TRUMP RE-TWEETS MUSLIM ATTACK VIDEOS

 

British PM rips Trump for re-tweeting Muslim attack videos from UK account

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD TRUMP, HAS RETWEETED THREE OF DEPUTY LEADER JAYDA FRANSEN’S TWITTER VIDEOS! DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF HAS RETWEETED THESE VIDEOS AND HAS AROUND 44 MILLION FOLLOWERS! GOD BLESS YOU TRUMP! GOD BLESS AMERICA! OCS @JaydaBF@realDonaldTrump

Once Great Britain Under Occupation

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 1, 2017

Will President Trump help liberate it?

The Roman Republic was born when a Roman woman, Lucretia, was raped by the Etruscan king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Humiliated, Lucretia killed herself. The outraged noble families of the city avenged their ravaged daughter and drove out their foreign overlords, establishing a new state that would endured for centuries and built an empire that would define Western Civilization.

“Lucretia” (Rembrandt, 1664)

The reverse is occurring in the United Kingdom. Once the seat of an empire on which the sun never set, the United Kingdom hosts an insular, hostile, foreign population that is colonizing the home islands. The “grooming,” assault, and rape of English girls in Rotherham and elsewhere, explicitly motivated by racial contempt, occurred for over a decade. More than one victim committed suicide. Yet the aristocrats of once-Great Britain, those with titles and those who simply enjoy wealth and power, did not rise in anger and revulsion to avenge their daughters. The public officials who looked the other way were not even punished.

What did rouse the guardians of British virtue to fury was President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed. President Trump, as he often does, retweeted some videos he found interesting. They had been posted by Jayda Fransen, deputy leader of a small British political group called Britain First.

The result was outrage from the entire British political class. In one of the mildest reactions, Prime Minister Theresa May simply called President Trump wrong. Scotland’s First Minister argued a state visit planned by President Trump should be halted, explaining that the presidential retweet “risks legitimizing those who want to spread fear and hatred.”

Some politicians went further, with Chris Bryant of the Labour Party demanding Donald Trump be arrested if the President of the United States ever visits our ally. It should be noted that Mr. Bryant is a former vicar of the Church of England. The archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Communion, is demanding Donald Trump delete his tweets.

Other members of Parliament claimed the presidential retweets constituted a crime.

I asked the Home Secretary this morning if the US President or indeed Twitter have committed a crime for inciting racial religious hatred. The Home Sec says she will not comment on individual cases. I think he has committed a crime.

One of the strongest condemnations came from London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who also wants the state visit cancelled. This is ironic considering a highlight of Mayor Khan’s career as a lawyer was trying to get the United Kingdom to lift a travel ban on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Khan described Minister Farrakhan as a “the leader of a vast section of the black community” and denied that Mr. Farrakhan was anti-Semitic or preached a message of “racial hatred or antagonism.”

What Mr. Khan evidently does consider a message of “racial hatred” include three videos of:

  • A “Muslim migrant” attacking a Dutch boy on crutches
  • Someone smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary while making pro-Muslim declarations
  • A man being pushed off a roof in Egypt

The mainstream media have declared the videos “discredited,” especially the first. The Dutch Embassy noted proudly in a tweet that the lout attacking the boy on crutches had been “born and raised in the Netherlands.” That would certainly not stop him from being a Muslim. A Dutch source did deny the dusky attacker was Muslim, but offered no evidence or identification.

The other two videos show what they appear to show, with one probably taken in Syria, and the other during a time of political turmoil in Egypt. Those responsible for the killing in Egypt were punished years later.

But the real outrage seemed to be less about the videos and more about the signal boost President Trump provided to Britain First, universally described as a “far-right” group. Needless to say, Britain First goes out of its way to deny “racism.” Indeed, the first thing you will find at its website is a lengthy explanation of why the group is not racist, and a rather embarrassing collection of blacks supposedly attending the group’s rallies.

However, Britain First does insist on the “maintenance of the indigenous British people as the demographic majority within our own homeland” and the support of “Christianity as the foundation of our society and culture.” These views were self-evident until the recent past; today, they are virtually illegal.

