began? The family that gave money to Lenin in 1917 and 18 to pay for his rented mobs that overthrew Kerenskys government? Is that the family?

  • none of your business

    The Republicans are indeed worthless but I doubt the Tea Party and conservative Christians will help. The Tea Party and other conservatives seem to be unaware of White issues such as affirmative action, school integration and black on White crime. The only issues I care about are White issues. I admire you immensely for your work on the anti bussing issue. I think a school can only sustain about a 2 percent black population before things are destroyed. For a long time I hoped that those millions of White children who went to school with the OFEs would vote pro White. But they seem to have forgotten.
    OFE pronounced ofee, obsolete farm equipment.

    • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

      The Tea Party and other conservatives are certainly afraid to openly discuss White issues. They’ve been well conditioned to fear the dreaded “R” word, and convinced that those issues are electoral losers (which, at the moment, might be true). But they are certainly aware of them. And they’re going to be the only place where you’ll find any numerically significant support for policies which will affect those policies in a positive manner. Even if they won’t yet state so openly.

    • Stan D Mute

      +1 for the OFE acronym!

    • I hope Earl’s next feature article here on AR is about his days on the St. Louis City School Board and the turning point of the 1991 school board elections in St. Louis that drove home the importance of voter fraud. That would be one for the ages.

      I know AR is a tough crowd, and I know I’m one of the tougher nuts in the crowd. Not because we’re jerks for the sake of being jerks. It’s just that there are enough brains and experience here such that we can deconstruct arguments faster than a flock of vultures can strip apart a desert carcass.

      That said, and knowing Earl like I do, there’s a fair enough chance that we might have been too hard and we might have run him off. The only saving grace is that Earl wrote this for AR; if this would have been on Steve Sailer, the skewering would have been even more brutal.

  • JohnEngelman

    Ever since the Republican Party was founded in 1854 it has been dominated by the business community? Why does anyone expect things to change?

    • none of your business

      Why don’t you go online or to a university library and read about the Republican party’s founding manifesto and platform in 1856 Appleton Wis? The mission statement or manifesto or whatever they called it stated very,very clearly that the main purpose of the Republican party was to abolish slavery. The northern Democrats may or may not have been pro worker at the time, I don’t know.
      But I do know that the southern Democrats were in favor of big business, agricultural business but big business never the less. What to you think rice, cotton and tobacco were? Garden crops? What do you think the Mississippi Missouri riverine transport system was?
      You and I are about the same age. We had a similar high school history classes. The fact that the Republican party stated in 1856 that it was founded to abolish slavery was taught in standard high school history classes when we were taking US history.

      • JohnEngelman

        For northern factory owners the main issue was tariff protection. European factories usually produced better goods at lower prices, even when the cost of transporting the goods across the Atlantic Ocean was factored in.

        Southern cotton and tobacco producers produced the best cotton and tobacco in the world at the lowest prices. They did not need tariff protection. They resented paying tariffs for manufactured goods. They wanted a federal government that would promote free trade internationally.

        If the slaves were freed without compensation this would reduce the wealth and consequently the political power of Southern plantation owners. They would be less able to fight tariffs. Moreover, many of their former slaves would move north, apply for jobs in the factories, and enable the factory owners to lower wages.

        • none of your business

          When I confronted you with facts easily verified you just changed the subject to tariffs instead of the founding statements of the Republican party which said nothing about supporting business but was all about
          freeing the slaves. What makes you think that America produced the best tobacco and cotton? I know Virginia tobacco was supposed to be better than Turkish, but Egyptian cotton has always been considered superior to any other.

  • As a professor of university economics for 30 years I can tell you that people don’t care about obscure economic issues like marginal tax rates effect on incentives. They do care when a thug like St. Trayvon is allowed to roam the streets at night, doing foul deeds.

    I long ago switched from being an economic warrior to being a culture warrior. You can’t have a free, highly productive economy within the context of a sick culture. And boy, is America’s culture sick! Really, really sick.

    • adplatt126


    • meanqueen

      I was just thinking something like this but you said it better.

