There has been much joy in liberaldom over the recent findings that for the first time in American history the number of Whites declined, and that Whites now make up only 57.8%. of the U.S. population A good example is Jennifer Rubin, a neocon Israel-firster who decamped from the GOP in 2016 with the rise of Trump, because of Trump’s populist rhetoric on immigration and other issues related to their campaign for a non-White America. As she said at the time, “Trump’s nativism and xenophobia make him toxic with a good deal of the American Jewish community for whom such sentiments have invariably been associated with governments hostile to Jews.” For Jews like Rubin, opposition to nativism and xenophobia by Whites in Western countries really comes down to hating Whites.
It’s been obvious for a long time that the neocons not only wanted to make the GOP safe for Israel (it is now more pro-Israel than the Democrats), but also that they sought to move the party to the left on social issues, and immigration in particular. From “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement” (2004):
Samuel Francis witnessed much of the early infighting among conservatives, won eventually by the neocons. Francis recounts the “catalog of neoconservative efforts not merely to debate, criticize, and refute the ideas of traditional conservatism but to denounce, vilify, and harm the careers of those Old Right figures and institutions they have targeted.”
There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.… Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes.… What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the racial dispossession of white Western culture, that they support or approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.
Most notably, neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century—massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965—“this notion of a Christian civilization.”105 As neoconservative Ben Wattenberg has famously written, “The nonEuropeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” The only exception—thus far without any influence—is that since 9/11 some Jewish activists, including neoconservative Daniel Pipes, head of the MEF, and Stephen Steinlight, senior fellow of the American Jewish Committee, have opposed Muslim—and only Muslim—immigration because of possible effects on pro-Israel sentiment in the U.S.
Neoconservatives have been far more attached to Jewish interests, and especially the interests of Israel, than to any other identifiable interest. It is revealing that as the war in Iraq has become an expensive
quagmire in both lives and money, Bill Kristol has become willing to abandon the neoconservatives’ alliance with traditional conservatives by allying with John Kerry and the Democratic Party. This is because Kerry has promised to increase troop strength and retain the commitment to Iraq, and because Kerry has declared that he has “a 100 percent record—not a 99, a 100 percent record—of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel.” As Pat Buchanan notes, the fact that John Kerry “backs partial birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy” is less important than his stand on the fundamental issue of a foreign policy that is in the interest of Israel.
The Ben Wattenberg quote is classic and worth repeating. “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Clearly the Jewish commitment to a non-White America has powerful emotional overtones.
It was noted above that neocons have a pattern of supporting an interventionist foreign policy. The debacle in Afghanistan won’t change that.
For neocons like Rubin, the 20-year disaster in Afghanistan, which cost thousands of dead and maimed and trillions of dollars, was a great idea that fell short because of tactical mistakes. Sort of like the Marxists who claim that real communism has never been tried. Neocon interventionist ideology dominates the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They’ll do another Afghanistan in a heartbeat, complete with wall-to-wall propaganda that this particular war (Iran is on the top of their list) is a moral imperative. I suppose Rubin also thinks it’s fabulous that 85 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan (82.6 percent in Iraq) were White, almost all White males.
It’s useful to recall the hysteria among neocons about the impending Trump presidency in 2016. Rubin was far from alone, and it shows that besides Israel, neocons had typically Jewish attitudes on White identity and interests. Bret Stephens, who moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times in 2017 and is routinely described as a “conservative” wrote:
[Trumpism] is a regression to the conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism. Modern conservatives sought to bury this rubbish with a politics that strikes a balance between respect for tradition and faith in the dynamic and culture-shifting possibilities of open markets. When that balance collapses—under a Republican president, no less—it may never again be restored, at least in our lifetimes. [Hillary, the Conservative Hope, May 9, 2016]
Or Robert Kagan, who jumped ship to be part of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team:
[Trump’s] public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others”—Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees—whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.
Contra Stephens, the neocons never respected tradition and gave only lip service to faith. Their only outreach was recruiting Evangelical Christians to the cause of a rabidly pro-Israel foreign policy.
