Pyrrhic Polls

luegenpresse

Experts agree: White identity politics is on the rise, and it’s driven by diversity and expressed through Donald Trump. That’s what a study by two psychology academics found:

In a study of white Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success reflects the rise of “white identity politics” – an attempt to protect the collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.

We’re not the first to tie Trump’s candidacy to white identity politics. But our data provide some of the clearest evidence that ongoing demographic changes in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump.

….

Why does it matter that whites’ politics are driven by concerns about the interests of their racial group? It suggests that racial bias increasingly reflects attention to the welfare of one’s own group rather than animus toward other groups. These collective concerns are only going to become more pronounced as the nation becomes more diverse.

Recent research in social psychology suggests that when whites engage in discrimination based on their perceived collective interests, it’s hard to convince them that such discrimination is wrong. After all, doesn’t every group have a right to prioritize its own members? We believe our results portend increasing difficulty in achieving the democratic aim of getting race out of American politics.

The Alt-Right has of course noted since the earliest days of the Trump campaign that his success could be attributed to a kind of White populism, which merges civic nationalism, White identity politics, and anti-globalism. This is distinct from White nationalism and from the formal Alt-Right, but represents a favorable Overton window shift. We’ve also argued that ethnic tensions wrought by ballooning vibrancy levels will only accelerate this trend further and lead to White political awakening. The rising tide of color will be met eventually, rather than completely swamping us, if identitarian trends persist among Whites.

In other words, we are set up to do very, very well regardless of what happens on November 8th. A Trump victory would probably do more to help the United States than it would to help our movement, as odd as that may sound at first. But if the polls are to be believed, and I think they are partially correct, Trump’s odds of winning have dipped sharply since the summer. As rational people, this is an outcome we cannot afford to ignore. A Clinton victory would solidify the demographic and cultural damage done during the Obama administration and reconfirm the position of the (anti-white) occupation government. It would result in open borders, the granting of citizenship to millions of illegal third world colonists, and the importation of millions more.

This despite all evidence that doing so raises White racial consciousness, which is the single greatest threat to deracinated neoliberalism and cultural marxism on both sides of the Atlantic. This despite the fact that by growing the ranks of their electoral supporters through mass immigration (the source of most population growth since 1965), the left has also polarized and increased the ranks of its revolutionary White enemies. This despite the fact that minoritizing the White population will actually undermine the profitability and stability of the host society as its number of dependents soars while producers shrink relative to them. Our enemies do not believe in making any sort of compromises with folkish White people, who merely remain an obstacle to be overcome.

Trump is probably the last chance to shore up the United States, and were  more of our people in positions of influence, that would absolutely be a good thing. We would certainly want to play a role in reorganizing this country to the benefit of our people, something we are currently disenfranchised from doing. At minimum it would at least give us more opportunities to organize and spread our memes.

But that may not happen. Instead the United States may be headed down the path of a more radical transformation in the hands of leftists. Every year the country becomes less White as a proportion and a Democratic administration would accelerate this. We will start to enter a painful transitional period much faster if they are in power rather than civic nationalists like Trump, who we would be able to work with on some level and perhaps even lead ideologically as a radical foil. Think of the relationship between Hungary’s Fidesz and Jobbik parties for example, one being nationalist and one more ethno-nationalist. We aren’t anywhere near that yet. If Clinton wins, we may skip the political route entirely and procede straight to other forms of metapolitical struggle and civil institution-building.

But there is still plenty to celebrate. A Democratic victory will also be deeply unsatisfying for the hostile elite. Remember, 95% of the popular vote was supposed to go to Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Instead, over two-fifths of the goyim will have revolted and called for one of their adopted own to be tribune. That’s extremely problematic. The fact that Hillary won’t win by 50%, as she has protested, was no idle banter. The hostile elite wanted a mandate victory and they won’t get it, thus undermining their consensus administration’s legitimacy. Prepare for the onslaught of coordinated media output blaming all White people for not doing more to stop Trump from unleashing the Pandora’s box of racism and hate. It was one thing for Obama to beat Romney by a few points, for both Romney and Obama were workable at worst (and ultimately part of the regime either way). But Trump? An insurgent since day one, and his campaign a black mark on the moral authority of American dildocracy.