    • PesachPatriot

      Good point….white collar crime and wall street shenanigans are rather difficult for the average voter to understand…..most people can understand flash mobs, knockout games, home invasions and the ferguson riots pretty easily though

    • Touchstone, King of Fools (for

      Yes and…A stable and healthy culture can achieve reasonable economic prosperity even a less than optimal legal system. Industriousness and community can overcome a lot.

    • Ultimate187

      The problem with Amren’s discussions is that issues get intellectualized to the point where they no longer resonate with the average person. Things are too theoretical and less practical. It makes white nationalism less accessible. Topics and responses generated must be visceral.

  • MannyR

    The only way that conservatives are going winner back trajectory of this nation is to establish a vocal, militant, disciplined, openly hard right, pro white, working class party. Call them what you want, call the ideology what you want but that is the only way. Whites are tired of cultural Marxism and are ready to follow and vote for a strong and stern racially aware white movement. It’s already starting in Europe and I have a feeling it’s on it’s way here. They simply need to be organized and awakened.

  • There is a war being waged for the soul of the Republican Party. It
    consists of a loose alliance of Tea Party groups and traditional
    conservatives, who are trying to wrest control from the politically
    moderate businessmen who have misguided the GOP for decades.

    While the former group is preferable to the latter group, and while it has been pleasing to see the TPM leave the racial pandering of the early days of its existence in the dust and almost become a single issue immigration movement these days, the TPM/Reaganism/lamestream conservatism isn’t the right vehicle to carry the day for us, as long as that greater movement is hung up on variants of libertarian ideology.

    While it is a true that “those who pay the piper get to call the tune,”
    the influence of large, corporate contributors actually works to prevent
    the crafting of a sound Republican message with broad appeal. Most
    Republican businessmen fail to recognize that surviving ideological
    assaults requires engaging the Left on many fronts that go well beyond
    narrow public finance issues and tax policy. Their shortsightedness has
    prevented the GOP from attracting more Americans, particularly those who
    call themselves independents.

    It’s really not any of that. The “Republican business class” and the donor class don’t care, especially not about anything related to the future. All they want is whatever material products they get from their bastardizing the political process, and they want it now. They don’t care about “ideological assaults” from the left, because they don’t mind them. As long as taxes are low and immigration is high, they’re happy.

    Politics would make a lot more sense if we could just re-introduce a simple five letter word to our political lexicon: Greed. But why can’t we? For a lot of reasons, one big one is that the libertarian cult has brainwashed into turning greed into some sort of sociopolitical virtue, or at the very least precluding us from recognizing it for the pathological evil that it is, just as Satan’s greatest trick was convincing the world that he does not exist.

    Indeed, the economically oriented nature of Republican corporate
    contributors has often led to defeat because it avoids many compelling
    “social” issues with which we can win. This lack of enthusiasm for
    social issues seems to define most “moderate” and “establishment”
    Republicans, who seem to be particularly contemptuous of
    paleo-conservatives who have always preached the need to engage the Left
    on every front.

    It’s not just them. Hang around “white nationalism” for a long enough period of time and you’ll hear the same “drop the social issues” mantra emanating from some quarters of that/our movement.

    In fact, the forced integration of schools and neighborhoods, the
    pervasive nature of black violent crime, the tsunami of legal and
    illegal immigrants, and so-called “affirmative-action” in hiring and
    admissions play a far greater role in the lives of most Americans than
    do changes in marginal tax rates or interest payments on the national

    My day job, which is part political lobbying of Missouri state government, has me working around state legislators during the main legislative session and hobnobbing with them and their apparatchiks and staffers at other times. Aside from a few heroes among Republicans in the Missouri General Assembly, I can assure you that most Republicans in state politics are perfectly fine with forced racial desegregation of schools. All that is a function of how “conservatism” has become egalitarianized.

    The Left’s assault on the West involves a great deal more than
    economics: It targets every historical and cultural tradition, as well
    as every institution, principle, and value. And Since many “social”
    issues are not amenable to the kinds of cost-benefit analyses at which
    businessmen shine, Republicans are disarmed when faced with non-economic
    issues, and tend to address them in conformist and cowardly ways.

