Following Brutal Defeat, Jews Call for Reconstituting Democrat Party Under Hardcore Communism

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 12, 2016

The left is not good at self-reflection. But after their brutal defeat Tuesday night, they are at least attempting it.

However, while they are vaguely pointing to Hillary’s corruption and/or the disenfranchisement of the White working class by a globalist-multiculturalist agenda, the core argument coming from the loudest voices on the left is that the Democrats lost because they aren’t far enough left, and that the solution in the future will be to swing down into hardcore communism.

Earlier this week, we saw the captialist-globalist Jew Wolf Blitzer implying that the communist Jew Bernie Sanders could have beat Trump. This is the sentiment that the Jewish media is now flooding the left with.

The Jew Robert Reich (@RBReich), economist and former Secretary of Labor, writes for Huffington Post:

We need a people’s party – a party capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition to Donald Trump’s Republican party, which is about to take over all three branches of the U.S. government. We need a New Democratic Party that will fight against intolerance and widening inequality.

What happened in America Tuesday should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.

At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country’s biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge fund and private equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.

At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.

…

There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those primaries. Sanders’ major theme was that the country’s political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.

The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn’t take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off than they’ve been in years.”

Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don’t reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.

Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs.

…

They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.

Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.

Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump’s isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn’t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

The Israeli Jew Jonathan Tasini, (@jonathantasini), repeats the same sentiment for CNN:

There is only one silver lining in yesterday’s election results, which will allow a con man, a pathological liar, a bold racist and a sexual predator to succeed the first African-American president.

We can now launch a difficult but urgent mission — shaking the Democratic Party down to its foundation, ejecting the failed Bill/Hillary Clinton economic and global worldview and standing up for a set of populist, sound economic and foreign policy principles that could earn majority support.

On the surface, it’s astounding that a man who ripped off thousands of people who worked for him became the champion of the regular Joe. But, as Bernie Sanders reiterated in a recent podcast with me, the problem is that people have ceased to see a difference between the parties, particularly on economic issues. I’ll briefly cite a few examples.

Starting out with NAFTA, Bill Clinton forced “free trade” upon the party. I warned multiple times during the election that Trump would make inroads with voters in the Rust Belt unless Democrats made a clean break from corporate trade deals. Around the globe, these deals are a key tool to drive down wages, exploit workers and prosecute global class warfare. But, the current president still serves up the malarkey about the benefits of these deals.

Bill Clinton’s broader economic agenda was even more corrosive. During Clinton’s so-called “good economy,” the decline of organized labor continued. The president, and his secretary of labor, Robert Reich, did very little to arrest the decline.

No Democratic president was more focused on letting business interests off the leash. He gave more power to media companies, triggering consolidation and a powerful wave of concentration of the media into a few hands. The average person, not steeped in policy, understood this every time he or she opened their skyrocketing cable bills.

Hand-in-glove with Wall Street, Clinton got rid of the Glass Steagall Act, which removed the separation between commercial banks, insurers and investment banks, allowing the self-dealing manipulation of mortgages and interest rates and accelerating the shifting of huge wealth into the hands of a few.

Again, the average person, just trying to make ends meet, eventually got the sharpest end of that spear when millions of people lost their homes, jobs and retirement in the thundering collapse known as the Great Recession, which, for many, has been a depression.

There is so much more: A planet dying because for years fossil fuel interests were coddled. Welfare reform. Mass incarceration of people of color, which had both racial and economic consequences. The praise of the Clinton years, and red-faced defense by its leader, was always couched in contrast to the Reagan and two Bush Administrations. Great.

…

Fast forward to the 2016 election. There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump. His authenticity would have pierced through Trump’s fraudulent appeal. His concise, point-by-point evisceration of a failed economic model and aggressive, blundering foreign policy was entirely understandable to voters.

As one of Sen. Sanders’ national surrogates, I went to dozens of his rallies. At each one, he took to the stage, a big sheaf of papers in his hands, and, treating people as adults not just backdrops for TV ads, he conducted a seminar on America and the globe. People are quite familiar with Sanders’ economic agenda, including higher taxes on the wealthy, expanding Social Security and a single-payer Medicare for All system. All of which were sound economically, not to mention morally urgent.

