The Commie Revolution Thread

[Lenno]

[Lenno]

Jan232017GERMAN FemiNazis and IslamoNazis in Berlin form an unlikely alliance to protest against President Donald Trump

While the Muslim lesbian (or is it a tranny?) is shouting “Allahu Akbar,” the left wing attention whores are shouting “Pussy grabs back,” demonstrating how much class they have…all of it low.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/

[Lenno]

A Millennials’ Guide to Angela Davis and Other Stalinists


“History cannot be deleted.”

January 24, 2017

On Friday, January 20, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. The next day, the leftist hordes descended on Washington and cranked up the volume. C-SPAN identified one keynote speaker only as Angela Davis, so millenials, GenXers, and even baby boomers should understand what she is all about.
“We represent the powerful forces of change that are determined to prevent the dying cultures of racism, hetero-patriarchy from rising again,” Davis said, adding: “history cannot be deleted like web pages.” Davis had a lot to say about the evils of America but did not get into her own colorful history of speeches before presidential elections. In those the African-American Davis always showed a flair for all-white, all-male totalitarian dictatorships.
In 1980 and 1984 Angela Davis was the vice-presidential candidate of the Communist Party USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union. That was how the Russian Communists interfered in the American electoral process, by running their own candidates or supporting proxies in other parties, such as Henry Wallace in 1948.
In 1980 and 1984, Davis was on the bottom of the ticket under white Stalinist Gus Hall, like her a real barrel of laughs. Davis and Hall twice lost to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, big time, but that defeat could not prevent Davis from becoming professor of the history of consciousness and feminist studies at UC Santa Cruz. Before that she gained fame for supporting violent male convicts such as Black Panther George Jackson, who killed a guard at Soledad Prison.
As this article described it, Davis brought the “arsenal of weapons” to spring Jackson. On August 7, 1970, “George Jackson’s 17-year-old brother, Jonathan, charged into a Marin County courtroom and took several people hostage, including Judge Harold Haley, the prosecuting assistant DA, and two jurors. The assailants taped a sawed-off shotgun (owned by Davis) to Haley’s chin. In the ensuing escape attempt, a shootout took place during which Haley’s head was blown off, and Jonathan Jackson was killed.”
The pro-gun Davis fled but was arrested in New York. At her 1972 trial more than 20 witnesses implicated her in the plot to free Jackson, but Davis gained acquittal. That made her a national figure and helped launch her political career.
In 1979, Angela Davis won the International Lenin Peace Prize, awarded by the Soviet Union. The award helped her rise in the Communist Party, but she was not America’s only star Stalinist.
Paul Robeson boasted huge talents as a singer, actor and athlete but spent much of his life defending the all-white Communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union during the worst of Stalin’s repressions. The USSR duly gave him the Stalin Peace Prize, which Robeson proudly accepted.



Robeson was good pals with Frank Marshall Davis, a Stalinist pornographer and poet who made a name for himself as a journalist in Chicago. Frank is the poet Occidental College student Barry Soetoro called “Pop,” in one of his published poems. Then Barry claimed that a dead Kenyan named Barack H. Obama “bequeathed” his name to him.
Rebadged as the son of a Kenyan goatherd, he duly gained election as the 44th President of the United States and served two terms. He looked a lot like “Frank,” as Davis was called in Dreams from My Father. And as Paul Kengor pointed out in The Communist, his policies bore remarkable similarities to the writings of Frank Marshall Davis, a security risk with an FBI file 600 pages long.
The president’s narrator David Axelrod said his “dream client” represented the future, and he called himself a progressive, as communists had been doing for some time. Progressives have somehow escaped the false consciousness that smothers ordinary working people, who cling to their religion and their guns. Progressives also claim special knowledge of the future, and in their vision it looks like the brand of Soviet Americastan the recent president was trying to achieve.
He was counting on designated successor Hillary Clinton, who once worked for Stalinist lawyer Robert Treuhaft, to complete the job. The people turned her down and elected Donald J. Trump, not the outcome the progressives wanted. In their view, nothing is ever wrong with progressive candidates or any of their policies.
Therefore, if the progressive candidate loses, the election was rigged, Putin got Trump elected, and so forth. Then, the day after the inauguration, the progressives show up in force, led by Stalinist wind tunnel Angela Davis, a two-time loser as vice-presidential candidate of the Communist Party USA, defender of all-white, all-male Communist dictatorships, and a gun moll for violent criminals.
That is how millenials, GenXers, and everybody else, should regard Angela Davis. After all, as she says, “history cannot be deleted like web pages.”