    The corporate Republicans are engaged in the same kind of assault, because it helps increase corporate profits.

    When Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty said a few things that
    annoyed homosexuals, Cracker Barrel immediately removed many
    Robertson-endorsed items from their shelves, in response to the
    predictable outcry from homosexual groups.

    In a sad irony, one of the Duck Dynasty principal actors ran for and won a seat in Congress from Louisiana in a special election recently, as a Republican, and once he got in, he immediately started flapping his gums for amnesty and open borders.

    The same businessmen tried to convince Reagan to jettison his pro-life
    stance, and convinced George W. Bush to support amnesty for illegal

    Reagan also gave us an amnesty bill, in 1986. As an aside, 1986 IRCA and its provision that allows the President unilaterally to grant work permits to illegal aliens is the legal justification Obama is using for DACA and he will use it again if he pulls off some sort of massive executive order.

    By emphasizing economic issues, Republicans have actually adopted a
    peculiar form of Marxism: They have joined the Left by endorsing
    economic determinism. A Republican Party of businessmen preoccupied with
    economic issues at the expense of everything else will remain a
    minority party forever, and will eventually disappear like the Whigs.

    Ordinarily, they would “disappear like the Whigs.” But the corporatist and purely economic determinist Republican Party can run on fumes for a long time as long as there are enough white people who vote for it purely out of fear of the extremism of the other party, or that it just happens to be “the other party” on the ballot when a Democrat President is lousing things up, the latter doctrine will largely fuel the red wave of one week from today.

    • Garrett Brown

      Who was the actor that got the seat in congress?

  • benvad

    Reagan was better but he still let business get away with murder.

  • Diversity Fatigue

    Amen, brother Holt, you nailed it! The business elite are often in lock-step with leftists and care only about their bottom line. We’re hanging on by our finger nails trying to preserve traditional America and we get … Rand Paul??

  • Rhialto

    The situation in American politics today is that the Democratic party has a definite ideological base, Liberalism. Love it or hate it, you know what the Dems’ agenda is, and what Democratic politicians will do if elected. The Repubs, on the other hand, don’t have any agenda except winning elections. Therefore the Repubs will campaign with whatever slogans their consultants advise them to use.

    In the 2008 election, the Dems were excited about all the Liberal progress that a Democrat president could achieve with a Dem congress. Today the Repubs are excited about winning control of Congress, not about any agenda.

    Of course, winning elections requires huge donations; huge donations requires rich donors; rich donors want massive immigration. So this explains Repub immigration platformage.

    • jayvbellis

      Solution is to go White populist – worked for George Wallace, works with a Kentucky coal miners. Run against hated, wealthy elites, unelected Fed judges who dictate homosexual marriage equality, dictate free K-18 public schools for illegal alien children, dictate ending public celebration of Christmas.

  • Dave4088

    Contemporary conservatives and Republicans think that low tax rates and sound economic policy makes for good race relations completely ignorant of the fact that non-whites place a premium on race. They are who Brooks Adams termed “economic men” who are self serving and have few principles other than economic gain whereas America’s founders were spiritual men acutely aware of race and racial differences.

    It was conservative icon Ronnie Reagan who signed the first amnesty in 1986 and the family reunification act into law which has led to the tsunami of non-whites into America. Ronnie no doubt believed in universal human equality (just like Marxists) and figured that the third world races he legalized and facilitated would eventually become conservative Republicans once they achieved economic prosperity; a belief that persists in conservative and “Tea Party” circles to this day.

    Republicans tend to believe that educated, middle class blacks are potential dittoheads when in reality they loathe white people probably more than working class blacks and vote Democrat.

    The way out of this mess is not through conservatism, inc.

    • Ultimate187

      Many “economic men” only care about financial gain because race genuinely doesn’t matter to them. They can buy themselves out of most situations they’re in. Money is leverage, and all people regardless of race obey the power of the dollar bill.

    • none of your business

      Asians have the highest household income and very high average income due to affirmative action in STEM jobs. But 30 years later they still vote 78 percent Democrat. They don’t donate though. So all Reagan did was bring in millions of democrat voters. Even the grandchildren of the anti communist pro Republican party
      Vietnamese refugees now vote Democrat due to brainwashing in college.

