After the giant illegal alien marches in the spring of 2006, the mainstream media confidently predicted that Hispanics would turn out in vast numbers at the polls last November. Well, the Census Bureau's gold-standard estimate of the Hispanic share of the vote in the last election (based on its survey of 153,000 respondents) is now out, and the Latino fraction fell from 6.0% in 2004 to 5.8% in 2006.
As Peter Brimelow has been pointing out since 1997, simple arithmetic shows that the growth in Latino voters is bad for the GOP. (David Frum echoed Brimelow's point recently, and was called a Ku Klux Klanner for his troubles.)
As I've been pointing out since 2001, however, the widespread belief among Establishment Republicans like Karl Rove that the growth in the Latino vote is so rapid that they already constitute a decisive bloc whose views on illegal immigration can't be disobeyed is innumerate. There's still time when it remains politically feasible to do something about immigration.
For example, GOP pundit Michael Barone wrote that the Hispanic vote would reach 8 or 9 percent in the 2004 election. I publicly offered to bet him $1,000 that the Census survey of 50,000 households right after the voting would find a figure closer to 6.1%. The actual result was 6.0%, but Barone didn't take me up on my offer (which is too bad because I could use the money.)
The Hispanic share typically falls slightly from the more exciting Presidential election to the more ho-hum mid-term elections, because Hispanics aren't as dutiful voters. For instance, it dropped from 5.4% in 2000 to 5.3% in 2002. So, versus the last midterm election, the Hispanic share was up half a percentage point from 2002 to 2006. This continues the long-term trend of the Hispanic share growing 0.012 to 0.016 percentage points per year.
The Pew Hispanic Center points out that the Latino Demographic Tsunami isn't generating a similar Electoral Tsunami, as the graph shows. The Pew folks, who crunched the numbers off a Census Bureau data file, report:
" ... the growth of the Latino vote continued to lag well behind the growth of the Latino population. This widening gap is driven by two key demographic trends: a high percentage of the new Hispanics in the population are either too young to vote or ineligible because they are not citizens.
As a result, while Latinos represented nearly half the total population growth in the
About 5.6 million Hispanics voted in the 2006 mid-term election, which historically draws far fewer voters than the quadrennial race for president. Latinos accounted for 5.8% of all votes cast, up from 5.3% in 2002. That increase was largely a function of demographic growth.
Latinos historically lag behind whites and blacks in registration (percent among all eligible voters) and voting (percent of registered voters who actually cast ballots). In 2006, the pro-immigration rallies held in many cities raised expectations that political participation among Latinos would also increase.
Census data shows a marginal increase in registration and participation rates among Latinos between 2002 and 2006. Whites, however, also experienced a slight gain, so Latinos did not close the considerable gap. About 54% of Latino eligible voters registered in 2006, up from 53% in 2002. About 60% of these registered voters said they actually voted in 2006, up from 58% in 2002.
By contrast, 71% of white eligible voters registered in 2006, two percentage points higher than in 2002. About 72% of these registered voters said they voted in last year's mid-term elections, one percentage point higher than in 2002. ...
Hispanics accounted for 5.8% of the votes cast in 2006, up from 5.3% vote in 2002. In absolute numbers, an additional 800,000 Hispanics cast ballots in the 2006 election compared with the 2002 election.
Whites accounted for 81% of the votes in 2006, unchanged from 2002. In absolute numbers, an additional 5.6 million whites cast ballots in the 2006 election compared with the 2002 election. Blacks accounted for 10% of the votes in 2006, down from about 11% in 2002. The black vote increased by 400,000 in 2006.
The 5.6 million votes cast by Hispanics in 2006 represented 13% of the total Hispanic population. The 9.9 million votes cast by black represented 27% of the black population and the 78 million votes cast by whites represented 39% of the white population. [More]
So, non-Hispanic white residents of
Overall, whites cast almost 12 ballots for every ballot cast by a Hispanic.