[Lenno]

Bracken: The CHOWM Must Die! The Rise Of True Progressive Identity Politics

Posted on January 24, 2017 | 84 comments

Matt sends advance word of a speech and mindset coming to a neighborhood near you:
The CHOWM Must Die!
The Rise Of True Progressive Identity Politics
By Matt Bracken
My progressive friends and intersectional allies, the CHOWM really just have to die, and the sooner the better. I don’t care if they die of old age or of something else, but they had better die pretty soon, because let’s face it, they have ****ed up the entire world, and it’s only getting worse. The illegitimate “election” of the CHOWM-in-Chief was the last straw. Now it must finally be said out loud: the CHOWM must die, if our progressive, peace-loving peoples are to survive!
Look at almost any developing nation, or just look at our own inner cities. The CHOWM blood-suckers, who don’t even live there, have all the money and all the power, while our people are forced to suffer in poverty, misery, degradation and oppression. And whom shall I ask enslaved our beautiful, peaceful African people and dragged them to this miserable continent in the first place, 400 years ago? The CHOWM–and don’t you ever forget it!
Sure, some of our more timid progressive ally-sisters and ally-brothers will say that not all of the CHOWM are completely evil, that not all of them were slave masters and patriarchal colonial oppressors and racists and Islamophobes and cisgender bigots. They will point out that airplanes and televisions and smart phones were invented by the CHOWM. And while this may be true, it’s only because the CHOWM stole the best secrets from the ancient Africans and the other people of color around the world, people who would also have invented all of these things too, if the CHOWM had not oppressed them and held them down through colonialism, slavery, capitalism, white privilege, Islamophobia, the patriarchy, and cisgender bias of every kind.
But lucky for us, the CHOWM are easy to recognize in a crowd. In fact, they can’t hide at all. First of all, their skin is a nasty pasty white, and they are old and ugly and weak. And worst of all, they are all men. No, worst of all, they are white. No, worst of all, they are white men. Now, some non-Christian and non-conservative gay and trans men can be intersectional allies of the oppressed peoples, but not the CHOWM. The CHOWM can never be an ally, because they do not intersect with our oppressed peoples in any positive or beneficial way. The CHOWM are our eternal enemies and oppressors, period.
But there is some good news, (other than the fact that the CHOWM are very easy to spot). Most of the CHOWM are getting old, and they are going to die soon. Walk into any government office and look around: most of the CHOWM are really, really old. As soon as all of the CHOWM retire and die off, or just die off, they won’t be in charge anymore. And when the CHOWM are no longer our bosses, they won’t be able to protect those other pricks, the CHYWM. And then it will really be payback time for 400 years of oppression! No, make that 4,000 years, because of how the ancient CHOWM stole all of the best ideas from the ancient Africans, and used them to oppress all progressive peoples.
Now, because we can’t always tell the CHOWM from our own progressive LGBTQ – OWM intersectional allies, let’s just agree that all of the OWM must die. We can’t take any chances when it comes to the sneaky, lying CHOWM, because they are simply too dangerously evil to tolerate. And as far as the YWM, well, you must certainly understand that 100% of the CHOWM began life as YWM, so after 4,000 years of CHOWM oppression, don’t you think that they have had more than enough time being in charge? So all of the YWM must die too, or eventually we’ll be dealing with CHOWM oppression all over again.
And as far as our progressive WW intersectional ally sisters, for sure they are not part of the patriarchy, (thank Gaia!), but let’s face it, haven’t they been far too close to the CHOWM for far too long? Collaborating with the CHOWM at every turn, “marrying” them, sleeping with them, and together, making lots of little CHYWM who invariably grow up to be CHOWM? Of course they have. So just to be on the safe side, let’s get rid of the WW and especially the YWW, because let’s face it, it takes a YWW to make a YWM who will grow up to become a CHOWM. Nits make lice.
So all progressive peoples must finally agree: we just need to get rid of the OWM, the YWM, the OWW, and the YWW, if we want to be absolutely sure that we have eradicated the CHOWM menace from the Earth. Or to simplify the message, let’s just get rid of the evil W strain of humanity. Only then can the peace-loving non-CHOWM peoples of the world all live together in perfect harmony, sharing the unending social progress that we deserve. In 2017, all reasonable progressives must understand that 4,000 years of CHOWM oppression have been more than enough.
The CHOWM must die.
Lest you think the above does not accurately describe FUSA’s current course and speed, consider this article.
Watch your six, and remember:

[Lenno]

Published on Jan 25, 2017
Order Gorilla Mindset: http://www.fdrurl.com/gorilla-mindset
Order MAGA Mindset: http://www.fdrurl.com/MAGA
MP3: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3570/is-...
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneu...

Mike Cernovich joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the evolution of the DeploraBall, the terrorist threats against the event exposed by James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, leftist violence during President Donald Trump's Inauguration in Washington, DC, unsealing Jeffrey Epstein court records, how to prevent violence and avoiding civil war in the United States.

Mike Cernovich is a lawyer, filmmaker and the bestselling author of “Gorilla Mindset: How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms” and “MAGA Mindset: How to Make You and America Great Again.” Cernovich is also the producer of the film documentary “Silenced. Our War On Free Speech.”

Follow Mike on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Cernovich
Read Danger and Play: http://www.dangerandplay.com
Follow Mike on Periscope: https://www.periscope.tv/Cernovich
Order Gorilla Mindset: http://www.fdrurl.com/gorilla-mindset
Order MAGA Mindset: http://www.fdrurl.com/MAGA

[Lenno]

Literal Obliviousness

Porter / 2 days ago January 24, 2017
In 1918 Russia, leftist Bolsheviks conducted a campaign of murder so vast and depraved that media and entertainment organs committed themselves to forever shielding the public from its horror. The Red Terror was a starburst of logical conclusion liberalism that has persistently evaded capture in American museum dedications and feature films. Though this omission was certainly not from a lack of enthusiasm. Of its many publicly-mute recountings I thought Wiki’s entry captured the spirit of the occasion well. Please do read it all.

At Odessa the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water; in Kharkiv, scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims’ hands to produce “gloves”; the Voronezh Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails; victims were crucified or stoned to death at Dnipropetrovsk; the Cheka at Kremenchuk impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants; in Orel, water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues; in Kiev, Chinese Cheka detachments placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim’s body in an effort to escape.
Executions took place in prison cellars or courtyards, or occasionally on the outskirts of town, during the Red Terror and Russian Civil War. After the condemned were stripped of their clothing and other belongings, which were shared among the Cheka executioners, they were either machine-gunned in batches or dispatched individually with a revolver.
Those killed in prison were usually shot in the back of the neck as they entered the execution cellar, which became littered with corpses and soaked with blood. Victims killed outside the town were moved by truck, bound and gagged, to their place of execution, where they sometimes were made to dig their own graves.
According to Edvard Radzinsky, “it became a common practice to take a husband hostage and wait for his wife to come and purchase his life with her body.” During Decossackization, there were massacres, according to historian Robert Gellately, “on an unheard of scale”. The Pyatigorsk Cheka organized a “day of Red Terror” to execute 300 people in one day, and took quotas from each part of town. According to the Chekist Karl Lander, the Cheka in Kislovodsk, “for lack of a better idea,” killed all the patients in the hospital.
In October 1920 alone more than 6,000 people were executed. Gellately adds that Communist leaders “sought to justify their ethnic-based massacres by incorporating them into the rubric of the ‘class struggle'”.
Members of the clergy were subjected to particularly brutal abuse. According to documents cited by the late Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice. An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone.