    • jayvbellis

      Reagan was simply old, senile in 2nd term. He and his long term advisors who were with him since California Governor Days were mostly just hanging on. Old guy Reagan still remembered that we Conservative Americans hated the Russians, so Cold War, “tear down the Berlin Wall” propaganda, policies still went on..

      This is yet another huge problem with our side, led by old men who are living in the past. Things change, sometimes for the good. Russia and Eastern Europe are now on our side. Old American Conservatives just can’t handle change.

  • Alexandra1973

    Ronald Reagan did not defeat Communism. Communism is alive and well here in the USSA.

    Look up the ten planks of Communism and you’ll see them all in play here.

    • Stan D Mute

      And I believe many of our fiercest Marxists were either directly or indirectly Soviet plants. How ironic that the Soviets will achieve the ruin of America even after their Soviet Republic has collapsed. I can imagine Lenin just amused to no end by Barak Obola, Hairy Red, and Nancy Pinko-ski.

      • none of your business

        Obama’s parents and the grandparents who raised him were all proud communists. There was a commie girl black man breeding program from about 1930 on. The object was to create an Obama and get him elected President. It succeeded.

    • Evette Coutier

      He defeated it overseas. To bad he didn’t defeat it here in America.

    • anony


  • Bo_Sears

    Analysis! Greatest thing since sliced bread.

    But only sustained obloquy heaped on individual heads will change the economists’ death-grip on America. Call them bigots, supremacists, and haters. Accuse them of promoting the anti-American narrative, the anti-Christian narrative, and the anti-white narrative that have been branded by a few onto the souls of the many.

    Pick them out one at a time and attackback with ferocity. It isn’t about debate over policy as it may have been at one time.

  • dave

    The Republicans are no different than the Commiecrats. Opposite sides of the same coin. If the Republicans take both houses, they will NOT impeach Obama for one reason and one reason only.

  • Rurik

    If there was ever any question about this in the past, certainly now, you are correct in spades (no humor intended).These social issues have assumed an unprecedented centrality to the politics of ordinary Americans. One only need to look at the commentary threads of the major news and political sites to see that Immigration, Race, and homosexuality are the three topics which invariably elicit the most responses.

  • Sick of it

    Most Ron Paul supporters would agree…

  • adplatt126

    Corporate personhood is no doubt a problem, but Citizens United while lamentable, is unfortunately the proper constitutional decision. There’s the rub. Ultimately the problem lies with the people. It is they who must rise up and refuse to vote in those vermin owned by major corporations, but alas, they never wise up.

    • Citizens United is a political organization, not a quintessential corporation.

      At law, corporations are artificial persons. That has always been the case in American corporation law.

      The problem with big money ruining democracy isn’t big money, it’s democracy.

  • adplatt126


  • Evette Coutier

    The GOP is worthless because:
    They don’t support our interests.
    They place their genetic identity at the bottom of the list.
    They stand for nothing.

    Their only redeeming quality is they are marginally better than democrats in some cases.

  • Stephen Manning

    According to CNN exit polls –no rightwing bias suspected– in the 2012 election, 90% of Romney votes came from Whites. 90%. For all other racial groups and for powerful minority groups like gays, Jews and unmarried females, no fewer than 70% voted Democrat. In short, the ONLY people who give a hoot about the Republican party are Whites. We are its only support. And they are the only public voice we could have to advocate for us as we fall headlong toward minority status in our own country. But what do we see? Pandering to Hispanics and panicked avoidance of naming the only Americans who every pull the lever for them. Worthless? Yes. Maybe even worse than that.

    • I believe the word you’re looking for is “traitorous.”

    • Linus Byfånelund

      Its because white americans are a captured voting block, its not like they are going vote democrat so what are they going to do? Practically it means that the repedopublican leadership have free hands to “reach out and around” to non-white americans as much as they want to.

