January 14, 2010

GOP Foot-Shooting

Here we are, a half year after a big victory in the Ricci firefighter Supreme Court case, and exactly what has the GOP done to follow up on that? We're almost a half year out from President Obama being publicly humiliated by a Cambridge cop who dared to stand his ground, and what has the GOP learned from that?

In VDARE.com, "Boethius" makes some points I've made before about places like Chicago and California, where working class and middle class whites tend to wind up in government jobs minding NAMs, and thus voting Democratic:

Gross stupidity within the California GOP’s leadership is certainly part of the answer. But California’s rent-seeking public service unions provide another. What is left of California’s white working class is largely employed by the State and dependent on the largesse of the legislature’s Democratic majority.

I do not believe that the rank and file share the radically pro-immigration politics of their union leaders. Nor do I believe that they consciously welcome the growth of the immigrant population because they calculate it increases the demand for their services. (Why worry about such things if you can’t ever be fired?)

But it seems clear that their own natural inclinations on "social issues" like immigration, which should make them trend Republican, are outweighed by the pocketbook issue of keeping the gravy train on track.

Indeed, the success of the Democrats in dominating a state where they routinely act against the interest of the white working class may point the way to the "anti-Sailer Strategy"—a "California Strategy" if you will—in which permanent political domination by liberal Democrats is founded upon an “iron triangle” of special interests comprising

(1) wealthy whites whose lifestyles are subsidized by cheap labor in their businesses and back yards;

(2) Immigrants who cannot resist the liberal Democratic package of welfare for the working class and affirmative action for the middle class;

(3) Coddled public service unions led by radicals and populated by working class whites who have in effect been bribed into going along with an agenda set by folks who despise them.

The main impediment to widespread imitation of the California strategy is, well, the example of California. Sounds good in theory, but who can afford it?

The obvious wedge issue to get more white government workers to vote Republican is affirmative action. For example, consider yesterday's Vulcan Society court decision that the Fire Department of New York's hiring test was discriminatory because blacks and Hispanics did as badly on it relative to whites as blacks and Hispanics do on all tests relative to whites. That would be a great issue for Republicans to raise a stink about.

Why not side with the FDNY, who lost 343 men on 9/11?

And yet, it was the Bush Administration that filed the Vulcan discrimination lawsuit against the FDNY!

In the wake of Ricci, I wrote many thousands of words about Vulcan last summer, even finding a poster boy for anybody who wanted to run with the issue, a 23 year old New York fireman who passed the 1999 test and died on 9/11. But I don't see anybody on the right who picked up on this as an issue. Yet, the Vulcan case isn't about some obscure backwater that's easy to overlook, it's about the Fire Department of New York. And the case doesn't even have a forgettable name: it's called Vulcan. But who else is talking about it?

The current GOP strategy is offer the worst of both worlds for white government employees:

- We want to cut your pay.

- We want to give your jobs to less qualified NAMs.

You don't have to say we'll pay you more, but would it kill the GOP to take a stand on principle against racial quotas for firemen instead of trying to impose them like the Bush Administration did? Taking a stand on principle won't get the public service union leaders and it might not even get the union members, but it won't hurt with their relatives, friends, and neighbors.

It's just nuts for the GOP to be for quotas and against firemen. Quotas are a lot less popular than firemen.

Apparently, that's the way the modern GOP thinks: anything that has to do with the racial IQ gap, as in Ricci and Vulcan*, is completely off limits as an issue. Unfortunately, practically everything in public affairs touches in some way on that gap.

---------
* By the way, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis's decision in Vulcan is about nothing but the racial IQ gap and whether you are allowed to take account of it in America. Garaufis granted summary judgment for the Vulcan Society and the Justice Department without holding trial on the fact that there was a "statistically significant" racial gap in the results. Hilariously, he rejected New York City's defense that they had met the EEOC's notoriously stupid Fourth Fifths Rule (by rigging the test so that it was so easy that something like 70% of blacks and 85% of whites had passed).

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

83 comments:

Anonymous said...

Steve,
you make a very good point.