If
Via Audacious Epigone.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
32 comments:
You wrote: "If Washington insiders weren't so clueless about these numbers, they never would have tried to inflict their amnesty bill on us. But, because you aren't supposed to talk about things like this ... they were astonished when the citizenry overwhelmingly rose up and rejected the Kennedy-Bush-McCain bill."
But if you read this article (http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html ) by an aide to Mexican President Vicente Fox, you'll see that there are more insidious factors than just ignorance. Excerpt:
While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
Should anyone consider as "weird" Steve's repeated statement that much support for open borders is driven by what he calls "Ellis Island nostalgia" on the part of Jews specifically, Perlstein's hysterical, abusive, out-of-the-blue, deeply paranoid response to Frum (specifically mentioning "Jewish people like me," the Ku Klux Klan, "my grandparents," etc.) will disabuse him. Steve is right on the money. As usual.
I'm shocked only that Perstein didn't throw Hitler in Frum's face. (But I suppose that's considered rude to do to a fellow Jew.)
Since open borders supporters are so exercised about 1920s "nativists," as Perlstein's comment exemplifies, it is worth linking again to Kevin MacDonald's evol psych perspective on immigration, which includes a discussion of this topic (PDF):
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7+Ref.pdf
One reason the Republicans keep talking up the Hispanic vote is that they are really representing the business lobby which does not give them any popular cache. It is much easier to say you are helping (the newest amricans, the hard working americans, etc) than it is to say that you are getting your marching orders from the same people that are funding your campaign. The "Hispanic vote" is just a fig leaf for the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Question for Kevin MacDonald readers:
Does he address the recent history of Jews in Australia, Britain, Brazil, France, and other countries? Have Jews in those countries promoted similar immigration policies to undermine those countries?
All attempts at self-preservation by America's white majority simply won't be tolerated by the Establishment. And as part of this national dispossession, all facts that point to a white-dominated existing social order (an galling example of a still fairly healthy society) or facts that bring attention to an existing past social order (a healthier and more harmonious society) will be ignored, downplayed or denied.
The average Joe & JoAnn are not supposed to get any ideas about a future other than non-white. Maintaining the aura of non-white majority demographic inevitability is a cornerstone of the project. That's basic strategy e.g. Bush declaring "I'll see you at the bill signing."
The Establishment is virulently anti-white and fairly diverse. Their grudge is a potent combination of WASP self-hatred ("yankee" or "puritan" progressives, homosexuals, feminists), and non-WASP alien hatred (ancient Jewish animus, ancient Irish animus, ancient Latin animus, and relatively recent Asian animus).
Also there's an ultimately anti-white Nordic contingent in our elite that is not really based on white self-hatred, but more philosophical in their opposition (think Minnesota liberalism).
The above groups together form an alliance that has finally generated a critical mass large enough to decapitate/displace the patriarchal WASP elite and chart the country on an radical and entirely new course: toward a majority non-white, socialist "democracy". The success of this project is mainly due to the organizing and fundraising efforts of the American Jewish community for the past 100 years.
Of the above groups, only the Nordic liberal is not motivated by outright ethnic or group hatred. Put a few beers into a politically active, non-traditionalist member of ANY of the other groups and ethnic or group hatred will likely manifest itself, albeit cloaked in various policy arguments.
The only ethnic groups whose members have been proven majority non-hostile to traditional white America are Germans, Italians, Scots-Irish, Polish, Russians - and for many this has been a long hard road.
None of the recent arrival exotic ethnic groups are going to be non-hostile in the long run.
Understand that this struggle is about majorities of each group (group characteristics) and not individuals. It really is all about group identity. Identifying this is the key to understanding American politics.
it seems like many americans, not only jewish ones, have a romantic idea about third world immigrants that they got from their own european ancestors.
one of the things we'll be hearing a lot about is how mestizos are just like italians and will turn into doctors and lawyers and inventors in only 1 or 2 generations. yet there is no evidence of past mestizo achievement along these lines, nor is there any track record of majority mestizo nations turning into world leaders in any fields.