  • Harry

    “Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”

    Karl Marx, 1867

    • none of your business

      He wrote a lot of truths. The one I like most is the more workers there are the lower wages will fall. David Ricardo also said it in the 18th century.

  • Gary John 金白龍

    Anyone who is not actively trying to prevent Whites being displaced is worthless.

  • none of your business

    The 2 parties remind me of puppies begging and groveling for treats. Only they are begging and groveling to blacks and browns for votes.

  • WR_the_realist

    Republicans are indeed useless. Democrats are destructive. Nearly every Democratic politician favors illegal immigration amnesty. And every single Democratic politician favors affirmative action, racial set asides, and federal control of our public schools. Republicans never undo the damage Democrats do, with few exceptions they just do what globalist corporations want them to do. John Engleman votes for Democrats because he wants to tax the rich, but Democrats never do that — they tax the middle class. Do you really think they’re going to bite Mark Zuckerberg’s or George Soro’s hand? And when Bill Clinton amasses a $48 million fortune by speaking before rich and influential people, we all know he’s selling access to his Secretary of State wife and future president.

    So our choice is always to vote for a destructive Democrat or a useless Republican.

  • Harry Savannah

    Indeed, the R.party is WORTHLESS. I voted for the final time for federal candidates in 2012. I always felt compelled out of desperation to vote for the mere demonic rather than for Satan himself. But the demon turns out to be more loathesome than the latter in his treachery, hypocrisy, and contemptuousness of those who, as I say, indesperation have empowered him. This is my final word to the R. party: GO TO HELL!

  • Peter Connor

    Republican economics are also highly defective, promoting “free” trade that goes only one way and open borders that will destroy the very nation they live in. Unfortunately for Karl Rove, the rubes have started to figure it out–Perot was right, and then some.

    • Carney3

      Free trade and open immigration are VERY different issues. It’s possible, and desirable, for free trade to exist without necessarily allowing open immigration.

      • Peter Connor

        That’s what they taught you in school–not true in the real world. In the EU, there is mandatory free movement of people, so immigrants sneak in and spread.

        • Carney3

          The fact that the EU has freedom of movement in no way refutes my point.

          • Peter Connor

            Your 19th century theory point is refuted by reality–name one group that has Free Trade and doesn’t have substantial immigration of people, jobs, and capital.

      • jayvbellis

        Paleo Libertarians (free trade, closed immigration) have been all but purged from American Libertarian society, Conservative Inc. instead, Libertarian loon President candidate Gary Johnson was mouthing open border lunacy again, and he ended up winning 0% anyway.

        It’s a cult guys.

        Not our cult.

  • Carney3

    Columnists often do not choose their headlines, editors do. Sometimes an inflammatory headline the columnist had no idea about or input into gets more attention than the column. I wonder if that happened here; if Mr. Holt did not write or choose this headline.

    His column complains about one faction in the Republican coalition – the economically conservative pro-business establishment. But he does not condemn the Republican Party is intrinsically “worthless” – he warns that a Republican Party consisting only of that faction cannot survive in the long term.

  • rechill

    I hear so many self-styled Independents who endlessly complain that only by being fiscally conservative can the GOP stand a chance of gaining voters. If only they’d dump the “religious right extremists”. Isn’t this what they’ve been doing since at least the 2000 elections? Doesn’t seemed to have worked out as planned.

  • jayvbellis

    Whites in the US South have all the State houses through the Southern Republican Party. In the South, the Democrat Party is seen as the party of Blacks, homosexual extremists, anti Southern Northeast, Hollywood (Jewish) elites. Somehow this all fits with some warped Mike Huckabee , Lispy Linsey Graham Christian Zionist theology that Jews in Israel are the Chosen People of God as fundamentally stated in the Bible.

    But, Whites in the South, through the state and local Republican Party do have control of elected offices. There is this no reason to waste time dreaming about new parties, just work to make that White Republican political control in the South work better for our people. Stress state and local control of education, the media. Find some state and local Whites in the GOP with some courage and a set of ….

    Looking for the first Southern state to enact “nullification” – laws and regulations by the Holderesque US Justice Department are now “null and void” , law degrees from Harvard and Yale Law Schools are not recognized in Any Southern States.

