11 votes

The Elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about

The Bell Tolls for the ‘New Majority’


By Patrick J. Buchanan

...But the existential crisis of the GOP, from which it has turned its eyes away since George H.W. Bush, is demography.

Yet the matter cannot be avoided now, for it is on page one.

“White Numbers Shrink,” was the headline on the lead story in USA Today. “More Whites Dying Than Being Born,” blared The Wall Street Journal. What does this mean?

In political terms, this is depressing news for the Republican Party. For nearly 90 percent of all Republican votes in presidential elections are provided by Americans of European descent.
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

World History in One Sentence


"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

can make it shorter for ya...

can make it shorter for ya... "these men are dangerous."

whites are just the scapegoat, in shallow minds, for all the evils of human nature. to naively believe in the innocence of humanity, one needs a designated villain to bear the blame for all its guilt.

that seems to be what the evil white villain in modern leftism is all about. freeing humanity of the blame for its essential nature by loading that blame onto a single group.

for many, it is necessary to deny human nature for their ideology to be true.

I've been following Buchanan

I've been following Buchanan for years but the fact is that he's a white nationalist and really weighs race far too heavily. He assumes that #1 Irish and Italian immigration was fine while "non-white" won't be, #2 Things were tolerable in the 1970's "white America", and #3 There are no explanations for why minorities don't vote for the openly and notoriously racist party aside from the fact that minorities are and will forever be lovers of socialism (and whites aren't). Furthermore #4 he assumes without proving that the old line Republican party is worth saving and that #5 if you vote against the GOP you are anti freedom. Neither are true.

Ventura 2012

I`m not at all sure about that.

I live in a very diverse community and of all the nonwhites that I know many think as much or more of their freedom and Liberty than most Anglos. Of course these are the wonderful people that kept reelecting Dr. Ron Paul until he resigned from the 14th district of Texas as congressman. Maybe my neighbors here will become the "New Majority".

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell



lake jackson stats

Population in 2011: 26,978

median household income: $76,644

White - 18,710 (69.7%)

i appreciate your sentiments but lets stick to the facts, no?

Hey Bill I don`t live in Lake Jackson.

I live in Calhoun County near Port Lavaca and if you will read my comment I said I live in a small diverse community.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

ok.. well it reads pretty

ok.. well it reads pretty clearly as if you live with the people who kept re electing ron. in any case my reply is applicable either way.

Small e

The big E is easier to see:


Way back in 1776 there were no Republicans.

Those who were conservative were split into 2 demographic groups.

Conserve Loyalty to the jack boots that feed their subjects or starve them, at their exclusive pleasure.

Conserve Liberty to those who no longer see any positive value in crime made legal.

Which Elephant is in the room?

Shake in fear at the mere mention of overpopulation; while fertility rates are dropping?

The curtain hiding the worst criminals is growing very thin these days, and that turns out to be a BIG E Elephant crapping all over the furniture, and the people, in the room.


Framing politics in terms of

demographics is something Ron Paul never does. A Ron Paul rally has people of all stripes. Why is that? It could be, that the ideas of Liberty have a different foundation than race.

The Republican party may not survive. We watched them manipulate ballots state by state, and overthrow the proper results of elections, from the national stage on live tv, and then return all of the corrupt players, back to national positions of leadership. In what way is that a viable party?

Instead of doing demographic math to predict the future of a corrupt party, what about finding ways to identify and nurture the "remnant". What would a coalition look like that was not based on demographics or party? How do we focus, for instance, the people who know the difference between non-intervention and isolationism into votes in the Congress?

If marketers are able to absorb every cultural impulse into some kind of weird commercial zeitgeist, goth teens selling pepsi, rappers selling clothes, is it possible to identify and promote political ideas that defy the major party definitions of the day? Thought bombs?

The blimp was a thought bomb.

How do we frame the connection between administrative wars of aggression, and support for terrorism in the countries where the bombs rain down, to unite that natural American coalition that understands blowback? Does it really take decades of disaster to change the way Americans think? How do we help the simple truth win?


"Does it really take decades of disaster to change the way Americans think? How do we help the simple truth win?"

When offers of information become available, as available as sunlight, those who care to know better can sunbathe, those who care not to know better can find dark places to find relief from the sunlight.

As far as the concept of blow back goes, it seems to me, the use of the one Fraud Money moves power from those who make it to those who steal that power with that crime in progress made legal, and that is blowing back constantly, in the form of more and more crimes made legal by those who invest in such things as crime made legal.

When pregnant mothers are being hog tied by "police,' when women with children are being sexually assaulted by "judges," and "police," and when the congregation of a church are tortured for months, and burned alive, and when sky scrapers full of people are demolished, and when foreign countries full of people are bombed into parking lots, all for the protection of crime made legal, then the investors in such things, through the money they use, will haunt out any conscience those people were born with, as those investors get what they pay for, which are hands soaked in innocent blood.