Indeed, Miss Fransen is facing charges because of speeches she made during a rally opposing terrorism in Northern Ireland. The terse announcement by the police did not identify what Miss Fransen did that they claim is illegal. She had said: “The world is at war with Islam. Every single Muslim is obligated to kill you and your husbands and your wives and your children.” She also condemned the violence of Irish republicans, whom she described as “not Christian.”

Miss Fransen has been in legal trouble for other speeches. As Vice gleefully reported, she was convicted of a “hate crime” for saying Muslim men force women to cover up to avoid being raped because “they cannot control their sexual urges.” This, she added, was “why they are coming into my country, raping women across the continent.” She was also charged with “religiously aggravated harassment” because of “the distribution of leaflets and the posting of online videos during the trial of Muslim men who were subsequently found guilty of rape.”

Such rhetoric may sound uncouth to some, but it is hardly criminal in a free country. Even her most confrontational statements and tactics pale in comparison to the antics of groups such as FEMEN, which are celebrated by the same Western media that professes such outrage today.

Miss Fransen asked President Trump for help:

And she is right to do so. For Britain can in no sense be called a free country. Policing online social networking sites for “hate speech” is now a routine job for British law enforcement. As English author David Webb notes, such “hate speech” restrictions are far more strictly enforced against white men than against non-white minorities. These campaigns are cheered on by the mainstream and non-white volunteer commissars, who urge the police to become involved if they read things they don’t like online. More than 3,000 people were arrested for online speech in 2016. A determination of whether a “hate crime” took place depends on the feelings of the “victim,” meaning that even “unfriendliness” can justify charges.

Such speech laws are especially chilling because British police were recently given unprecedented powers to spy on the electronic communications of the Queen’s subjects. The number, variety, and reach of “equality laws” has also vastly increased since Tony Blair’s “New Labour” government opened Britain to mass Third World immigration. These laws are now being used to prohibit white people from applying for jobs within their own country.

Yet even as the traditional liberties of the English people have dwindled, security cameras are ubiquitous, police are trying to enforce “knife control,” and crime is increasing nationwide, with London now more dangerous than New York City. Police, unable to cope, are simply releasing suspects and “hoping for the best,” according to Police Federation chairman Steve White.

The threat of terrorism has also grown so dramatically that the security state is practically useless. The British press has reported tens of thousands of jihadists in Britain, and those are only the ones known to the authorities. Hundreds of “British” fought for the Islamic State while actual British soldiers were cursed and jeered by Muslims upon their return. Terrorism, of course, is the excuse for even further crackdowns on freedom of speech, which, naturally, can be directed against the “far right.”

Indeed, even as Islamic radicalism goes unchecked, attempts by the indigenous British to organize have been met with persecution, as people such as former English Defense League leader Tommy Robinson can testify. The British police also used what has been termed “exemplary sentencing” to break white working class resistance to Muslim immigration, with the British government imposing harsh punishments against any crimes perceived to be directed against immigrants. At the same time, the violent activists known as antifa enjoy all but unanimous support from the political establishment; former Conservative Party leader David Cameron signed the founding statement of Unite Against Fascism.

Given this repressive atmosphere, it’s not surprising that the only people in the country who can draw attention to serious problems are those like Miss Fransen who are called “far right” and who aren’t afraid of legal sanctions or media scorn. For example, it was the British National Party that first drew attention to the Muslim grooming gangs in Rotherham. Then-party head Nick Griffin denounced what was happening in a 2004 speech that was recorded by an undercover reporter. Not only did the reporter not appear concerned about the truth of Mr. Griffin’s words, he used his surreptitiously obtained evidence to have Mr. Griffin prosecuted.

Today, Muslim grooming gangs are still raping people in Rotherham as well as throughout the country. Yet anyone who speaks up about this or any other ethnic/racial problem has much to fear. A whistleblower could be attacked by Muslims themselves. He could be attacked by antifa. Or he could simply be arrested by a government that seems far more hostile to the indigenous population than those being imported to replace it. It’s hard to imagine even a Soviet government not only allowing such crimes against its people, but arresting those who complain about it.

As John Derbyshire pointed out:

At all points from the 1968 defenestration of Enoch Powell onwards, and still today, the attitude among the European governing and intellectual classes has been that everything will work out just fine so long as native Europeans stop complaining. If they won’t stop, they must be stopped, so that . . . everything will work out just fine.