...And as part of this national dispossession, all facts that point to a white-dominated existing social order (an galling example of a still fairly healthy society)...
One small bit of hope in this is that Establishment propaganda organs, such as yesterday's USA Today headline cheering on 100 million foreign-born "Americans" are eggsadgerating the acutal number of foreign born peeps residing in the US. Maybe, I hope I hope, the true number is smaller than that. Who knows, really?
If Washington insiders weren't so clueless about these numbers, they never would have tried to inflict their amnesty bill on us.
Hey, Steve, there is a new MSM charm offensive afoot judging by the fresh Crackdown on Immigration headlines. Naturally this must mean they are once again trying to "inflict their amnesty bill on us". I mean, there's no way in hell that Commissars Chertoff & Guiterrez are actually going to control the border.
So, what's the scoop? What are they up to? Where are they shoving the knife in, exactly? It is just coverage for a general continuation of Operation Sandbag?
I was scanning a related thread...
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/10/the-new-bush-immigration-enforcement-plan-color-me-underwhelmed/
...and didn't see any compelling reason for action right now. Perhaps Rove did some internal polling that said the entire Senate leadership was looking at the guillotine? Or the GOP fundraising has gotten only worse?
But then poster named Laree I think nailed it:
August 20-21 President Bush, President Calderon of Mexico and Prime Minister Harper of Canada, will meet for the Second SPP summit. Security Prosperity Partnership Summit. On the Agenda: The North American Union.
Hey, Steve, here is a link to another group of power hungry interlopers, the Chinese.
But instead of taking back the southwest, they're taking our moon!
China plans to survey 'every inch' of moon
How long until a Chinaman kicks over the US flag that we planted up there in 1969?
Hey, that's a good screenplay pitch for you out there in la la land. A lunar combat epic between the USA and China in the year 2030. The fight can start after a Chinese astronaut kicks moon sand into the face of one of our macho Mexican-heritage astronauts.
Implausible that we would have a space program in 2030? I agree...but this is a movie. I'd say make the battle between the Japan/India alliance and China but you're in Hollywood.
But you could think ahead into our chaotic mestizo future to when the Jews evacuate Hollywood and relocate to India where they quickly turn Bollywood into the cultural and media center of the world!
Anon 2:21 -- yes but what's the reaction of the "Born fightin" guys, the Scots-Irish in the South, and probably the Poles, Germans, Irish, etc. in the Atlantic and Midwest?
We're sunk. We cant' go anywhere. The feminist-black-etc. elite is simply going to provoke another Jacksonian revolt.
"Does he address the recent history of Jews in Australia, Britain, Brazil, France, and other countries? Have Jews in those countries promoted similar immigration policies to undermine those countries?"
Speaking only for Britain, I don't get the impression that Jewish politicians & commentators here promote uncontrolled immigration to anything like the same extent as in the USA.
In 2005 the Conservative party had a Jewish leader, Michael Howard, and Jewish Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin. They ran an anti-immigration campaign, with posters "It's Not Racist To Set Limits on Immigration". The Labour govt responded with posters where Howard's and Letwin's heads were put on the bodies of pigs, which apparently was aimed at the Muslim vote.
SN
Kevin MacDonald has documented pro-immigration political action similar to those in the US by Jewish organizations in many other countries, including Australia, Canada and, if I remember correctly, England.
Of course many (but a smaller than average percentage) of individual Jews oppose mass immigration, see "Inductivist" for statistics.
...yes but what's the reaction of the "Born fightin" guys...?
We're sunk. We cant' go anywhere. The ...elite is simply going to provoke another Jacksonian revolt.
Many agree that if current trends are not adjusted very quickly then, yes, "we're sunk".
But Steve's superb reality check as laid out in the subject of this thread demonstrates that the sinking process is happening much slower than the media would like you to believe.
In other words, the Browning of America (and the West) can indeed be stopped and reversed. And it is entirely within our natural rights as a people to do so. It is also a morally righteous project for humanity, contrary to what any Leftist will tell you, or what any neocon koolade drinker will tell you such as, for example, Hugh Hewitt.