    But, be ready for lots and lots of know it all White folks in the South and elsewhere to keep pushing race denying Constitutionalist nonsense, libertarian free market third parties, the Ron Paul and Rand Paul cult.

  • jayvbellis

    Israeli Jews and Jews in the diaspora also do not tolerate fools or traitors like our Ron and Rand Pauls who recognized full US citizenship to the nastiest Arab Muslim extremist leader in Yemen (killed by US military drone attack). These race denying Constitutionalist loons argued that this Afro Arab terrorist leader in Yemen was yes a full American citizen because of the legal technicality of “birth right citizenship”. There has never been a single Jewish member of the Israeli Knesset that has publicly supported granting full Israeli citizenship to children of Arab Muslim extremists born in Israel.

  • jayvbellis

    Thanks Roger.

  • Pathfinder75

    “Rand Paul is a narcissistic,spoiled little frat boy.”

    He’s also a sanctimonious,self-righteous, and hypocritical coward,to boot.

  • sulbernick

    A leaflet from the local Conservative Party (UK) was put through my letter box a couple of weeks ago – the headline, People not Politics. Conservatives/Republicans don’t like politics, they all prefer to hide behind economics. It means they don’t have to put their heads abouve the parapet.

  • Puggg

    I’m sorry, but what’s worthless here is this article. It sounds like it was written by someone who is just a conservative Republican who doesn’t like black people, not a true white nationalist.

    And it comes off as confused and jumble brained for this reason.

    So what if “real” conservatives and Republican corporate types are fighting with each other? And so what if “real” conservatives win? “Real” conservatives to our cause are useless anyway. I’m pretty new to this cause, and the more I read and come to understand about Reagan, the only “real” conservative president in my lifetime, the less impressed I get.

    • I am a very, very fiscal conservative, especially at home, and my take on blacks has been plain as day for my last decade posting here. You don’t always get White Nationalists; sometimes you get people with very strange personal histories who will agree with you on most points, but not all of them.

      • Puggg

        Maybe I should not have barked so loud.

        A conservative Republican who doesn’t like blacks is way better than a conservative Republican that drools over blacks, which is most of them. I’d vote for a conservative Republican who doesn’t like blacks over a conservative Republican that likes blacks every day of the week. I’d vote for a conservative Republican that doesn’t like blacks over almost all liberals every day of the week. But since I’m a dog, I would have to cast this vote in Chicago, which is the only place where dogs are allowed to vote.

        It’s just that I think our cause needs a lot more than just plain conservative Republicans.

        What you do to save money in your house is home economics, not politics.

        • Politics is every bit of it, because I would like this done on a national level.

        • Sick of it

          How could someone truly be conservative and yet spit on centuries of American tradition and belief? A guy can’t be conservative and socialist in this country…socialism was an invading force, so to speak, not something native to this land. What are such “conservatives” conserving? They’re trying to rewrite human history and create something ENTIRELY NEW! They were originally dubbed Radical Republicans…not conservatives.

  • Which sort of nationalists would you like? If X and Y come into an equation, you get a product of Z, which might be a positive or negative number.

  • Ringo Lennon

    Republicans don’t know how to capitalize on situations either because of stupidity or by design. Can’t figure it out yet.

    • Evette Coutier

      It’s due to ego.

  • Jade1

    Could not agree more with this article.

  • Fidel Cashflow

    While the party as a whole is obviously useless, let us not forget that there are individual Republicans who have stood by their principles, and deserve our vote. Total abstention is not the answer–for example, Jeff Sessions should be receiving support from every immigration patriot.

    • Just a few days ago, one of the mainstream media newspapers in Alabama ran an article handicapping Jeff Sessions’s chances in the early Republican primary and caucus states if he ran for President. The Iowa caucuses are first, and they figured that he could win them just by being the most socially conservative candidate in the race, and he probably would be, not even counting the immigration issue. Next is New Hampshire, and as luck would have it, Jeff Sessions is spending a lot of time in New Hampshire to get Scott Brown elected; sly of him to raise his name recognition in what is key early state. Then after that is South Carolina, and while historically, the South Carolina primaries have been somewhat Republican establishment friendly, any Southerner, real or pretend, will have an advantage there, as Newt Gingrich won South Carolina in 2012. The author’s conclusion is that he could go three for three in the first three states in geographically disparate areas, and this could create a lot of momentum behind him for the rest of the primary season.