Great Britain is at least as repressive as an Eastern Bloc country during the 1980s. In actively concealing crime, promoting disorder, and deconstructing the indigenous culture, it may be worse. Even Orwell’s subjects of Big Brother were never angrily told that it was an offense against equality to complain when their children were raped by foreigners. The hysteria of British politicians about President Trump should be treated with no more respect than Soviet boilerplate at a Party Congress.

The likes of Mayor Khan and Prime Minister May are infinitely more contemptible than General Secretaries Brezhnev or Andropov. The British government has long since shirked its duty to ensure the liberty and security of the British people, and it should not be regarded as any more legitimate than the government of East Germany or of the “Polish People’s Republic.”

The priority for the United States should not be to repair the “special relationship.” It should be to explore strategies to liberate our Anglo-Saxon cousins from what is a de facto occupation government. And as leftists are looking enviously at how British politicians have their political opponents arrested for dissident speech, this occupation government is more ideologically dangerous to American liberties than the Warsaw Pact states we faced a generation ago.

TOPICS: 

A GREAT MAN TOOK HIS LIFE RATHER THAN SEE THE DESTRUCTION OF CIVILIZATION

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, December 11, 2015

Venner
Oh is he so right.

Dominique Venner, The Shock of History: Religion, Memory, Identity, Arktos Media, 2015, 160 pp., $21.00.

On May 21, 2013, a Frenchman virtually unknown outside of Europe suddenly burst into the consciousness of racially aware Americans. That day, Dominique Venner walked into the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris and shot himself in the head. As he explained in his suicide note, he took his own life as an act of sovereignty–of control over his own destiny–and in protest against what his beloved France had become: a husk of a once-great nation, whose rulers submitted to American dominance, celebrated a decades-long invasion by unassimilable foreigners, and had legalized homosexual marriage.

Venner probed Europe’s past because he loved Europe and its people. He believed that no one could understand any people or culture unless he completely rejected universalism:

Men exist only by what distinguishes them: clan, lineage, history, culture, tradition. There are no universal answers to the questions of existence and behavior. Every civilization has its truths and its gods . . . . Every civilization creates its own answers, without which the individual, man or woman, lacking identity and archetypes, is thrown into a world of chaos. Like plants, men cannot exist without roots. Every individual must discover his own.

Universalism is a dangerous illusion because “it stunts our ability to comprehend that other men do not feel, think, or live the same way we do . . . .” He writes that “higher civilizations are not simply regions of the planet, they are different planets entirely.” He urges Europeans to search for their own, unique “spiritual morphology,” because “a human group is not a people unless it shares like origins, in a specific location, commanding a space, giving it direction and a border between the inside and the outside. This location, this space, is not only geographic but spiritual.”

A people’s spirit is embedded in tradition, which comes from the past, but gives life and meaning to the present: “If a tradition survives over time, it is because it rests upon the hereditary dispositions of related people.” Europeans must steep themselves in their traditions because they:

make us who we are, unlike any other. They constitute our perennial tradition, our unique way of being men and women in the face of life, death, love, history, and fate. Without them we are fated to become nothing; to disappear into the chaos of a world dominated by others.

THE WELFARE STATE EXPLAINED – GROWING NUMBER OF PARASITES

Welfare: Who’s on It, Who’s Not?

F. Roger Devlin and Henry Wolff, American Renaissance, October 14, 2015

FoodStamps
The numbers are even worse than we thought.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has published a new report called “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households.” The report’s principle finding is that fully 51 percent of immigrant households receive some form of welfare, compared to an already worrisomely high 30 percent of American native households. The new study is based on the most accurate data available, the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). It also reports stark racial differences in the use of welfare programs.

Previous studies of welfare use have been based on the less accurate but more easily accessible data available from the Current Population Survey; this led to less alarming figures of 39 percent of immigrant households using welfare and 24 percent of native households. CIS’s Steve Camarota took the trouble to work with the SIPP data, which cover a larger number of welfare programs. His results have been independently verified by Decision Demographics, a company specializing in analysis of Census Bureau data.

The programs covered in Mr. Camarota’s study include Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (what used to be most commonly called “welfare”), the Women, Infants and Children food program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“food stamps”), free and subsidized school lunches, Medicaid, and public housing and rent subsidies.