The latinization of the USA will be a catastrophe for the globe. Domestically, it will mean a chronically weak currency and a dramatic decline in civic transparency. A gigantic population of folks "spiritually disconnected" from math and science cannot support a middle class.
Internationally, (aside from economic vacuum) latinization will snuff out the lamp of liberty that has been the light of the world for 200+ years. Without the USA as we know it, a chain reaction of decline will ripple around the world for ages.
The EU is not a replacement. Asia is not either. Asia is dependent on the West as the incubator of ideas. The West itself is hugely dependent on the USA.
Reality: The white West is a dramatically special and important slice of humanity. It is undeniably the lynchpin of the modern world. And a Latin nation is not Western. A Latin nation can never be a bastion of representative government, a vanguard of tech development, and defender of the free world. It's asking an apple to be an orange.
That having been said "Jacksonian revolt" is a horrible last-ditch solution. In between the extremes of La Raza brown beret nationalism and a Neo-Confederacy is a simple non-violent political reassertion of white American consciousness.
We must have an immigration timeout. Then we must erect a new cultural norm that recognizes the ills caused by mass immigration and demonizes transgressors. That is happening. This process must be developed fully and at a certain point it will cause self-deportation of the millions of illegal aliens. That is completely doable.
Calling bullsh*t on Competitive Moralists is just one small step to getting us back on stable footing as a continuum of traditional America with a confident white majority and various assimiliated minorities.
Do it right now in your personal life. Discuss the situation with friends and family. Refuse to seed the moral high ground to Competitive Moralists. Ever.
Does he address the recent history of Jews in Australia, Britain, Brazil, France, and other countries?
Not that I recall. If he does, it's only in passing (unless it's in something he's written fairly recently ('06-'07)).
Have Jews in those countries promoted similar immigration policies to undermine those countries?
Have a look at majorityrights.com (search). There have been some discussions of Europe.
"In 2005 the Conservative party had a Jewish leader, Michael Howard, and Jewish Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin. They ran an anti-immigration campaign, with posters "It's Not Racist To Set Limits on Immigration".
How can this be true? Doesn't evolutionary psychology determine that Jews must dilute white host societies with non-white immigrants? Why would Jewish politicians in Britain campaign on an immigration restrictionist platform?
Who ya gonna believe? Evolutionary psychology or your lying eyes?
How can this be true? Doesn't evolutionary psychology determine that Jews must dilute white host societies with non-white immigrants? Why would Jewish politicians in Britain campaign on an immigration restrictionist platform?
There have always been Jewish immigration restrictionists, just as there have always been Jewish conservatives. That hardly means anti-immigration sentiment or conservatism is the norm for Jews.
Take a gander at some press releases from the Anti-Defamation League in the last year:
ADL Applauds Overturning of Hazleton Illegal Immigration Ordinance
Immigration Issues, Global Anti-Semitism And Israel Top Agenda of ADL National Meeting in Washington, DC
That should be retitled "As Always, Immigration Issues, Anti-Semitism And Israel Top Agenda of ADL."
ADL Report: Extremists Declare 'Open Season' on Immigrants; Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence:
Horrors! It's just like that case in Newark where four "undocumented Americans" (as Harry Reid calls them) were lined up and shot execution-style by a crazed nativist from the Minutemen...or something like that.
Hadassah:
U.S. immigration has long been an important issue for the Jewish people. Throughout history, limits on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States have cost many Jewish lives and cost many others their chance to freely practice their religion. As such, we have also been sensitive to non-discriminatory immigration policies for other groups fleeing repressive governments. In fact, the very first American Affairs/Domestic policy statement, adopted by the National Board in 1946, called on the United States government to "... take the initiative in opening the doors to new immigrants."
How many lives have been lost because of lax immigration enforcement is a question that doesn't concern Hadassah.
