The Democratic Party is one of the two large political parties in America, the one opposed by the Republicans. The Democrats are the Left Wing, which means in practice that they back a number of causes. The other major grouping, the Republican Party inclines to the Right Wing. At all events that is their public position. Some say that their real positions are much closer.

Now, in 2016 as the presidential candidates are fighting for favour it seem that white people on the left have a major problem, one which is only going to get worse as the black and brown populations increase. Sam Dickson explains all. Blacks and Hispanics want more. They have been sold various stories, which cast them as victims or losers while the Whites on the left have swallowed them, along with the idea of White Guilt. Now they are finding that that black and brown want more without the nuisance of earning it. Whites are even noticing Black Hate - or should be. See Winning The Next Election In America to know who votes Democrat and why.

That is why white people of the Democrat persuasion find themselves backing Bernie Sanders, a Marxist Jew [ see e.g.  Bernie Sanders ex Jewish Virtual Library ] because Hillary Clinton has the black and brown vote sewn up even though she is white. She will tell anyone anything if it brings in the votes. She is also an enthusiastic Traitor who panders to Zionist crazies. Of course Sanders does too.

So the big deal here is that those left wing white people have gotten themselves in an ugly position. Their often sincere Altruism is becoming Pathological; it means they are being squeezed out of power by Third World aliens who hate, or can easily be incited using various manufactured grievances i.e. Black Hate. But let Mr Dickson explain Black And Hispanic Democrats Versus White Democrats. He is our man on the ground. Confirmation comes from Sacco Vandal of American Renaissance - Will Democrats Ever Nominate Another White Candidate For President?

Black And Hispanic Democrats Versus White Democrats [22 March 2016 ]

Lots of White faces at a Bernie rally
With all the attention on Donald Trump, there has been little discussion of the astonishing rift between Black and Hispanic Democrats on one hand and White liberal Democrats on the other.

Hillary Clinton has shut Bernie Sanders out of the Black and Brown voters. She is their candidate. She is catering to them to an astonishing degree. She has endorsed all the fantasies and lies about White cops killing Black males. She has hauled the mother of Trayvon Martin around, putting her on the stage to endorse her candidacy, and talking about how Lil’ Trayvon was murdered by George Zimmerman but there was no justice. She has extolled the Gentle Giant. She made statements about a breaking story about three Black coeds who claimed they were attacked by Whites on a bus who called them “nigger.” When a surveillance video from the bus revealed that the whole story was concocted, Hillary refused to retract her statements or to apologize for joining in false accusations against innocent people.

There is no limit in race-betrayal that Clinton will not go to.

Clinton is now virtually the captive of the Blacks and Browns. They cast about half the votes in the Democratic Party. They are the ones who have given her the nomination.

The White Democrats — even the wimmin — have deserted her and flocked to Sanders in droves.

Sanders has gotten nowhere in his efforts to chip non-White voters away from Clinton.

He is the candidate of the White wing of the Democratic Party.

What does this mean for White Nationalists like us who are thinking in long range terms (like Jews) instead of next weeks primary vote?

A lot.

For many years I have predicted that there would come a point at which White liberals would realize that their Black and Brown friends don’t have the slightest interest in issues that excite White liberals: gay rights, environmentalism, funding for the arts, conservation, public parks.

No. The Blacks and the Browns are only interested in “The Gimme.”

And increasingly Blacks and Browns will control and dominate the Democratic Party. Already, they are sending the White liberal Democrats to the back of the bus.

The alliance between White liberals and the racist minorities is breaking up. They are splitting.

Add in the fact that there are a lot of White liberals at the local level who have caught on that the Jews are running their own racist ethnostate and that their posturings about fighting racism and their deep, deep concern about the plight of Blacks and the need for open borders are utterly insincere.

At some point our White liberal racial brothers and sisters are going to be up for grabs.

The schizoid nature of Democratic voter behavior along racial lines shows that this is coming.

How can we reach out to them and help raise the consciousness?