Estimates of the dead range from five figures to seven. But they were only Cossacks, after all. Nevertheless you would think such innovative carnage might warrant a brief classroom mention between elegies of black men who were once called ******. Though admittedly that would consume time otherwise devoted to far more sacred and politically useful events.
Of course Soviet liberals were hardly content to commit only one forgotten eradication. So 14 years later they intentionally starved to death millions of Ukrainians. The story of whom could never quite find space in the Hollywood release calendar between Iron Man installments.
And that certainly wasn’t all. Historian Robert Conquest believed in total Stalin may have stuffed his stat sheet with up to 30 million souls in a quixotic, but ultimately futile, quest for Western infamy. Alas, he chose his victims poorly. So poorly in fact that he killed people by the bushels who don’t even have American advocacy organizations. Which, as far as education and media organs are concerned, may as well have been killing no one at all. As a result, he’s no more than a fading historical footnote whose name rarely attracts an accusation of being literally Stalin.
Though poor Joe is in poor company. China’s leftist Chairman sent some 45 million shuffling off the Earth, and yet no one is ever literally Mao.
The petite Cambodian was a relative piker in absolute numbers. But given the clay with which he had to work, his butcher’s bill was probably as high a percentage of the population as any leftist in modern history. Which is beating a field of extraordinary depth. But still, he languishes without a single literally Pol Pot.
An earlier and entirely unremarked upon vintage was the 1804 Haitian massacre.

Squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families. Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed. A second wave of massacres targeted white women and children.

Given precedent I presume that American schools systematically browbeat black students about their inherited guilt for this racial atrocity. Despite this, practically none of them ever suffer accusations of being literally Dessalines.
And that’s a shame. Because being a literal historical villain grants very dumb and programmable drones the moral license to physically attack their political opponents with a clear conscience.
This being a course the world’s few circumspect ****libs may want to reconsider before continuing. Because history’s pantheon of literal leftist monsters is absolutely brimming with choice. Social justice retards may or may not consider themselves literal Bolsheviks, but it’s not their evaluation to make. And if a literal nazi can be attacked on the streets to media cheers, then the people who literally used to peel hands into gloves and feed nuns molten lead have a very modest moral defense against suffering a similar experience.
The left is going down a sure path to mutual misery in implying a man’s legal protections cease once a gaggle of yard-sale fanatics sees a mustache in the clouds. Never comprehending what faces others recognize in them. But at least there is one country that will never forget the Red Terror. Unfortunately, that country is Ethiopia.

[Lenno]

America’s Emerging Nationalism Crisis

Progressives managed not to see the nose on their face

By John R. Schindler • 11/14/16 8:30am


When Democratic leaders denounce Trump and the Republicans as the party of ‘hate’ it’s not surprising that the country’s perennially aggrieved lumpenriot contingent takes action. David McNew/Getty Images

The election of Donald Trump as our next president heralds a new political epoch for the United States. Whatever his shortcomings as a candidate, the Republican nominee, a political neophyte, slayed both of the political dynasties that had more or less run our national life for the last three decades. There won’t be anyone named Bush or Clinton around the White House for a good long while now. This is no mean feat, not to mention something for which all Americans who dislike dynasties should be grateful.
How Trump did it is being hotly debated. True to form, Hillary Clinton has announced that her loss is all the fault of the FBI and its director, whose eleventh-hour reopening of her email scandal sank her at the ballot box. Whatever one thinks of James Comey, who has managed to offend both right and left in recent months, the notion that his investigation of Hillary’s emails, rather than her own mistakes as secretary of state—the steadfast refusal to use government email for government work, her “private” server of bathroom infamy, all the highly classified information that wound up in her “unclassified” emails, not to mention her innumerable lies about it all—constituted the real problem in EmailGate reeks of the purest Clintonism.
Democrats are also pointing a finger at Moscow, claiming that its secret ties to the Trump campaign plus the clandestine help of Wikileaks, whose massive dumps of Democratic emails painted Team Hillary in a highly unfavorable light, ultimately did in Clinton, Inc. Here they’re on somewhat firmer ground. Kremlin interference played a role in the campaign—exactly how much will be debated for decades—in a manner that should trouble all Americans.Continue Reading this Article