American Jewish Congress Praises Senate Immigration Proposal
The American Jewish Congress today announced that it supports immigration reform legislation being proposed in the Senate. "We are pleased that, rather than attempting to criminalize the conduct of nearly 12 million people who came to our shores seeking opportunity, and rather than ignoring the need to protect the sanctity of America's borders and safety of our homeland, the Senate is pursuing a balanced approach in reforming our immigration and border security systems," said Neil B. Goldstein, American Jewish Congress Executive Director.
American Jewish Committee:
Understanding the significance of these events, AJC recently reaffirmed its commitment to fair and generous immigration policies, as fundamentally good for the United States and consistent with Jewish values
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs:
Action: Call your Senators and ask them to support amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S.1348) that will reaffirm the United States’ longstanding commitment to family values and fairness.
While JCPA applauds the Senate’s commitment to finding a workable compromise on Comprehensive Immigration Reform we hold serious reservations about other aspects of the bill, particularly those that address family-based immigration and the guest worker program.
The Jewish Labor Committee
The Arizona JLC has been involved in defense of the rights of immigrant workers and their families. Earlier, we helped form an Immigration Committee of the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix; later, we were able to help the JCRC pass a resolution on immigrant rights. Brother Brown was at the first meeting of, and the Arizona JLC subsequently joined, the newly-formed Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights. JLC is represented on the Coalition’s Leadership Training and Capacity Building Committee.
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Need I even tell you where an organization with a name like that stands?
Jewish organizations show about as much diversity of opinion on immigration as the YearlyKos convention does on race.
I don't know about 'evolutionary psychology', but compared to American Jews, my impression is that British Jews are generally (a) more religious, less secularised (b) more conservative, less liberal and (c) much much less likely to hold anti-WASP prejudices.
In the USA, most Jews live in areas where there are few working-class/lower-middle-class WASPs, such WASPs as there are tend to be upper-middle-class 'peer competitors' for Jews, and seem to still be seen as a threat (though I think this view is archaic). In the UK most people of all walks of life are WASPs, at least nominally; England also has numbers of middle and upper class Catholics who are barely distinguishable from WASPs. If you look at the obvious threats to Jewish interests here, it's the rise of the EU (most European nations' elites are genuinely anti-Semitic, despite the anti-Nazi rhetoric) and the linked growth of Islam. American Jews can ignore black and Hispanic anti-Semtism, but Israel makes it impossible to ignore Muslim anti-Semitism.
Free Republic? Yes, its still there.
It just got attacked by Bill O'reilly for having racist and anti-semite posters. Of course, BOR's examples of the racists/anti-semite posts were lies and exaggerations, but hey, BOR has to show he's "mainstream".
The BOR attack is funny since Jim Robinson bans people for posting Pat Buchanan articles, attacking illegal immigration, or simply writing anything not politically correct.
Its less a conservative website and than a RNC operation.
Why would Jewish politicians in Britain campaign on an immigration restrictionist platform?
Here are two likely possibilities:
Possibility 1: Some of the Jews of Britain, France, Holland etc are concerned about Islamic anti-semitism. After all, they are not importing Mexicans in Europe, but instead many Arab Muslims. But, in what looks like irrationality from the non-Jewish perspective, the majority of Jews are still anti-restrictionist. But nobody said divide & conquer was going to be easy! It's a dangerous game of walking a fine line. Apparently, WHATEVER it takes to dilute political power of a white Western host society is OK with many Jews, but some Jews are indeed having second thoughts.
It is reasonable to assume that the program itself is part liberal dogma and part payback for the Holocaust. An outsider might think that Jews were more comfortable in 1960s France before the explosion of the Muslim population. But that is not true. The Jews felt threatened at every moment. A potential Nazi was/is behind every tree.
For an example of Jewish intellectual gloss applied to this subject see author Bernard Lewis and many others. For an example of the Jewish activist concerned that things are going too far see Stephen Steinlight, Melanie Phillips, Lawrence Auster. And quite a few others.