Stephens is correct in that there was an older tradition of conservatism based on the ethno-national interests of the traditional American majority. This was purged by the neocons. In 2016, they were deathly afraid that the older conservatism was returning, perhaps in the form of the Alt Right—the only recognizable intellectual constituency that supported Trump.
* * *
Tucker Carlson emphasized Rubin’s recent tweet on his August 13 show in a segment emphasizing the left’s rejoicing at the news that there are fewer White people in the U.S. He clearly framed it as indicating hatred for White people—”gloat[ing] over the decline of a race.” Indeed, he infers that Rubin’s joy at the decline of the White population implies that she is happy for the hundreds of thousands of mostly rural White people who have died in the opioid epidemic.
The segment includes an interview with Pedro Gonzalez, Associate Editor of Chronicles, who notes that anyone noticing that White people are being marginalized can expect to be called a racist. And he notes that White life expectancy has declined—people like Rubin “spit on their graves”—and that Whites are disadvantaged in the job market and education—achieved by lowering standards for “everyone else.” A good example is that standardized tests are being removed from college admissions as “racist,” and recently Oregon passed a law saying that it is illegal to require reading and math proficiency to graduate high school. I don’t envy employers looking for competent employees. Degrees, whether from high school or from college, mean nothing.
Gonzalez states “The ruling class [which, as he notes, is a “uniparty”] in the country has deconstructed the nation it was entrusted to govern. It invited millions of people into the country and told them that any disparity in outcome—you just point to a white person and say ‘it’s your fault.'”
Quite right. But of course, what is inevitably missing from Carlson’s show is any serious attempt to describe the ruling class and its ethnic commitments, as personified by Rubin with her perch in the elite mainstream media.
Carson and Gonzalez agree that Rubin et al. are unleashing racial hatred and that this could have cataclysmic effects that would destroy the country. I suspect that the left understands this but are confident that by purging the military and controlling the national security apparatus—control that would be beyond the ability of even a true populist or explicitly White nationalist president to easily reverse at this point—they could win such a war. On the other hand, the good news is that it is likely true that a great many White people—certainly including Carlson’s audience given his repeated emphasis on this theme—are indeed becoming aware of the very hostile and dangerous society that they now live in. By being explicit that this power is directed against White America, Carlson is certainly performing an important service. Perhaps the above video is his most explicit assertion that what the elites are doing is fundamentally anti-White.
I realize that many people reading this site view Carlson as controlled opposition, but he is clearly the only mainstream media figure who is framing immigration and the demographic transformation of America as fundamentally anti-White, although he often sometimes says that it’s against the interests of all current citizens because it dilutes their voting power. This latter is a specious argument, at least as it applies to Asians and Latinos, because these groups stand to increase their power. And, despite the well-known fact that immigration hurts Blacks the most (because it increases competition for low-end jobs), the Black leadership is entirely on board with the anti-White revolution because it results in greater power for themselves (as noted in the clip by the Black representative in the above video), and many are eager to avenge the perceived injustices of the past. Hatred of Whites is entirely mainstream these days, emanating from the elite media and the academic world, and by many in the political class.
We’re reminded once again that the demographic revolution is not motivated by love of humanity or empathy for the downtrodden, but by lust for power and hatred toward Whites. The hatred toward Whites won’t stop when Whites become a minority, and it’s a utopian delusion to think otherwise. Jewish hatred toward Whites is fueled by their perceptions of the past, from the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. to the holocaust. The hatred that fueled the slaughter in the early decades of the Soviet Union, based on Jewish perceptions of Orthodox Christianity and their perceptions of persecution by the Czars and by Russian peasants, didn’t end after they had achieved power. Indeed, the main motive for Jewish activism in influencing U.S. immigration law was to change the ethnic balance of the country so that Whites would not be a majority, as argued in Culture of Critique (Ch. 7) and noted more recently by Otis Graham: the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” No wonder Jewish activists like Rubin and Wattenberg have such a strong emotional attachment to the idea that America not have a White majority.
White liberals (obviously, as an intensely ethnocentric Jew, Rubin is not in that category) will be cursed by their children and grandchildren for being complicit in this transformation. But they’ll likely go to their graves thinking themselves morally superior—even as the revolution turns on them.