The truth is only worth something to those who do not invest in the best liars that the one money can buy.


another left right bs

The counterfeit money is the Elephant not those fake political parties offering candidates for the Roths IzUnReal gangsters who choose them. When digital money is offered up into circulation as a COMPOUNDING SOVEREIGN DEBT you not only have an Rothschild zionist counterfeiter with unlimited purchasing power but the same entity with a false debt leverage over each individual. You owe me so I have the morral authority to take any and everything you own including your life. Thats the zio counterfeit startigy.

Its not a white european nation. If the American Indidans pulled the same trick that the IzUnReal Rothschild Zionsist do to the palastin population.

How about the Indian nations claiming a right to return to their HOLY LAND, America. Since this country and its population are so into our greatest freind in the Middle East and supports their genocide while the same group spys on us attacks us (US LIBERTY and others) dominates out government and media. Yet we sit by and do nothing out of fear that we will be called a racist or an anti semite.

My final answer is no. Enlightened disengagemnt and spread the words.


lol wtf r u smoking.

lol wtf r u smoking.

Is that what your brain regesters

When you dont understand and your incapable of asking or doing your own research. Waste my time with a dult.


Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul

Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul have to understand that no matter how often they say they are not racist (and I think there is little doubt that Buchanan is), they represent a wing of the political spectrum that was incredibly racist. At the very least, even those like Barry Goldwater voted for pieces of legislation that specifically prevented Blacks from getting their full rights.

They represent a wing of the Republican party that 70 years ago said that Blacks shouldn't be in the military. That 50 years said civil rights should be left to the states. That 30 years ago said that interracial marriage shouldn't be universally legal. That over the past 20 years has made stupid remark after stupid remark.

As I mentioned, there were certainly those like Goldwater who took a very principled stand. But there were many others; racist, backwards individuals who used "states' rights" as a convenient front for their hatred.

That, unfortunately, is a legacy that has been passed on to Buchanan, Ron, and Rand have to bear. They cannot keep running away from it or crying from it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You conveniently forget...

..that Jim Crow was a Democrat?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

So? It is well known how the

So? It is well known how the political positions have switched around over the last 150 years...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Same for Orval Faubus, Arkansas governor

whose defiance of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education led Eisenhower to send federal troops to Little Rock to integrate public schools.

And who can forget Richard "KKK" Byrd, long-time Democratic Senator from W.Va.?

Perhaps it makes more sense to analyze politicians for their individual ideas than to refer to the collectivism of a particular political party.

It isn't the collectivism of

It isn't the collectivism of a particular political party, but the collectivism of a place on the particular political spectrum. For years, states's rights and outright racist policies have gone hand-in-hand.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Regardless of where you place the collectivism, why not

refer to the individual policies of a particular person, rather than asserting that they have inherited some legacy policies of decades past?

I never really accepted the "state's rights" label, because individuals have rights, while governments, regardless of their hierarchical level, have powers that were once believed to have been derived from the consent of the governed.

Your rights as an individual should not be violated by any level of government, but what is often seen is the tug-of-war to see which gang of elected thugs gets to do the honors.

I'm not sure this is adequate reason to destroy oneself

Too often these days, we are given the choice, "be a statist or be racist", as though only by embracing the state can we prove our fairness. By opening the borders, that is what we are doing.

I don't care how you spin it. The result of open borders is clear.

And remember one thing, it is government that murdered 150 million persons in this world last century, not counting war. So, if your solution to "racism" is a policy that guarantees even more centralized control in this country, then I say "No thanks".

The real problem today, 2013, is the inability of the masses of Americans to understand basic economics and the wealth draining, life draining tyranny of all powerful government.

Until you can explain to me how combining compassion and amnesty for those people already here with sensible control of the border and rational immigration policy (a right reserved by every other nation on earth), then I will continue to think that the real agenda here is not the assimilation of the 10 million souls who are currently here and who came here to improve the lot of themselves and there family, but the 50 to 100 million more to come tomorrow, who will be used and manipulated by the state in an attempt to completely enslave us all.

This entire thread is illustrative of the split we have in this so called "movement". Libertarianism advocates real freedom, not the half freedom of civil liberty without economic liberty. By advocating open borders, you advocate the confiscation of the wealth of current citizens at the expense of illegal immigrants. The notion that these "new citizens" represent "new taxpayers" ignores the fact that half of the current citizenry pays no taxes at all.