However it seems to me that what the white government employees want is
(1) high taxes, with the proceeds going to government employees
(2) hiring of future government employees on the basis of test scores, not on the basis of AA

Steve, the republican party could explicitly promise to push for an end to AA but it could never explicitly push for pemanent massive high taxes to pay for the government jobs.

I can just imagine the democratic response to a republican promise to get rid of AA

"yeah, we democrats want to give half the government jobs to nams and only half to whites, but because of our commitment to solving society's problems, we will make sure there is a very large overall number of jobs. So the children of white civil servants will have a shot at a job - the republicans want to cut spending, so while under republicans a greater % of the jobs will go to whites, there will be fewer overall

Steve, I hope you can figure out a way to make a winning strategy out of this but I'm not optimistic

Anonymous said...

Steve, it just seems to me that for the republicans to have any hope, they need to change the state constitutions to make sure that tax increases require voter approval and that budgets must be balanced.
also must put in state level flat tax. If most people in the state are actually paying tax and see that they are paying tax, most people will vote against increases in the size of the state government

Anyway, Texas has a culture of low government spending. What is so wrong with letting the high tax high spend states collapse? most of the population of California could comfortably settle in Texas.

Some times too much effort is invested in trying to fix something that is broken (ie california) when the right answer is to get up and leave. Steve, our ancestors made the right decision by giving up on a hopelessly corrupt Europe and moving to the USA. Californians will make the right decision by abandoning a hopelessly corrupt place and moving to Texas.

keypusher said...

Californians will make the right decision by abandoning a hopelessly corrupt place and moving to Texas.

But if current demographic trends continue, Texas politics, and eventually the Texas public sector, will come to resemble California's.

One thing I would love to understand: Hispanics in Texas significantly outscore Hispanics in California on the NAEP. Does anyone know why that is?

idealart said...

"Diversity" and "hate crime" diktats issued by hipster elites are destroying freedom, encouraging dependency and creating cynics. So therefore, Americans with intestinal fortitude should do the most logical thing- defeat the Evil Eye of Envy by putting their faith in traditional Western humane culture, i.e., individual dignity through freedom and honor.

Anonymous said...

"The current GOP strategy is the worst of both worlds for white government employees:

- We want to cut your pay.

- We want to give your jobs to less qualified NAMs."

I'm a federal government employee, and what the GOP wanted at the federal level was to keep spending the tax dollars, but instead of spending it on government employees giving it to their contractor friends. Then they can act like they've shrunk the size of government. Neither party really wants to shrink government spending.

White gov't employees absolutely do HATE affirmative action.

CJ said...

I'm reminded of Ahnuld's attempt in 2005 to pass several initiatives to reduce the power of unions and cut spending. At the time, real estate prices were still skyrocketing. When the unions opposed the initiatives (law-creating referenda, for anybody unfamiliar with California) many public employees went along with it because they felt they were just barely hanging on in a place they could no longer afford to live in. The next year (2006) real estate peaked and then began to crash.

OTOH, lots of Californians voted for Prop 187 in 1994 because they didn't like illegal immigration, but then went right on electing liberal Democrats.

Alert to Steve: New study confirms the uselessness of Head Start.

kudzu bob said...

>What is so wrong with letting the high tax high spend states collapse? most of the population of California could comfortably settle in Texas.<

Right. And once Texas has been stripped clean, the locusts will move on...

jody said...

i have posted before about white middle class men that i know, who were life long democrats, and who are just now, FINALLY, after several decades, beginning to realize that every democrat policy ais aimed directy at destroying them.

their notions of the democrat's agenda were based on 50 years ago, when non-racialized politics in the US had the democrats posing as the party of the "little guy", standing up for the middle class working man agains the big, evil republicans.

that's been the wrong take on the democrats for 30 years at least, but it is only now, in 2010, that adult white men who were long time democrat voters have begun to understand what "democrat" means in a nation with a shrinking european majority and explicit identity politics for the other groups.

i think the thing that really makes the situation clear to them is how their children are treated. by the school district, by the government, heck, even by the sports programs in their town. in 2010, if you don't live in a well to do, upper class town, your white children get a daily dose of scholastic brainwashing by the teachers, bullying and sexual harrassment by the NAM kids for your daughters, and discrimination by the sports coaches for your sons.

where they live almost does not even matter for the next part. when their kids apply to college, they mysteriously miss out on admissions to some schools while their less qualified NAM classmates get in. and then their kids graduate from college but somehow miss out on jobs which again went to less qualified NAMs.