Democratic Party ex Wiki   
The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party. Tracing its heritage back to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, the modern-day Democratic Party was founded around 1828, making it the world's oldest active party.[9]

Once its dominant worldview was classical liberalism, but modern social liberalism became a force within the party with the candidatures of William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, who won the presidential nominations in 1896, 1900, 1908, 1912 and 1916. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal coalition in the 1930s the Democratic Party has promoted a social-liberal platform,[3] supporting social justice and a mixed economy.[10] The Democrats' philosophy of modern liberalism advocates social and economic equality, along with the welfare state.[11] It pursues a mixed economy by providing government intervention and regulation in the economy.[12] These interventions, such as the introduction of social programs, support for labor unions, moves toward universal health care and equal opportunity, consumer protection, and environmental protection form the core of the party's economic policy.[11][13]

Well into the 20th century, the party had a conservative pro-business wing and attracted strong support from voters of recent European extraction—many of whom were Catholics—based in the major cities, and included a populist-conservative and evangelical wing based in the rural South. After 1932 and Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, the business wing withered and, between the 1960s and the 1990s, Southern whites and many Catholics moved into the Republican Party. Today, the congressional Democratic caucus is composed mostly of progressives and centrists,[14] with a smaller minority of conservatives.

There have been 15 Democratic presidents: the first was Andrew Jackson, who served from 1829 to 1837. The most recent is the current one, Barack Obama, who has been in office since 2009.

In the 114th Congress, following the 2014 elections, Democrats hold a minority of seats in the House of Representatives as well as in the Senate. The party also holds 18 governorships and control of a minority of state legislatures.


Democrats Furious About Criminal Investigation [ 30 October 2016 ]
The Democratic Party don't want Hillary Clinton investigated for taking bribes or anything else. They didn't complain when the FBI went easy on her.


Wikileaks Exposes Election Fraud By Democrats That  Helped Clinton [ 12 November 2016 ]


Winning The Next Election In America [ 18 November 2016 ]
In this amazing election the American people voted against globalism and the Washington, New York, and Hollywood establishment with all the drama and suspense of the recent British Brexit vote.  Or as one Brit put it, “We do Brexit and the F***ing Americans have to do it bigger.” If it had been a referendum on globalism, free trade and open borders I have no doubt that the numbers would have been much more extreme. Now, with the full measure of political power the Republicans have achieved in this election, you can bet there will be more rollbacks than Walmart ever dreamed, starting with all the executive orders, Obamacare, the Iran giveaway, etc.

Given all the forces arrayed against Trump (Washington elites in both parties, mainstream media at home and abroad, New York and Hollywood media elites, Academia, etc.) one must ask, how the heck did he win? Exit poll data collected by Edison Research for the National Election Pool revealed that Clinton drew the bulk of her support from the motley crew that constitutes the Democratic base: Blacks (88%), Liberals (84%), GLBT community (78%) & Jews (71%); and to a lesser degree, Hispanics (65%) and urban residents (59%)...............

This suggests that Trump won because of increased concern among Whites about incoming diversity. Election results show that Whites who see diversity increasing tend to vote for candidates of the right, and this is a pattern revealed in recent research...........

Don’t expect such an anemic Democratic turnout in 2020. I believe that this is just a temporary reprieve, and that the Republican control of the presidency and both houses of Congress may be as short lived as Obamas’ 2-years unless action is taken now........

 Trump will be able to shore up his numbers if his policies are seen as benefiting suburban, college-educated Whites and White women and if he can keep the support of his White working class base.

Many White suburbanites, after all, moved there partly to escape diversity, and once the pall of political correctness begins to lift, they may see that their best interests lie with a vibrant White majority willing and able to defend its interests.
Peter Baggins, a relative of Bilbo Baggins(?) is quite right. Socialists, Homosexuals, Jews in general, Zionist crazies in particular and the rest of the Enemy Within will attack. In fact they already are. Defending Western Civilization is a worthy project.