There are paranoid gentiles that believe all of the Jewish restrictionists are secretly part of the anti-restrictionist conspiracy. This is part of the fallout of being part of a monolithic political bloc. The fact is no major Jewish organization is restrictionist. Until one of them flips on this issue, it can be assumed that the community overall is pro open borders.
Possibility 2: The immigration restriction measures proposed are actually PR only, as in the USA. The measures are deliberately sabotaged behind the scenes by the same commissars that propose them.
I was scanning a related thread...
http://michellemalkin.com/
Yes, Michelle Malkin. The fearless anti illegal-immigration stalwart.
Funny how her preferred 2008 candidate apparently is...Rudy Guiliani. The man who made NYC a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, and the man who can be counted on to make the USA a sanctuary nation for illegal aliens.
btw Matt Drudge can't even bring himself to post a headline saying Romney won the Iowa straw poll.
For Nuevo Conservatives, illegal alien-loving Rudy Guiliani is the only game in town.
Tommy,
Thanks for posting a list of press releases from liberal Jewish organizations in America. That clarifies why the leading Jewish politicians in Britain campaigned on an immigration restrictionist platform.
anon 8:59:
"Some of the Jews of Britain, France, Holland etc are concerned about Islamic anti-semitism..."
FWIW, I think that when Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin campaigned on an anti-immigration platform in 2005, it was not because of a "what's good for the Jews?" calculation (this predated the 7/7 attacks btw), but simply a "what's good for Britain?" calculation combined with "what will get us elected?".
Perhaps strangely, British Jewry seem both more religious AND less ethnocentric than their American equivalents; my impression is that Howard, Letwin and most other prominent British Jews think of themselves as British first, Jewish second - ie they're basically patriots.
In fact I rather wonder whether the secularism of most American Jews contributes to their more ethnocentric view - if Judaism becomes less important as a religion, perhaps for them it becomes more important as an ethnicity.
- SN
- SN
Thanks for posting a list of press releases from liberal Jewish organizations in America. That clarifies why the leading Jewish politicians in Britain campaigned on an immigration restrictionist platform.
I agree partly with sn and partly with anonymous 8:59 (especially possibility #1). Importing a bunch of people are who are rabidly anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist cannot be that attractive to most Jews. If neo-Nazis were America's primary immigrants, more Jews in this country would be singing the praises of immigration reduction too.
Does anyone have a list of current Jewish MPs in Britain?
Many Jews, like me, believe in restricting immigration. But the elite Jews, like elites everywhere, don't. I certainly don't think more low-IQ immigrants helps us in the long run.
Here's a listing of post-1974 Jewish politicians in the UK. They're pretty evenly divided between right and left, though only the Conservatives seem to welcome Jewish leaders (the 19th century Jewish PM Disraeli was Conservative). The rise of the Muslim vote can threaten Jewish Labour MPs like Oona King, ousted by the Respect Party, a revolutionary-Marxist/Islamist alliance.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Jewish_politicians
Leon Brittan, Baron Brittan of Spennithorne (born 1939) (1974) [28], Conservative cabinet minister, European Commissioner
Helene Hayman (1974), MP / Life Peer (JYB 2005 p212)
Nigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby, Conservative cabinet minister and life peer (1974) - JYB 2005 p212
Millie Miller (1974)[18], Labour MP
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (1974) [29], Conservative cabinet minister
Alf Dubs (1979) [30], Labour MP and life peer
Edwina Currie (1983) [31], Conservative minister
Michael Howard (1983) [32], Conservative cabinet minister & party leader (2003-2005)
Barbara Roche (1992) [33], Labour minister
Margaret Hodge (1994) [34], Minister of State for Industry and the Regions
John Bercow (1997)[19], Conservative MP
Louise Ellman (1997) [35], Labour MP
Fabian Hamilton (1997) [36], Labour MP
Evan Harris (1997) [37], Liberal Democrat MP
Oona King (1997) [38], Labour MP (1997-2005), second black female MP (Jewish mother), niece of Miriam Stoppard
Oliver Letwin (1997) [39], Conservative shadow cabinet member, Chairman of the Policy Review & Chairman of the Conservative Research Department
Ivan Lewis (1997) [40], Minister of State for Health
David Miliband (2001), Labour Party policy chief & Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Jewish Chronicle, 12/5/2006 p7: "Jewish MP David Miliband")
Lynne Featherstone (2005), Liberal Democrat MP (Evening Standard (London); 11/04/05; ANDREW GILLIGAN; p. 16)
Ed Miliband (2005) [41], Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Brother of David Miliband and son of theorist Ralph Miliband.