Persistent Magma said...

Maybe the current GOP Chairman (Old What's His Name) is a regular reader of this blog and he will A) take into consideration this so-called "foot-shooting" going on, and B) change course.

If he won't change course then it will be up to the inheritors of the GOP mantle to do the job:

1. Romney
2. Jindal
3. Palin

Yep, change is in the air. Good luck to all you loyal Republican Party members and golf fans!!

Whiskey said...

Steve, first while it is deplorable that "Compassionate Conservative" Bush sided (predictably) with non-Whites, much of the Tea Party inspired Republicans (a movement you have not covered and indeed ignored) is based on populist outrage and is against AA.

Which is precisely why the scare the hell out of Steve Schmidt and the rest of the McCainiacs.

Moreover you forget the dynamic. Public Employee Unions are captured by guys like Andy Stern.

What is the possibility of Andy Stern, who is committed to making all Unions majority non-White, openly, with the consent of White union workers, agree to policies limiting immigration, AA preferences, and the like.

SEIU is firmly in favor of MASSIVE AA, at all levels. Like it or not, most White Union members AGREE, they certainly don't fight their union on this.

It is a bargain -- existing White Union Members agree to not protest being marginalized by Blacks and particularly Hispanics, and they keep their jobs, are not called "racists," and get fairly high pay and security compared to the private sector which is also rapidly becoming non-White preferential and dominated.

There is nothing to be done. There is ZERO ZILCH NADA ability of ANY GOP candidate, EVER appealing to White Union workers. EVER. They'll vote Obama KNOWING they will be marginalized, because the non-White majority state will have them in make-work jobs for life as long as they accept their inferior position.

That's just the way it is.

oogly moogly said...

Boethius makes the stomach argument--that the white working class voted for Obama out of economic interests--but maybe the head argument--that they voted for Obama because their minds had been indoctrinated by pop culture and public education dominated by liberals and leftists--hits closer to the mark.
Consider the fact that the majority of whites voted for 'gay marriage' proposition in California. This had nothing to do with economics, but why did the majority of whites vote this way? Too much PC education and viewing stuff like Brokeback Mountain and Ellen Degeneris.

No public education system is as liberally biased and calibrated toward brainwashing as the Californian. And, no state is as close and tuned to Hollywood and 'counter-culture' and New Age globalism as California. I've known relatively conservative friends who lived in California and returned as raving liberals. I've known a gungho Stars and Bars biker who lived in San Fran and came back as a granola hippie and 'gay marriage' advocate.

Even if most whites are not involved directly in this stuff, the influence seeps via friends, relatives, and fashions/manners on the street and workplace.

People do vote for HEAD issues than STOMACH needs. The book 'What's the Matter with Kansas' made the same argument about socially conservative poor whites. They voted for the GOP though they had more to gain economically from Democrats because they cling to HEAD(or HEART) issues such as pro-life, gun rights, Bible, Old Glory,and Apple Pie which were exploited by the GOP.

Many white working class folks voted for the GOP though it favored the financial class over others and shipped tons of jobs overseas. Goes to show the power of symbolism and ideas and taboos.

The left promotes the cult of progressive intellect. The right promotes the cult of common sense ignorance. To more and more people, intellect seems cooler than ignorance--especially if it produces dufuses like Bush Jr and Palin. Of course, people despise intellectual blowhards like Al Gore and Thomas Friedman, but they still stand for thought than sheepish populism so common the right.

Anonymous said...

"- We want to cut your pay.

- We want to give your jobs to less qualified NAMs."

Isn't that the point of full throttle immigration when 15 million people are out of work?

Anonymous said...