Democratic Party Incites Black Hatred [ 30 November 2016 ]
This is a criminal offence in England but of course the BBC is allowed to do it just the same. Her Majesty's Government policy is to import Third World criminals, to create Trojan Horses and Ethnic Fouling. It has been very successful in America.


Will Democrats Ever Nominate Another White Candidate For President? [ 27 December 2016 ]
Hillary's failure may be the end of the line for whites. 2016 has been a year of great political change. Like Richard Nixon’s election in 1968, the 2015 election will go down in history as a political realignment. It marks the beginning of Republicans as a white working-class party that can win in the Rust Belt. The failure of any ideological conservative to win the nomination in the face of Donald Trump's populist-nationalism marks a major shift in the party’s appeal. The new electoral majority of Mr. Trump suggests that the Republicans may never again nominate a traditional conservative for president.

Less talked about, however, are the implications of Hillary Clinton’s failed candidacy. I suspect that the Democrats will never again field a white presidential candidate.

Since the 1960s, the Democratic Party has pursued policies and taken positions that appeal to non-whites. This strategy has been successful; non-whites tend to vote as a bloc for Democrats. Except in local races, however, it is mainly white politicians who have practiced non-white identity politics. Not unlike the populares of ancient Rome, who went outside their class to champion plebian interests to secure power, white Democrats have won at the ballot box by appealing to non-whites. But the day of the white Democratic politician may be coming to an end.

As non-whites increase in numbers, the tone of black-brown identity politics has shifted from explicitly pro-non-white to implicitly anti-white. This has made it harder to appeal to whites. However, until the Trump candidacy, the Republicans did little since 1968 to capitalize on the Democrat’s lack of appeal to white voters.

Ever since Mr. Trump won the Republican nomination, there has been a lot of handwringing about the GOP’s appeal to whites. The Washington Post accused the GOP of becoming a “pity party for white males.” The Huffington Post titled an article, “So Long, Grand Old Party; Hello, White People’s Party,” and Rolling Stone called the Republicans the “party of white paranoia.” [ Well worth a read but make sure you don't do it with your mind in neutral. Decide which bits are insight and which are nonsense. - Editor ] However, little fuss is being made over the increasing reality of the Democratic Party as a coalition of non-white and even anti-white factions. And as white voters defect, white politicians may also.

White Democratic politicians in the Age of Obama more or less have to forsake whites in order to win non-white votes. As noted in this article, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was one of blatant pandering. All the potential Democratic nominees found themselves forced to condemn the slogan “all lives matter.” Such spectacles made them seem sensitive to non-whites in a way that disgusted many whites.

Non-whites vote overwhelmingly Democrat whether or not they are excited about the candidate. However, as the Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns suggest, the black-brown base seems less enthusiastic about a white candidate.

According to CNN exit polls, Mr. Obama won 93 percent of the black vote and 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, while Mrs. Clinton won only 88 percent and 65 percent, respectively. Also, low black turnout in three key cities—Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia—was partly responsible for Mr. Trump’s victory in all three of their respective states. Mrs. Clinton could have won the election if as many blacks and Hispanics had voted for her as for Mr. Obama.

It seems likely that a black or Hispanic Democratic candidate can motivate Democratic voters in a way that white candidates cannot. Black and brown voters saw Mr. Obama as one of them. A white politician can appeal to non-whites with words and policies, but a non-white politician plays identity politics without even opening his mouth.

But doesn’t the Democratic Party run the risk of alienating so many whites voters that even massive non-white support will not be enough to win the presidency? As Mr. Obama has shown, liberal whites will vote for non-whites. A large part of the white electorate still thinks it is especially virtuous to vote for a non-white. Furthermore, even if they become uneasy about the increasingly anti-white Democratic message, they will have no other place to go for the “progressive” policies they support. They will do what white Republican voters used to do: vote for a party that does not care about them—only because they have no alternative.

