Subscribe via RSS Feed

Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

Kevin MacDonald | My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008, the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.

Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama–80% on average. Asians have become like Jews in their voting—focused not on their economic position so much as their identification with non-White America. Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).

Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the youngest age category (18–29 years)–those most influenced by Sumner Redstone’s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young audiences–voted Republican (51% to 41%).

So the Republican Party is the White people’s party. The media is screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it is very unlikely to work.

It’s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal article (“California’s Greek Tragedy“), two Stanford professors, Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that

from the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000. … With 12% of America’s population, California has one third of the nation’s welfare recipients. (see here)

And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3 majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation will look like soon.

So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It’s going to make for a very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.

And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews and Asians—they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the party of non-White America independent of social class.

White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will continue to decline. It’s no accident that stocks of gun companies soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive White’ category used by the media) are now pretty much officially disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding population. That’s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016 because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.

This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent. But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham O’Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.

There is an alternative! Join us! The American Third Position, the party for White American interests and White American values!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: American Voice, Establishment News

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Native American says:

    The irony is the "Southern Strategy" (appealing to white voters) won landslides for the GOP. The newer "Hispanic Strategy" has lost repeatedly. If the A3P could but replace the GOP as a mainstream party, it could dominate US elections – easier said that done though.

    In the UK, Disraeli convinced the Conservatives to vote for the Reform Act 1867 with the argument they would be grateful. The Conservatives lost the next general election.

    The only Latinos who will ever reliably vote Republican are Cubans, who are understandably anti-Communist having come from Communist Cuba.

    • Native American says:

      To clarify: The Reform Act 1867 extended the vote to all male householders.

      If Republicans grant amnesty or back increased immigration, Latinos will not be grateful.

      People vote their interests.

    • Joseph says:

      Bringing up the southern strategy's a good point- the demographic shift has been used to justify the GOP courting Latino votes, despite clearly not working. At the same time, it reminds me of a scene from the documentary Harlan County, USA- "You turn on your TV and see them people with their signs, 'Impeach Nixon, impeach Nixon!' But we stand out there with our signs protesting Duke Powers, and sick their gun-thugs on us!"
      I can't remember who made the point, but quite a while ago I read about how the GOP would do better to court white labor than hispanics. Honestly, it's the only path for white interest. The moneyed interest wants to keep the border open to keep wages down, and customs low so the can build overseas. We're destroying our culture and heritage for the sake of WalMart stock, is that really worth it?

  2. Native American says:

    Ah, a friend pointed out to me in an e-mail: Many Cubans are of Spanish descent, so they're European as opposed to Amerindian or Mestizo. The "Hispanic" or "Latino" category should be divided.

  3. Mary Lou Welz says:


  4. Joseph says:

    Secede, so we can abandon the rest of our brothers to Hispanics, and the world to the Han? No thanks, fighting it out’s the only real solution.

    Besides, if any one should be leaving this union, it’s NYC, LA, San Fran, etc. Fuck, give Detroit sovereignty and the rest of the country will improve overnight.

  5. Joseph says:

    Then I, and you, iirc, would be seriously fucked being left in a NYS still attached to NYC!

  6. Joseph says:

    Actually, if we selected just five areas, Detroit/Flint, Chicago/Gary, NYC, Bay area, and Greater LA all have undue effects on both their states and national elections. Philadelphia, as well, but atleast three of those cities could subsist on their own, and all are far out of tune with the sentiments of the rest of the nation.

Leave a Reply

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.