Just to be sure I understand you

Borders are good. A free man should not be able to travel about free. Got to have check points and borders to protect what, a country?, a government?
Hate to break it to you but the US of A is a brown country and always was. The white european invaders, (some of my ancestry) pulled a horrifying genocide invasion. In the name of freedom. The same invasion occurred in the area referred to as Mexico. Both areas are suffering because of it even hundreds of years later.
Borders are for slaves. Free people respect other peoples property but never accept these fake government borders as a good thing. The government alwas wants boarders, fences, walls, prisons, and every other control method they can think of and use. Exactly as a plantation owner wants boarders or a prison commandant wants boarders.
Exactly what do you fear that you need the government to stop people from coming to an area near you? Do you think a border will provide more freedom and sovereignty to you as an individual. Are you just looking to a government that is for the Rothschild mafia to protect you with a boarder. They don't care about you and the border is not about protection, its about debt slave movement control.

PS IF thos so called brown invaders, Who are acutally native to this land. Just in case you do not agree please note they sure aint from europe. If these souls pulled the same thing Rothschild did with IzUnReal, a right to return to their native lands and they started kicking you out as a ansesteral invader, how would you react?


Just to apply your logic

If there should be no borders, why do you call the Europeans that came to the Americas "invaders"? If there boarders are evil and is an affront to "freedom" then those Europeans did no wrong by coming over to the Americas.

And if there should be no borders, then why should your personal property have borders? Why? There should be no piece of property with any borders and limitations at all! That is the logical conclusion of your argument. If a nation can't have borders, then there's no logical reason to believe that your personal property needs a border or boundary. And so there would be no such thing as trespassers or intruders or invaders, etc, because borders are against "freedom".

So you can see your logic is not entirely consistent across the board.

If you say the individual is sovereign, how about a group of individuals? How about a group of sovereign individuals decided to band together and draw a boundary around themselves? Is that wrong? If that is wrong, then you have no right accusing the Europeans of any sort of "genocide" as you have claimed.

Also, do you believe in evolution? If you do, then the demise of Native American culture and tribes is caused by the process of the evolution, the survival of the fittest! It is the same concept that plays out in the evolutionary process of our human race, so how can you fault the Europeans for advancing our human race through the process of evolution?

So I hope all can see how ridiculous these arguments were.

Borders is necessary precisely because we have private property and if you believe in libertarianism, private property is the key to your freedom. And guess what defines your private property? The border! Take away the border, you will have no private property and no freedom.

Personal property

What property do you mean the home and land some may say I own? If so while I have the deed seems the gov has decided that I can not own property. The evidence I give is that, after paying thousands of FRN debt notes I was given a property deed. But still every year my land lord who claims ownership of the property comes around and DEMANDS annual rent payment. Oh they call it property tax, and I call it extorted theft.

Point is what property are you refering to?

If a group of individuals band togeather to steal and individuals property by makeing a boarder over the others property. YES THATS WRONG and why dont you understand the basic immorality? Strong words to say what I have a right to say or not!

You submit I believe in evelution? WTF that came out of left feild you know me now that you can assume such?
Willing slaves vehimatly defend their slavery.


Individuals are sovereign

There is no such thing as a sovereign group thats the NWO trash.

I still only see a group comprised of Individuals with individual rights.

Your sovereign group is like the corporation being a person both trash hogwash mumbo jumbo.

Group rights are a lie. A bunch of cowards get togeather and call themselves this or that. Only to become brave enough to restructur from individual cowards into group bullies.

This country was founded exactly to protect the individual from your group. The constitution protects the individual from the group. When you join a group you give up you freedom and sovereignty to some degree, some more than others.

Groups are typically for control and power of the few the reason the group has more power than the individual because the group becomes enslaved to each other. On no longer has individual freedome to do as they see right they have to either follow or lead a group. The europeans came as invaders stealing land that was not theirs and knowing that it was not theirs. A land that was inhabited. They were driven by a group that had boarders but dint respect others property because they felt secure within their boarders.

Would love to sit down for a few hours with you and debate this further. Dont look like we could ever agree and I dont mind.


your story broke down on the first sentence

You so love borders for mankind by government masters. Lick the boot of your master and promote his fences. Do you know the diff between invaders and travelers or movers.
Traveler, nomad, mover, some person or persons who choose to move about on this planet.

Invader, somone who comes to steal and kill some one who invades to theif Not the same thing as somone moving about.

You advocate that the best thing you need is a border around your property then every time you enter or leave you will need police security. what good is a boarder with out security?

You know for the max security you may want to check into a federal or corporate prison they are very protected. Because in your effort to protect youself you attack the freedom of any human that wants to travel about (you redefine anyone who crosses your boarder as a invader and you promote your masters control over you, your children, and the generations to come.