I was a member of a public sector union for a long time. There was always a dichotomy between the rank and file and the "leaders". We went along due to there being strength in numbers, a pragmatic approach, rather than having any great affinity for the ideology of the ones supposedly speaking for us. The activists were always lefties and blacks. The lefties were white, the blacks had no ideology, they were there for the protection and money for themselves only. At a rally we were addressed by Rep Luis Gutierrez. The burly white union guys there, blue collars types, had to hold their noses. The lard bucket black and hispanic female paper shufflers applauded. I realized the two groups have divergent interests with little in common. I had this sinking feeling that day, that there's no real place for us to go, no party organization out there committed explicitly to the interests of the white working and professional class out there. Apathy ensues, I suppose, let's get lost in football.

Anonymous said...

OT. The tragedy in Haiti is turning out just like you might expect from reading Steve's blog: like the aftermath of Katrina, with roving gangs of looters armed with machetes, attacking the injured and ransacking homes and businesses. Not at all like the aftermath of last May's 7.9 mag quake in Chengdu, China, where residents immediately got organized to rescue victims and build makeshift shelters for the destitute. In fact, in the huge tent city that sprang up, people set up little markets and businesses and civilization pretty much carried on, even before government aid arrived.

It makes me sick listening serial interviews on NPR of Haitians screaming for the US to come help.

Anonymous said...

Keypusher said -
One thing I would love to understand: Hispanics in Texas significantly outscore Hispanics in California on the NAEP. Does anyone know why that is?

______

Answer, the hispanics in Texas have been in the USA much longer on average than the ones in California.

Spend a little time in Texas. the cost of living is staggeringly low compared to California.

A hispanic husband and wife, doing normal modest humble jobs can truly live the same middle class life that white Americans lived in the 1950's. Granted it takes the hispanics two incomes in order to get that middle class lifestyle, but a real middle class life is available to them.

Things just work a lot better in Texas. And a big part of it is the fact that the rest of society stands up against the public employee unions.

Best analogy I can think of - Texas is like Chile and California is like Argentina. Texas, just like Chile, voted in policies that encourage every single member of society to work hard and produce. California, like Argentina, put in policies that encourage huge segments of society to live off the public teat.

We all know Chile is on the rise, and is perhaps the only latin country the majority of ISteve readers would be happy to live in. Argentina is on a slow road to hell, with nothing to stop the insanity.

(by the way this is very intresting in that Chile is LESS white than Argentina - once again showing that there is not a direct correlation between whiteness and economic success in Latin America)

steve burton said...

"...would it kill the GOP to take a stand on principle against racial quotas for firemen instead of trying to impose them..."

Good question.

Apparently, they think that it would.

So what're we supposed to do? Vote Democrat?

airtommy said...

It makes me sick listening serial interviews on NPR of Haitians screaming for the US to come help.

To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Haitian governments for many generations. Our most recent coup d'etat (2004) immediately made the country noticeably worse. Haiti will never be achieve anything remotely resembling Chinese success, but we have made Haiti a worse place than it would naturally be.

Yawno said...

I like how Sailer always writes like there is, in truth, a two-party system in plutocratic America. He's been doing it for years, and I'll just assume he'll continue doing so for the rest of his life, scratching his head, angrily typing.

fwood1 said...

The local government employees I know, both white and black, are opposed to tax increases. They are quite cynical about their union, which supports higher levies, and the politicians the union backs. They’re also apathetic, and have no use for the Republicans, which makes sense since the local GOP is as corrupt as the Democrats.

Dahlia said...

"OT. The tragedy in Haiti is turning out just like you might expect from reading Steve's blog: like the aftermath of Katrina, with roving gangs of looters armed with machetes, attacking the injured and ransacking homes and businesses. Not at all like the aftermath of last May's 7.9 mag quake in Chengdu, China..."

Those of us who read Steve at the time of Katrina are all wondering the same thing, "What's Steve's Take?"
Steve is kind of (or is?) an alpha male who can be quite fearless, but even he may be afraid to tread there.

Thrasymachus said...

Government employees are voters for socialism. Period.

As I recall, Steve, you defended the public employee unions against the reforms attempted by Schwarzenegger. But the fact that they help a few white people hang on in California who would otherwise have to move to Colorado or Arizona in no excuse for them bankrupting the state.

Paleo Truth Squad said...

"1. Romney
2. Jindal
3. Palin"

One half a conservative might formed out of these three if you harvested the best bits from each of these poseurs.

Anonymous said...

"To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Haitian governments for many generations."