Needless to say, the percentage of immigrants using some form of welfare varies enormously according to the part of the world from which they come. Rates are highest for households from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent). Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest rates.

An appendix to the report includes some startling information on welfare use by race and ethnicity. In 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, the percentages of each group that used at least one welfare program were as follow:

WelfareUseNativeHouseholds

A majority of native black and Hispanic households are on some form of means-tested welfare, compared to just 23 percent of native white households.

A disproportionate share of welfare is directed to households with children. For this group, the corresponding numbers for 2012 are even higher:

WelfareUseHouseholdsWithChildren

A striking 82 percent of black households with children receive welfare–double the white rate. Hispanic families are not far behind blacks.

Of course, different welfare programs are used at different rates. What follow are sets of charts showing, first, the welfare rates for all US households, and second, welfare rates only for households with children. The percentages for Hispanic and black immigrants include both legal and illegal immigrants.

CashAssistanceAllHouseholds

CashAssistanceHouseholdsChildren

Among natives, blacks receive cash handouts at more than three times the white rate; Hispanics at more than twice the white rate. Rates for black and Hispanic immigrants are relatively lower due to often-ignored restrictions on immigrant use of these programs.

FoodAidAllHouseholds

FoodAidHouseholdsChildren

Among all households, native blacks and Hispanics receive food handouts at three times the white rate; for Hispanic immigrants, the figure is four times the white rate. Among households with children, nearly all immigrant Hispanics–86 percent–get food aid. Native blacks and Hispanics aren’t far behind, with rates of 75 and 72 percent, respectively.

MedicaidAllHouseholds

MedicaidHouseholdsChildren

It’s clear, too, that non-whites benefit disproportionately from Medicaid, which helps explain why red states have opted out of Medicaid expansion.

HousingAllHouseholds

HousingHouseholdsChildren

Native Hispanics and blacks, especially, are also heavy users of housing assistance. Among households with children, native Hispanics use these programs at nearly four times the white rate and blacks at seven times the white rate. Some effort is made to limit the access of illegal immigrants to subsidized housing, which helps explain why Hispanic immigrants get housing handouts at less than half the rate for native Hispanics. Amnesty for illegals would mean a sharp rise in the percentage of Hispanics in public or subsidized housing.

Spreading the wealth around

For each of the four welfare categories presented above, the black and Hispanic rates are at least double the white rates. Native Asians appear to use welfare at slightly lower rates than whites, but their SIPP sample size is too small to be certain. Asian immigrants, who are not included in the charts above, exceed native white welfare rates by about 25 percent (see table A3 in the CIS report). The US has three times as many immigrant Asian households as native Asian households.

What little public discussion there is of disproportionate welfare use by blacks and Hispanics is inevitably muddied by the claim that the majority of those receiving welfare are white. This ignores the fact that there are five times as many whites as blacks and four times as many whites as Hispanics in the United States; what matter are differences in the rates at which each group uses welfare. Furthermore, at least in terms of households, this claim is no longer be true.

According to data in the CIS report, there are 39.88 million households in the US receiving some sort of means-tested welfare. Of those households, just 19.66 million–or 49 percent–are either native or immigrant whites (Middle Eastern immigrants are classified as “whites”). That means the majority of US households on welfare are now non-white.

As mass Third-World immigration continues, the US will have an ever-burgeoning dependent class of non-whites. Black voters will be joined by increasing number of Hispanic voters in their support for more handouts. When they vote in 2016, a majority of black and Hispanic households are likely to be on welfare–just as they were in 2012. Arguments about freedom and limited government will mean nothing to them. Obamacare is just the beginning.

Whites must decide if this is the future they want for their children and grandchildren. If they don’t take action soon, blacks and Hispanics will decide for them.

TOPICS: , , , ,

About F. Roger Devlin

VIEW ALL POSTS BY F. ROGER DEVLIN

F. Roger Devlin

Dr. Devlin is a contributing editor to The Occidental Quarterly and the author of Sexual Utopia in Power.

WHY AMERICA NEEDS TRUMP

Is Trump Our Last Chance?

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 20, 2015

TrumpInSC
Donald Trump may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.