Advertisement: [COLOR=#3B68FF !important]Replay Ad[/COLOR]

Ads by ZINC

That said, there’s not much to deny here, since Moscow has now admitted its previously hush-hush ties to Wikileaks and its contacts with members of the Trump campaign. Moreover, those who are now so eager to find Russians under every bed in Washington are the same people who pooh-poohed warnings about Wikileaks and the Kremlin—I was issuing them years ago—as scaremongering. It’s too late now, the election’s over. Time to move on, learn lessons, and accept the people’s verdict.
Some Americans are clearly not ready to move on. Their radical fringe has been fighting in the streets, rioting and burning trees to show their displeasure, thereby proving true all the nasty things that Trump has said about the nut-left. The ugly nature of these outbursts has many wondering what has happened to the country. However, when Democratic leaders publicly denounce Trump and the Republicans as the party of “hate” it’s not surprising that the country’s perennially aggrieved lumpenriot contingent takes action.
At a certain level, how Trump won is so simple that most pundits—the same people who gave the president-elect no chance of winning—can’t see it. The Republican nominee got enough white votes—especially among the working class, particularly in the upper Mid-West—to offset huge Democratic advantages among minorities and white professionals. This was the Sailer Strategy, named after the insightful blogger who coined the notion back in 2000. Steve Sailer’s essential idea, that the GOP needed to max out the white vote to keep winning national elections in the face of changing demographics, was rejected by most Republicans as smacking of racism.
It cannot be stated too many times that the GOP establishment repeatedly rejected Sailerism. Indeed, leading Republicans often seemed to run in the other direction from its commonsense logic. The facts are clear: that Mitt Romney failed to get many votes from working-class whites in the very places where Trump just attracted them in droves caused the GOP to lose the White House in 2012.
It cannot be denied that ethno-racial concerns played a role here—and that it was the Democrats who opened that can of worms.
Predictably, the vanquished GOP in November 2012 determined that they needed to get more Hispanics voting Republican. The stakes were clear within days of Romney’s defeat, as I observed at the time:

The GOP has a basic choice to make if it wants to survive as a national party: Get more Hispanics or get more whites. Doing the latter, especially reaching out to whites who are economically hurting, would require the party to conduct a painful self-examination as to why it favors the wealthy so consistently at the expense of average people. Doing the former will require glossy ads, more token brown faces at GOP events, and greater marketing en español yet no real introspection. Of course, the latter course might actually save the Republicans nationally, while the former course is a flight of fancy. Nevertheless, expect bulk purchases of “Yo soy Republican!” t-shirts and bumper-stickers to rise.

Trump adopted the Sailer Strategy—whether he knew it I have no idea—and won handsomely. It would be wrong to impute huge numbers of down-market whites voting for Trump simply to racism, as many on the left predictably are doing. Quite a few Trump voters in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio turn out to have voted for Obama—twice. They wanted change, Obama didn’t deliver, so they gave Trump a chance to be the change-agent in Washington they have long sought. The roots of their dissatisfaction are social and economic more than racial, and bien-pensant efforts to portray their legitimate grievances as “hate” reflect the worst of post-modern progressive intolerance.
All the same, it cannot be denied that ethno-racial concerns played a role here—and that it was the Democrats who opened that can of worms. Since the beginning of the century, liberals have been crowing about the “emerging Democratic majority” being delivered by changing demographics, heavily fueled by immigration (legal or not). President Obama’s reelection four years ago seemed to conclusively prove that the “new” America—morally superior to the old, white-dominated one—had arrived, and the Republicans were on life support, waiting for GOP voters to go the way of the dinosaur. As one of Obama’s media acolytes hailed the 2012 victory:

President Barack Obama did not just win reelection tonight. His victory signaled the irreversible triumph of a new, 21st-century America: multiracial, multi-ethnic, global in outlook and moving beyond centuries of racial, sexual, marital and religious tradition.