      I think Jeff Sessions could go three for three in the early states, but I also have enough experience that the Republican establishment firewall in later contests burns a lot of populist outsider momentum to the ground.

  • Don’t worry, I’m not sarcastic in my day job material. Which nobody outside the line of work of my day job would be interested in reading.

    Someone who had the great ability to velvet glove the sarcastic bone-grinding knife was Sam Francis.

    • Earl P. Holt III

      Sam Francis did not promote himself endlessly: His efforts were for the benefit of the cause of conservatism…

  • Sloppo

    The Republican Party is not worthless. It’s worth a lot of money to the people who own it. Unfortunately, those people do not like us.

  • ricpic

    I agree with the author that the Republican Party takes a businessman’s approach to politics and therefore will never stand firm against the Left. But the problem is even deeper than that. The Republican base is not conservative, or to be more accurate the base is composed of at least as many squishy moderates – who are scared by straight talk – as it is of conservative fighters. Witness the fact that it is the base that always picks the Republican Establishment’s candidate at the presidential level and most always at the congressional level when offered the choice between a RINO and a Tea Party type. Niceness trumps everything in the Republican (politicians and base) scale of values and niceness translates to doing anything (or going along with anything) to avoid unpleasantness.

  • Charles Martel

    The GOP needs a candidate that will stand for the white people.

    • Christorchaos

      Stand for something, anyway… other than big business

  • David Feeney

    Good article. I’d like to add, it was Republican shortsightedness that is responsible for so many people identifying as Independent. Look at it this way, if you are on the left, what is it you want that the Democrats haven’t given you, are fighting to get for you or are discussing?
    Answer, nothing.

    If you are on the right, aside from lower taxes or a strong military, what have the Republicans given you, fighting to get you or are discussing?
    Answer, nothing.

    Say what you want, the Democrats listen to it’s base and seeks to please them. Republicans don’t.

    • Angelo Codevilla once relayed the results of a poll that showed that a very big majority of Democrats are happy with the Democrat Party, while only a minority of Republicans are happy with the Republican Party.

      As far as I can tell, as of right now, the three big minor hangups that the doctrinaire left has with the Democrat Party and its current senior leadership and high level elected politicians are: The NSA spying issue, and the party leadership being too close to Wall Street, and Obama is too much like Bush on military interventionism.

    • UncleSham

      I think you are right to an extent, but I think Democrat voter satisfaction also has to due with their ideology forcing them to believe that people in the government actually care about them. The Democrats are just as beholden to the big corporations as the Republicans, but their base hates big corporations. What is impressive about Democrat rhetoric is that they are able to convince their base that they are fighting against the corporations while actually doing the exact opposite. Prime example: Obamacare. They told their base that people are uninsured and health care is too expensive because of corporate greed, and that the Affordable Care Act would fix all that. Yet what the bill actually does is compel people to purchase a product from a corporation whether they want that product or not. They convinced people that they could stick it to the corporations by forcing everyone to buy their products. Yeah, that’ll show ’em.

  • MBlanc46

    It’s not short-sightedness. It’s who they are. Our only hope is that the weaker of the two parties will disappear a la the Whigs in the 1850s and that anti-globalizers can force their way into the political system.

  • Jacobite2

    We can blame welfare programs for the breakup of minority families. But the divorce rate and rampant bastardy that’s afflicting whites is not a product of welfare, but the result of the no-fault divorce laws of the 70s. Strictly a social issue. I believe Reagan signed one such bill in California while Governor. Just as we knew Romney-Care Mitt wasn’t going to oppose O’bwana-Care, so Ramblin’ Ron was not going to oppose easy divorce. Elect a good man and the politics will take care of itself.

    • Keepin’itREALISTic

      So right you are, Jacobite2.