Donald Trump’s new position paper on immigration makes it official: He is easily the best presidential candidate on border security and immigration since Pat Buchanan. And we can be sure he is not a bait-and-switch politician who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them. Mr. Trump has single-handedly made immigration the key issue of this election. His heart is in it when he says we need to build a wall, deport illegals, and have an immigration “pause” until every American who wants a job gets one.

But can he win? The white percentage of the electorate drops every election. It was 74 percent in 2012 and likely to be 72 percent in 2016. Time is running out for white people, but a unique set of circumstances in 2016 may give them a real chance–perhaps their last chance–to elect a president who would actually help them rather than hurt them.

But if Mr. Trump wins, can he deliver? Every institution in America would join forces against a president with sensible policies, but a bold, thick-skinned chief executive supported by a carefully picked cabinet could rewrite the rules about how Americans think and talk about their country.

Mr. Trump’s positions on immigration are built on three principles: 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. It’s startling to hear a politician even talk about what defines “a nation,” much less get it more or less right. The idea that immigration should benefit Americans rather than foreigners is revolutionary by today’s standards.

Many of Mr. Trump’s specific proposals could be implemented without much fuss. He would make the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers, which would make it impossible for illegals to work for anything but under-the-table cash. Anybody caught hiring illegals would be punished. He would end the Earned Income Tax Credit for illegals, and would stop granting visas to any country that refuses to take back citizens we want to deport. He would kick out every criminal alien who has served his sentence, unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to like keeping them here.

Mr. Trump would triple the number of ICE officials and end the policy of catch-and-release, under which ICE often tells local authorities who have caught an illegal to let him go. He would make H1-B visas harder to get, and would enforce a policy of hiring Americans first. He would set up a tracking system to catch and deport anyone who overstays his visa. He would deport any illegal alien who is a gang member, and would stop all federal payments to so-called sanctuary cities. All immigrants would have to prove they have the means to support themselves. Although this is not included in his policy paper, Mr. Trump has also said ininterviews that he would scrap all of Mr. Obama’s executive amnesties. All these things could probably be done just by enforcing laws on the books or by changing regulations.

ICE

Some of Mr. Trump’s other ideas would take more work: his call for an end to birth-right citizenship, for example. Arguably, he could simply order agencies to issue passports and social security numbers only to children born of citizens and permanent residents. Or he could get Congress to pass legislation to this effect. In either case, the tangled  interpretations of the 14th Amendment would guarantee a legal challenge. Courts would probably find that the children of illegals are not citizens. Ideally, they would find that the 14th Amendment, which was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves, gives no child born of foreigners automatic citizenship.

Mr. Trump has also suggested in interviews that he wants to deport all illegals, not just criminals. This is by no means “impossible,” as critics claim. With E-Verify and employer sanctions, plenty of illegals would “self-deport,” just as Mitt Romney said they would.

The key, however, would be a few well publicized raids on non-criminal illegals. Television images of Mexican families dropped over the border with no more than they could carry would be very powerful. The vast majority of illegals would quickly decide to get their affairs in order and choose their own day of departure rather than wait for ICE to choose it for them. The main thing would be to convince illegals that ICE was serious about kicking them out. Ironically, the more ICE was prepared to do, the less it would have to do.

Deportation

But those same images of Mexican families would raise a world-wide stink. They would send the libs and legals into a gibbering frenzy, so a Trump administration would have to have backbone. Deporting illegals–even tearful families with “deep roots in the community”–is entirely consistent with current law, so there could be no court challenge. It would be a simple matter of ignoring the gibbering, and getting on with the job. If churches harbored illegals, ICE teams would have to haul them out. Getting serious about deportation would set a marvelous example for the Europeans and would bring illegal immigration to a dead stop.

We might not even need the wall Mr. Trump plans to build, though it’s certainly a good thing to have. The trick would be getting the Mexicans to pay for it, as Mr. Trump promises they will. The position paper says a Trump administration would divert remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants, but it would be hard to verify which payments were from illegals, and plenty of them would love an excuse to stop sending money home anyway. The paper also says we could increase fees on visas issued to CEOs and diplomats, charge more for border-crossing cards, levy an entry fee at the Mexican border, and impose tariffs on Mexican goods. Making every Mexican who crossed the border pay a stiff fee until the wall was built sounds like a fine idea, but the others probably would not raise much money or would violate treaties.