So again exactly why a free man is not allowed to move about this earth without checkpoints and permission paperword? Do you think humanity has had they government boarders for a long time? Respective of the true human history this Zionist Rothschild mafia model is just seconds old. 400-600 years or so old, they have given us 2 world wars and multiple genocides with these borders as the excuse.

I have a back fence border to my property, I never require passports nor do I stand armed in my backyard to stop anyone from comming. But hey lets have a INVADER. burglar theif come and see Ill not enforce borders ill enforce, Stop theif.

Sory your story we need boarders to be free is insane and just hogwash that even a child can see through. Its simply a racist thing that is easy to perpetuate against any race. You should rail against the gov that pays despots to come and destroy your liberty. You think a border will stop a hungery person from going to the offer of food stamps, a job, a home, a safer place, an education for ones family. Its natural for a human to seek a better plight in life.

Lets talk about we both would like. How to stop mass invassion due to the false debt, fiet digitized Rothschild central bank money being created and spent to flood your property with invaders. FENCES Boarders keep the good people from traveling and dont stop the people we are actually concerned about basic needs away. Boarders absolutly do not keep the criminals out.

Ron Paul if I recall spoke simular explainations. Perhaps he did not go as far as I but he couldnt and cant but he clearly indicates the problem is not open boarder by government. But govenment using the digitized money to flood the country with invaders using the boarder as the excuse for it happening rather than seeing that the govenrment is promoting this.

So good luck with your gestapo checkpoints thinking thats what makes you free.
Would love to hear of some other things that you think should be taken away from my sovereign birthrights... I am a free man and I walk this earth a free man, my choice.


i think I agree with you

I confess the following:

1. I do believe borders are necessary, particularly in the case of a welfare state.
2. This is not yet a "brown" country. Look at the latest census. Perhaps it is "brown", in the sense that brown people are the rightful owners.
3. My inclination is to reject the notion that"free people respect other's property"
4. Plantations and Prison walls keep people in. Border fences, in this case, would keep people out.
5. I actually think that border control may very well have the effect of increasing my freedom.
6. I'm not looking for the Govt to protect me, because the Gov't is pro-open border and has resisted controlling the border for the 50 years we have been having this discussion. I am fighting against Government's attempt at further encroach on my liberties by refusing to secure the border.

I will grant you this...

IMO we need to ask ourselves if freedom is in order, or are reparations in order?. As I grasp it, your point is that I owe the "brown" people south of the border entry into this country, and should shoulder all the associated costs. Further, you reject my offer of a compassionate resolution for those already here, namely amnesty, in return for the steps being taken to prevent further illegal entry. It appears you object to the idea of future border control, even after amnesty.

So I am confronted with the prospect of unlimited migration of "brown" immigrants from the south, whom I have wronged in some way, whom I owe in some way, and who are very aware of the debt which I owe and the wrong with I (through the immorality of my decedents) inflicted on them.

if you are correct, then my very presence on this continent is nothing but an injustice, the result of past injustice. If I am not mistaken, you are for free and open borders as a form of reparation to those of native blood, on behalf of the current U.S. citizenry of European ancestry.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll give it further thought.

Thank your for you sensable respectful response

1. dissagree
2. yes and no but mostly no
3. Some will some wont
4. Not correct at all
5. Very bad and incorrect choice.
6. Way off base

7. Freedom, the repat argument is bs and only used by theives

I had first typed a long phylosophical diatribe, then I changed my mind to short and sweet. Would love to have a long discussion with you some time. I would bet after we talked you would change your mind on some of these issues. At heart most all people want to be free.


That's why we have to paint

That's why we have to paint this as a...that was the conservatives who did that. We libertarians are different. Sure they happened to represent racists back in the day, but Goldwater, Ron, and Rand are no racists. It was more of a coinidental allience. Buchanan definatly is racist though. Rand may not be able to escape it entirely, but WE can. We can say we're the new generation and we reject the biggotry that's holding back the Republican Party. It's not just the neo-cons. It's the biggots who we have to fight. The more visibly we denounce them, the better.

Don't forget, classical liberals (libertarians) were the dominant force in the Republican Party and we were the only ones who fought for civil liberties before the great consensus and before conservatives took over the party from newly enthroned progressives and took it in yet another horrid direction. When we ran the party, minorities voted for us and only us. Never for the progressives.



Don't shut them out. Convert them!!!

We've gotta distinguish ourselves from the people who persecuted them and kept them down. If we're the champions of equality, civil liberties, peace, prosperity, opportunity, and against corporate welfare, we can begin to break up the monolithic voting blocks of minority voters. Our ideas are right. It's only natural to assume that as soon as we stop alienating them we can begin to winning some of them over. Remember that people are individuals, not drones in a collective.

Acceptance and education...that's how we win. We can do this!