Lee Scott (2005)[20], Conservative MP
Susan Kramer (2005) Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Upon Thames
"In 2005 the Conservative party had a Jewish leader, Michael Howard, and Jewish Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin. They ran an anti-immigration campaign, with posters "It's Not Racist To Set Limits on Immigration".
But isn't this really the UK version of "boob bait for the bubbas"? The Tories hardly have a good record on controlling immigration. Nothing as insane as the record of the current government, of course.
"We must have an immigration timeout. Then we must erect a new cultural norm"
Good luck. The schools and the media are 100% cultural Marxist - i.e. their hidden assumption is that whites are the worst people in the world. Every child grows up believing (implicitly or explicitly) that the locus of such social evil as exists in the world is the white race as such. Whites can be decent only if they deny their nature or exercise noblesse oblige - such is the very oxygen of the culture today (and for a long time). This is the source of Competitive Moralism.
The long-term solution is homeschooling on the part of good, healthy, race-realist people. The system is rotten. Alternative, non-state institutions and practices must be grown from the ground up. "We're the government and we're here to help you" has never been more false.
anon 4:29:
"But isn't this really the UK version of "boob bait for the bubbas"? The Tories hardly have a good record on controlling immigration. Nothing as insane as the record of the current government, of course."
Well if elected in 2005 I think they would have reduced UK immigration to below the insane levels created by the Labour govt, although it would have remained very high by historical standards.
- SN
"If Washington insiders weren't so clueless about these numbers, they never would have tried to inflict their amnesty bill on us."
I don't think it is so much the potential vote they worried about, but about appeasing current voters and how they felt about the issue.
Further, a NY politician has said that it would be bad for NY economy if illegal residents were to get up and go. So, there were economic reasons behind this movement, not a blanket amnesty plan.
...Michelle Malkin. The fearless anti illegal-immigration stalwart...funny how her preferred 2008 candidate apparently is...Rudy Guiliani.
Malkin has defended Guiliani against attacks from Dems.....but I'm not sure that he is her candidate.
One thing is for sure though: she has no problem with mass LEGAL immigration. And obviously that means she has no great respect for traditional white America..... and no great desire to preserve it.
I believe Malkin is a fervent Christian and therefore amenable to open borders as long as they are well-regulated enough to weed out criminals.
In other words an orderly productive right-leaning small government Christian NON-WHITE America in 50 years time would be perfectly OK with her.
Can we all see the futility of that thinking?
This goes back to Auster's ironic observation that delegating control over the demographic future of your race culture or tradition to an outsider is fundamentally pointless and ultimately destructive.
The above observation is ironic of course because Auster has stated that he self-identifies as an Ashkenazi Jew..... and at the same postures as white gentile America's conservator.
It should be noted also that many white guys like O'Reilly and Hewitt and Limbaugh are also completely onboard the ship of fools. So a non-white ambassador of bad ideas is not a necessary component of this folly.
FYI, Richard Nadler just came out with some new numbers which indicate that the tide may have turned, and that Hispanics will determine the 2008 presidential winner:
Border Wars: The Impact of Immigration on the Latino Vote
http://www.amermaj.com/Border_Web.pdf
[~1MB PDF FILE]
Some remarks by Larry Kudlow at The Corner:
A GOP Recipe for Electoral Disaster
corner.nationalreview.com
Post a Comment