This was more of the Marxistoid “right side of History” blather that Team Obama has indulged in for the last eight years—and it was utterly wrong. To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved. They didn’t like being derided by their betters as “bitter clingers” with their guns and Bibles, and they especially didn’t like being termed “deplorables” unworthy of compassion or consideration. In the last days of Hillary’s doomed campaign, its contempt for a huge chunk of the American population had become so blatant that one of her top celebrity surrogates publicly hailed the “extinction” of straight white men as a step in the right direction.
Trump is no political genius. He made an appeal to working-class whites, who correctly felt that the Democrats viewed them with undisguised contempt and didn’t want their vote. The “emerging Democratic majority” thesis included the need to get some of those whites, a legacy Democratic voting bloc, to win national elections; under Obama, his party decided they didn’t need them at all, which was a terrible, almost incomprehensible mistake. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that running against working-class whites—at almost 40 percent of the electorate, the biggest voting bloc in America—is the definition of political insanity.
Yet progressives somehow managed not to see the nose right on their face. Hence President Trump. What commentators term “identity politics” has now become normative, thanks to the Democrats indulging in it, and Trump is now aping them. It would be more correct to term this what it actually is: nationalism. Ethno-racial nationalism is an enormously potent political force; wise politicians know this and employ it cautiously. Nationalism arouses genuine passion and is a political motivator like no other, which it explains why a majority of white women voted for Trump, to the bitter consternation of outraged feminists.
Moreover, once nationalism becomes the main political factor, there’s no putting that troublesome genie back in the bottle. Politics become tribal, ethnic conflicts waged at the ballot box rather than on the battlefield. Having done most of my scholarly work on multiethnic societies like the Habsburg Empire and Yugoslavia, I can attest that the fires of nationalism, once stoked, are only put out with great difficulty—and that ethnically diverse societies that play games with nationalism are living dangerously.
Nationalism transforms politics from ideology to tribe. As Lee Kwan Yew, whose founding and prosperous running of multiethnic Singapore for three decades made him one of the most successful politicians of the 20^th century, expressed it concisely, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
The power of nationalism ought never be underestimated. German nationalism in the first half of the last century was so potent that it took two world wars—at the cost of ten million dead Germans, most of their cities flattened, plus major territorial losses and decades of foreign occupation—to finish it off as a political force.
Many Americans have taken to the odd notion that some nationalisms are bad while others are good. This is a thoroughly Marxist conceit, and Communist regimes for decades tried to assess whose nationalisms were “progressive” and which ones were “reactionary.” In the end, such word games only enflamed the passions of all ethnic groups and helped fragment the Soviet Union, whose collapse was more about competing nationalisms than anything else. It also led to the even more unpleasant dissolution of Yugoslavia in war and genocide.
In recent decades, Washington has advocated that Black, Hispanic and Asian nationalisms are “good” (Americans of Middle Eastern descent may soon be added to the good list) while White Nationalism is “bad.” However, average whites—meaning those not indoctrinated in critical race theory in college—will never see it that way. The problem with pushing identity politics among minorities as a political weapon is that the majority eventually realizes they have an identity too. As I explained back in early 2015, before Donald Trump entered the presidential race, “However verboten discussion of White Nationalism is at present among polite Americans, it is unavoidable that this will become an issue in the future, with potentially explosive consequences.”
Trump’s winning our presidential election heralds a new era in American politics. The Democrats decided to bet everything on their emerging “new” America, and lost big. Obama’s two terms have overseen the destruction of the Democrats as a national party: they control nothing in Washington now and their performance at the state level is nothing short of dismal. Democrats dominate our big cities, California, and the Northeast—and little else. Barack Obama’s real legacy is putting Donald Trump in the White House.
There’s not much for Republicans to crow about, however, despite their enormous political windfall. Trump won precisely because he ignored or repudiated most longstanding “conservative” policies. Working-class whites have little interest in privatizing Social Security or open borders or engaging in endless losing wars in the Middle East. The GOP has changed, only their leaders seem not to have noticed. The Republicans are now the White party, de facto, whether they want to be or not. American politics will never be the same, and 2016 looks like a landmark election in the manner of 1980, 1932, or 1860, each of which transformed the United States. Buckle up, it looks to be a bumpy ride ahead in the emerging era of competing American ethno-nationalisms.

[Lenno]

[Lenno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmf-qSlRu1Y

[Lenno]