My guess is that the lesson the Democratic Party has quietly learned from 2016 is that they can no longer successfully run white presidential candidates. Just as we are unlikely ever to see another conservative ideologue at the head of the Republican ticket, we may never see another white Democratic candidate for president.
Mr Vandal is very much on the right lines. Demography is destiny. This is symptomatic. English readers should decode "liberal" as Left Wing.


Democrat's IT Specialist Was A Pakistani Car Dealer    [ 27 July 2017 ]
On Monday night Imran Awan, the principal IT aide to former DNC [ Democratic National Committee ]  honcho Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was arrested at Dulles Airport attempting to flee the country. "IT" means information technology, as in computers, as in hacking, as in what the Democrats insist happened to the election................

Monday's airport arrest follows the seizure of broken hard drives from the garage of the Awans' former home. The hard drives had been smashed with a hammer. Whether it was the same ceremonial DNC hammer used to smash Hillary's Blackberries has not yet been determined............

What connects the "fake news" and the real news is the DNC. The Russia "story" exists because the election wasn't hacked but the DNC was. Wikileaks released the Democrats' embarrassing emails to the world, although, helpfully, the US media mostly declined to report on them, and, in fact, CNN's Chris Cuomo lectured America that it's totally illegal for you mere citizens even to glance at these leaked emails [ NB They are at ]............

Julian Assange of Wikileaks says the Russians had nothing to do with the DNC email leaks. Take that with as many grains of salt as you want: he is, of course, a fugitive from justice, just like the DNC chair's IT aide and his wife and various relatives of theirs.

The Awan story has many interesting elements: The Pakistani-born Imran Awan, his wife, his brothers Abid and Jamal, and Abid's wife Natalia have provided IT services to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and dozens of lesser Democrat congressmen since about 2004. The family salaries totaled some $5 million, because supplying computer services to prominent Democrats is so vital and specialized a skill that it requires a rare and exceptional skill. The Awans' services were so critical that in March last year eight Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a letter demanding that these staffers be granted access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI).

Yet at the same time the Awans ran a full-time Virginia car dealership amusingly called Cars International A - or "CIA" - and were almost continually short of cash, requiring loans from all kinds of people including - Collusion Alert! - the Iraqi politician Ali al-Attar.

For inept broke car-dealers, the Awans somehow made themselves indispensable to powerful Democrats, among them those on sensitive committees such as Intelligence and Foreign Affairs including Andre Carson, Joaquín Castro, Lois Frankel, Robin Kelly, Ted Lieu and Jackie Speier. That's a lot of Democrat computers to wind up in the hands of one family of Pakistani immigrant car dealers...........

But who cares? It's not like Trump's son or son-in-law or vaguely connected former campaign advisor being in a room for 20 minutes with a Russian lawyer...........

Five months ago, as the coppers began closing the net on the family, other Democrats began distancing themselves from the Awan clan, notwithstanding their peerless IT skills........... Forget about Trump hinting to Comey that he's really hoping for some loyalty, and consider a powerful member of a House sub-committee threatening the head of the Capitol Police that "you should expect that there will be consequences" for refusing to return one of her laptops set up and controlled by Awan:

Why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz not do as her fellow congressmen did and dump the Awan clan as no longer politically convenient? Occam's razor: Because she was head of the DNC and thus Awan knew too much for her to cut him loose. Until yesterday. After his capture at the airport, while fleeing back to Pakistan.

The enterprising lad is said to have been trusted by Debbie with her iPad password and other access codes. So in other words - unlike speculation about Putin's FSB being in DNC computers - we know this guy was in them.

Are the "Russia investigation" and the Awan story comparable? Well, they're both about hacking, and both about DNC computers. One of them has actual arrests, on-camera political interference, destroyed evidence, and a proven money trail from foreign politicians. The other has no arrests, and a meeting with a minor Russian lawyer arranged by an Azerbaijani pop star's publicist.
Mark Steyn
explains it all so well. Hillary Clinton, her henchwench and other criminals get the Main Stream Media cover up while they carry on abusing Don.