…

Rather than foster a good debate during the primaries, the party, obsessed with the coronation of an anointed candidate, set out to destroy Sanders and his movement.

The various email leaks showing broad collusion only confirmed what was patently obvious on the surface: We stood in opposition to a virtual wall of elected Democratic officials, and party functionaries. Proudly so, I might add.

As a union member, I was particularly saddened to see the labor movement mostly line up in the primaries behind the status quo — a status quo often linked arm-and-arm with corporate interests bent on destroying unions.

Beyond rhetoric, democracy was not valued. Once Sanders effectively conceded the race, he took on full-throated advocacy for Secretary Clinton. To support his position, many of us, including me, agreed to play nice at the convention and beyond, because we felt that Donald Trump was a unique threat to the nation.

…

So, now what? Yesterday was indeed devastating. My niece texted me, “what do we do now?” Her desperate question broke my heart. I grew up in a feminist household: My mother was one of a handful of women to break a glass ceiling, going to medical school after she already had her three kids.

I know many young women are mourning the blow of a President Trump partly because of the rejection of a woman as the first president — which is yet another reason I argue we must remake the Democratic Party.

First, the Clinton machine must be rooted out of the party. A quarter of a century is enough time to understand that its ideology has failed the American people.

Second, the Democratic National Committee has to be turned inside out. The disgraced and deposed chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is only the worst symptom of this wider truth. The party has lost hundreds of state legislative seats, Republicans now control two-thirds of state chambers and have a comfortable majority of governorships (who will determine redistricting in 2020). They have a historic margin in the House of Representatives, will continue to run the Senate and, thus, likely put a Trump-stamp on the Supreme Court.

Third, we need to run targeted primary contests broadly and across the board to replace elected officials who don’t want to see a more open, vibrant and inclusive party. The Sanders movement has shown we can raise the money to fund challengers — and they are ready, by the thousands, to compete.

With these changes, and drawing from the energy of many great activists, a new Democratic Party can be revitalized. The progressive movement, in all its elements — advocates for labor, environmentalists, and civil rights of all stripes — can shape that future.

You will find this same sentiment all throughout the media. Even Shawn King (writing for the Jew Mort Zuckerman) is saying it. It is the new narrative: “we should have picked Bernie and gone with full-communism.”

None of this is genuine soul-searching; Jews are incapable of soul-searching, because they don’t have souls.

It is simply desperation.

Jews are incapable of accepting the fact that the number one issue that went to referendum on November 8th was multiculturalism and the dispossession of the White man by the foreign hordes.

This claim that Bernie could have beaten Hillary is utterly nonsensical. His policies were completely insane, and would have been exposed as such very easily. Even the uninformed are at least vaguely aware that communism is a failed economic model. More importantly, Bernie didn’t address the number one issue in this election, which was multiculturalism and immigration.

What has happened here is that the Jews have lost.

They almost won, but a miss is as good as a mile, as they say.

They had almost brought the country to the point where it would be mathematically impossible for Whites to revolt through the democratic process. A Hillary Presidency (or a Bernie Presidency, for that matter) would have given citizenship to enough new brown people that it would have taken us over the line, where the coalition of colored people, sexual degenerates and liberated women could win any election.

The only remaining options after the first Clinton term would have been violent revolution or acceptance of genocide.

But that window just been closed.

Donald Trump just slammed it shut.

He is going to remove the illegal Mexican element and ensure they never get citizenship. He is going to stop the brown flood pouring in from the whole world. And I believe his policies, and the climate that is created by him as a Leader and as a personality, are going to lead to stronger White families and thus higher White birthrates, which will ensure that we hold onto our country.

We should also look at boosting our demographics by increasing White immigration. South Africa is a good candidate.

Despite this obvious reality, I do believe that after this Clinton defeat, the Jews pushing for the communization of the Democrat party will probably win out. It isn’t going to fix their situation, but it will be fun to watch.