And what will become of his supporters? Do they move left because they lost on their existential issues against a coalition of Davos men, overseas Israelis, and Hart-Celler Americans? Will these people dutifully rally behind Paul Ryan in 2020? Will Breitbart call for bipartisanship? Is anyone going to morally bend the knee for yet another traitor in chief?

But who knows, maybe the slumbering monstrosity we call the people have one last charge left in them. The British did earlier this year.

Author’s note: Hillary Clinton regularly enables negro violence and is a serial liar, ethno-masochistic xenophile, anti-white, misanthrope, and amnesty advocate who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Esoteric Kekists, 14.88 million members of an entire religion—from spreading dank memes.

This entry was posted in America, Ideology, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Pyrrhic Polls

  1. lingane says:

    plox, were do you find this map of roman empire ?

    First time I see roman empire’s map with rightful borders of Gaul.

    Like

    • 1864_Johnson_Map_of_the_Roman_Empire_-_Geographicus_-_RomanEmpire-johnson-1864.jpg if that helps

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bar Tar says:

        I’m looking at the map:

        (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/1864_Johnson_Map_of_the_Roman_Empire_-_Geographicus_-_RomanEmpire-johnson-1864.jpg)

        …but it seems to indicate that Germania was ever under the thumb of Rome. This is ludicrous. The whole point of Tacitus’s Germania is the Romans ran up against the Germans and never made it past the Danube and the Rhine. And this was during the time of Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus, arguably the height of Roman power, certainly well before any significant decline in Roman military power.

        And Scandinavia, part of Rome? Please.

        Like

      • You don’t see the big pink border?

        Like

      • Bar Tar says:

        I see it stretching across the Danube and the Rhine. If it’s meant to indicate the frontier of the empire, it does a piss-poor job. Dacia was a Roman province, is right next to Germania, and is the exact same color as both Dacia as well as Italia itself. There are uncolored areas fully enclosed within the empire not ensconced by any “frontier border”. Scandinavia is the same color as Gallia, which was in fact under Rome, yet there is zero visual indication to indicate that Scandinavia was under Rome. In contrast, there is coloration in England stopping presumably at the Hadrian wall, yet no “frontier border” to indicate the fact that the Romans didn’t just stop there of their own volition but were repelled by the Scotsmen. It also seems to lack directionality despite implying directionality, as in the east the empire included much of what is now Iran yet the “frontier border” near that location makes little sense.

        It’s a terrible map all around. The Germania coloration is bad, the “frontier border” lines are terrible, but worst is the coloration of Scandinavia. Most colored areas are within the empire, and most uncolored areas are without the empire, yet Scandinavia is colored the same as Gallia and there is no way to independently determine that it was without the empire, and no way of knowing without prior knowledge. Hell, why isn’t Scotland colored? Ireland? Why not anything east of Germania?

        Nonsensical.

        Like

  2. Michael Adkins says:

    We might start by creating “our” definition of a European male who is a follower of white identity politics. What are his aspirations for the future?

    Like

  3. BroncoColorado says:

    Thanks to Trump the battle lines are now quite fluid, we can expect enemy attempts at flanking attacks, but we are now much freer to attack the enemy rear.

    Like

  4. Michael Adkins says:

    One goal might be to ‘stop Abraham deciding our reproductive lives.’

    Like

    • Steel T Post says:

      That means repenting of the belief in a magical rabbi who promises eternity with him in a “New Jerusalem,” and a renewal of referring to our own soil as “The Holy Land.”

      Like

  5. Miha M says:

    Personally I dont think white identity is on the rise because of demographics, but because society, security and economy are going down the drain. Multiculturalism is only tolerable in prosperity. Some might argue that demographics is part of the reason why all of it is on decline. But apartheid South Africa proves that things can stay in order if whites are left in charge.

    Like

  6. Senatssekretär Freistaat Danzig says:

    Reblogged this on behindertvertriebentessarzblog.

    Like

  7. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/10/30) - Social Matter

  8. Pingback: Freedom, Liberty, Posterity: A Tripartite Case for Amerikaner Nationalism | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  9. Pingback: Now I am become President, Leader of the Free World | ATLANTIC CENTURION

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s