One way Mr. Trump says he would make Mexico pay for the wall is to cut off foreign aid. Depending on how it’s calculated, handouts to Mexico runs to as much as $900 million a year. It’s hard to understand why Mexicans deserve even a dime of our taxes. Turning off the tap would be instant savings, whether to pay for a wall or not.

BorderWall

 

Finally, Mr. Trump’s “pause” in issuing green cards would be a wonderful thing, but it would probably require legislation. The Immigration Act of 1990 raised the annual number of visas passed out each year from 290,000 to 675,000 (not including refugee or H1-B visas and all kinds of other dubious waivers and exemptions) and set up the diversity-visa lottery that lets in another 55,000 a year. Every year there are about one million people who become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or “green card holders.”

Of course, Mr. Trump could take a leaf out of Mr. Obama’s book and legislate by executive order. If President Obama can simply decide not to enforce the law against minors who were smuggled into the country–and then decide also to exempt the parents who smuggled them–President Trump could probably shut down the lottery and cut way back on family reunification.

There is no end to the good a president could do if he were really convinced that immigration should benefit us rather than foreigners. Today the executive branch is thick with people who make no secret of wanting “diversity” of every kind, and think immigration is the best way to get it. Imagine an executive run by people who were as sick of immigration–legal and illegal–as real Americans are. Imagine regular executive briefings on crimes committed by foreigners, on monthly deportation figures, on new miles of border wall completed, on frauds and criminals turned back at the border. Imagine an executive branch that cuts off funding to La Raza and MALDEF and all the “refugee” resettlement groups. Imagine a government that laughs at editorials in the New York Times, and that actually cares about the welfare of Americans.

USA/

A change in tone would be as dramatic as a change in policy because a president and his cabinet have tremendous influence that goes well beyond policy. They can put a subject on the national agenda just by talking about it. They can make it respectable just by continuing to talk about it. Actually looking at the pros and cons of immigrants could open the door to looking at the pros and cons of different groups of people. White, high-IQ, English-speaking people obviously assimilate best, and someone in a Trump administration might actually say so. A Trump presidency could completely change what is said about the difference between a crowd and a nation, and what it means to be an American.

So far, Mr. Trump has said little about race, but President Trump would certainly be no pushover for blacks. Al Sharpton–whom Mr. Trump has called a “professional conman”–would never darken the White House door again, and the Black Lives Matter frauds would get the cold shoulder.

And a Donald Trump presidency is no longer pure fantasy. He continues to widen his lead over Republican competitors. He is the first choice of 24 percent of registered Republicans—11 points ahead of his closest rival, Jeb Bush. He also comes in first as a second choice: 14 percent to Jeb Bush’s 10 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Mr. Trump, which is eight points more than the 61 percent who view Mr. Bush favorably. A majority of Republicans who are likely to vote–57 percent–now think Mr. Trump will be the Republican candidate.

TrumpRally

Just as important, according to a CNN/ORC poll of potential voters, Mr. Trump has pulled to within 6 percentage points (51 to 45) in a theoretical contest with Hillary Clinton. Just last month he was 16 points behind. Mr. Trump would get 55 percent of the white vote and 53 percent of the male vote; only women and non-whites continue to be strong Hillary backers.

The coming election is a combination of circumstances that will never repeat itself. Mr. Trump is a brand new face in politics, at a time when public trust in the federal government is close to a record low. His Republican opponents are nonentities. The most likely Democratic candidate is a shopworn harridan even her supporters don’t entirely trust.

Mr. Trump is also prepared to spend up to $1 billion of his own money to win the election. He says he turned down $5 million from a lobbyist, because he doesn’t want to owe favors to anyone. As the campaign continues, more and more voters will be impressed by his complete independence from special interests. Finally, when the time comes for street-level canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives, Mr. Trump will have armies of committed volunteers instead of the party hacks who are pushing his rivals.

There will never be another campaign like this one. If Mr. Trump loses, this could be the last chance whites have to vote for a president who could actually do something useful for them and for their country.

TOPICS: ,

About Jared Taylor

VIEW ALL POSTS BY JARED TAYLOR

Jared Taylor

Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.