      No-fault divorce is the greatest success of The Leftist War of Attrition on Western Civilization.

      The wealth the west has generated to the benefit of mankind was built upon Jesus’ law permitting sex only within marriage and only when neither spouse has a living former spouse. When the law and culture mandate that you only get one and it’s for life, couples honor their promises “for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health” through adversity. Each man whether richest or poorest has the same most critical asset: one woman for life, regardless of how the winds of fortune blow upon him. Prohibiting a secondary market in spouses precluded the problems so rampant today.

      Reagan signed the California law in 1969 and all the other state legislatures followed suit quickly enacting similar statutes to make the work day easier for state judges. Now the Divorce Industry has replaced manufacturing as a leading employer in most states and the majority of Divorce Industry laborers are not at the private bar but rather fellow state employees (the army that staffs “The Friend of the Court”) of those now on the necessarily-much-larger state bench whose predecessors needed work relief at the expense of children’s homes.

      While the state legislatures were doing that dirt the federal courts were ordering school integration which meant vastly more white children became exposed daily to the culture of black promiscuity and promise-breaking. Every white child born after the 1950s who attended an integrated school was, before reaching reproductive age, exposed to black classmates who were ambulatory evidence of the negro’s “fleeting attention and roaming affection” as U.S. Colored Troops Union Army amputee veteran William Hannibal Thomas wrote in his 1901 classic “The American Negro”. Elementary school children began having black classmates who had siblings in the next grade with different surnames and guys called “mama’s boyfriend” picking them up at school.

      Then in 1972 the SCOTUS trashed the cultural and state law moral norm of chastity outside of marriage in Eisenstadt v. Baird. Patrick Fagan insightfully states “Having set chaos in motion in Eisenstadt, the Supreme Court quickly built the garbage bin for dumping sexual debris in Roe v. Wade, which gave a green light to the killing of 55 million unborn children, the overwhelming majority of whom were conceived by those unmarried singles with new access to contraceptives.”

      The leading exploiters of divorce-for-any-or-no-reason “rights” against the interests of their own children are “educated” black women. Check the stats. As the ultimate members of The Affirmative Action Privileged Class, these women have had paths paralleling Michelle Obama’s where every advantage has been handed them in academia and employment beyond merit. So spoiled are they that the first sign of adversity in marriage is so foreign to their sense of entitlement to life on Easy Street that they sprint to divorce.

      Blacks need to stop being so mindlessly militant about exercising their “rights” and instead need to start showing some sense by doing right.

  • Earl P. Holt III

    What could Reagan have done to change your life in the “Rust Belt” by the time the “Democrats” were through with it, and the nigros were knee-deep? Did you guys expect him to show up at your doorsteps with bags of cash? Reagan created 22 million new jobs in this country, which SHOULD prompt you to ask yourselves: “Why didn’t I benefit from that?”

    Why did you hang around such deterioration? (I left St. Louis and never looked back.) There’s a lot of truth in a statement Rush Limbaugh frequently makes: (Paraphrase) “Frequently, we, ourselves are the only thing that is really holding us back from success.”

  • Earl P. Holt III

    You are delusional: Too bad you don’t realize it…

  • Stan D Mute

    Not confused, fed up. We already have de facto amnesty and have had it for a long time. When was the last time you heard about illegals running away from La Migra? They’re out in the open getting mortgages! What are republicans doing? Where is the border fence? The fact is they’ll put up just enough of a show of opposition to fool enough gullible whites to win elections and then sit on their hands for two, four, or six years depending on their office.

  • Transpower

    The Republican party should embrace minarchy: the minimal state. It should promote individual liberty, self-responsibility, small government, free enterprise, and a strong defense. It should be in favor of maximum civil and economic liberty. There should be no discrimination for or against any individual or group; affirmative action and the welfare state should be abolished.

    • Spikeygrrl

      Spot on, and thanks for knowing that minarchy is NOT monarchy sans spellchecker.

  • Demo P. Seal; PouponMarks

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
    -Edmund Burke

    “The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”
    ― Frédéric Bastiat

    “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
    ― Frédéric Bastiat