The rhetoric of the Clinton campaign represents the semitically correct state of the art, the culmination of decades worth of anti-White political discourse. The anti-White animus driving the Clinton campaign came to the fore especially toward the end of the campaign, in both her alt-right speech on August 24th and her basket of deplorables speech on September 9th. These speeches created controversy when they were delivered, but now in retrospect can be seen as definitive of Clinton’s campaign strategy and emblematic of the broader jew-led war on Whites.
After the election the Harvard Institute of Politics and jewsmedia figures conducted a lengthy post-mortem discussion between Clinton and Trump’s campaign managers. The most heated exchange occurred when the role of White voters came up for discussion (at about 1:35:00):
JENNIFER PALMIERI, CLINTON CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician I am glad to have laws. [interruption] Give me a minute. I am more proud of Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech than any other moment on the campaign trail.
CONWAY: Wow.
PALMIERI: She had the courage to stand up. I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.
. . .
PALMIERI: Kellyanne, his schedule didn’t concern me. What concerns me is hiring — is, is himself, you know, we’ve already gone through some of the examples of his own language, of his own positions that I believe were at odds with my values as an American of embracing diversity, inclusivity, equality. And hiring someone like Steve Bannon who has an act, with Breitbart and gives people and one of my proudest moments with her is her standing up with courage and with clarity in Steve Bannon’s own words and Donald Trump’s own words the platform that they gave to white supremacists, white nationalists. And it is a very, very important moment in our history as a country and I think as his presidency goes forward I am going to be very glad to be part of the campaign that tried to stop this.
A more telling concern was expressed by the jew Joel Benenson (at about 1:45:00), “Who are you trying to take the country back from, my grandparents who came here?”
Palmieri’s point was that the Clinton team perceived Trump’s rhetoric as appealling to White voters, and that they regarded such an appeal as unthinkably wrong specifically because the voters are White. Palmieri reiterated this point in a Washington Post op-ed:
I don’t know whether the Trump campaign needed to give a platform to white supremacists to win. But the campaign clearly did, and it had the effect of empowering the white-nationalist movement.
Trump provided a platform by retweeting white nationalists — giving their views an audience of millions. Views previously relegated to the darkest corners of the Internet also had a platform on Breitbart, the website of Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon.
If Trump expects the Americans who did not vote for him to accept him as president, he needs to show that he accepts all of them as Americans. He needs to show that he understands their concerns and hears their fears.
I suggest he and his team try “hashtag ‘we are all Americans.’ ” We all have a role to play here. But it’s the winner who carries the burden of taking the lead in uniting the country. It’s the burden of leadership. It’s the burden of being the president of the United States.
Palmieri’s assertion that Trump won by “providing a platform for White supremacists” is best understood as an inversion and psychological projection. Like Clinton, Trump pandered frequently and explictly to jews and every other group except Whites. Unlike Clinton, Trump never mentioned Whites. In contrast, the entire premise and frame of reference for Clinton’s alt-right speech, which Palmieri is most proud of, and Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” rhetoric, which she used in many contexts around the same time, was utterly and explicitly anti-White.
In light of this anti-White rationale, Palmieri’s suggestion that Trump’s burden is to serve “all Americans” is best understood as a clarification and restatement of Clinton’s campaign slogan: STRONGER TOGETHER (AGAINST WHITES).
The Clintons are better at being Jews than most actual Jews could hope to be in their wildest dreams. One hopes this defeat marks their exit from the political stage permanently.
Tan, your latest interview with John Friend has been great for morale, every time I play it.
White Nationalism, once distilled of the impurities of half-measure Conservatism, refined, is National Socialism – revolutionary. I have to think that this is the perceived monster, struggling to awake, in the paranoia nightmare of the Left. And it gives me comfort, as little else does. If the Clinton camp was NOT buzzing so hysterically, I’d be more nervous.
The 1488ers, i’d surmise, if they hypothetically had the numbers to move, are (should be) waiting for everything to start falling apart. At some point in all the mayhem, spread out over the globe, US Military guns would be too preoccupied on too many fronts to focus on rebels.
The Left knows they’ll have voting supremacy in a few more years, Trump or not. What could possibly make them dream that White Nationalists could be a threat? I pray their fears are justified.
This catfight would have been so much better if Conway would have just laughed and said, “You mad, bruh?” Conway won the Trump election. She won.
Yet Conway backs down when loser Palmieri starts crying about the alt-right and White supremacy. “White identity is evil” is a false paradigm the jews have created. The only way to lampshade these jews is to completely reject their fantasies. Jews have put us in the position of either being Nazis that want to kill 6 million jews or being cucks and allowing our race to be genocided. A third choice doesn’t exist.
Good point Cora. I started to respond and it turned into On Dog Whistling.