What's your point? A catastrophic event occurs, severely disrupting two poor communities. In one case, the people spontaneously organize to provide mutual aid. In the other case, the people become savages.

Blode0322 said...

No Steve Burton, vote Tea Party.

And make the Tea Party.

It may be easier than you think to get on the ballot in your state ... look it up. Lots of people are going to voting for anybody without a "D" or "R" after their name (and if they're wise they won't be voting for someone with "Green" after their name either).

Lugash said...

I am Lugash.

The GOP is back-stabbing, not foot-shooting.

I am Lugash.

Thomas said...

Just more to show that Senator Alan Simpson was right, the system is truly made up of the Stupid Party and the Evil Party.

Anonymous said...

Hispanics in Texas significantly outscore Hispanics in California on the NAEP. Does anyone know why that is?

I don't have the numbers in front of me and I can't say for certain as to how it's ascertained who precisely is "Hispanic", but my impression based on travel in the regions is that a far higher percentage of Californians with Hispanic names are 1st or 2nd generation Hispanics than people with Hispanic names in Texas (and New Mexico).

Remember James Garcia in Reno 911 and how laughably funny it was whenever he was made out to be Hispanic (such as in a sting operation on illegals or when he joined the minutemen)? Lots of Texans are like that. They have Hispanic last names because their father's father's father's father was a Mexican (or, in some cases, an actual Spaniard).

Of course you can find people like that all over the country but again, in the matter of numbers, I believe you have a larger population of such folk (by percentage of people with spanish last names) in Texas than you do in Cali.

mnuez

Anonymous said...

You are not Lugash!
The GOP is jock-sniffing, not nose-scratching!
I am Lugash!

couchscientist said...

One upside to having bloated governments at every level, is that there should be a lot of white and asian government workers confronted with the reality of just how bad affaction is.

One upside to high unemployment should b that un-and-under-employed people should be noticing just how sweet a deal gov't jobs are. Then they should be noticing how the jobs are going to NAMs. What percentage of gov't workers are NAM? Better yet, what percentage of employed blacks work for the gov't?

But I don't think these upsides are playing out and it's disappointing.

Anonymous said...

One thing I would love to understand: Hispanics in Texas significantly outscore Hispanics in California on the NAEP. Does anyone know why that is?

The obvious candidate for an explanation would be that Texas "Hispanics" have a lot more Castilian/Hapsburgian blood in them than do California "Hispanics".

Anonymous said...

In the long run, unions suck. Unions eventually bleed the host dry.

Socialism sucks for the rest of us in the short run, medium run, and long run.

Truth is that 99% of union workers are cynical hypocrites who, if they owned the factory, would despise the concept of worker unionization.

The solution is small business and working for yourself. All of those people in Michigan are paying the piper now for not walking away from the union job before the host was bled dry.

Union workers in general don't deserve a lot of sympathy.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

The GOP can be reliably counted on to do the bidding of businessmen and neocons. It does so reflexively, without much begging on their part. It does so in large part, I suspect, because those are the folks your typical GOP congressmen live next to, golf with, associate with, and whose children they want their own children to marry.

It will do the bidding of social conservatives and religious conservatives only after much poking and prodding, and it can only be expected to support them negatively (i.e., opposing a proposed bill) and not positively (i.e., proposing and passing an actual bill to end illegal immigration, affirmative action, etc.)

It is my contention that a substantial portion of the GOP voting base is beginning to realize this and finally turning off and tuning out. The GOP should do well this year because the Democrats suck so badly. In more ordinary years, however, they will continue to see their voter base erode thanks to their refusal to address what should be perfectly popular social issues, like fighting illegal immigration and ending affirmative action.

Anonymous said...

In the long run, unions suck. Unions eventually bleed the host dry...the tuth is that 99% of union workers are cynical hypocrites who, if they owned the factory, would despise the concept of worker unionization. The solution is small business and working for yourself. All of those people in Michigan are paying the piper now for not walking away from the union job before the host was bled dry.

Ah, but the mass immigration push supported by big business has served us so well - breaking us, only in a different way.

And the deregulation push by big business served us equally well.

I am not much of a union fan. The problem is that capital is organized (very well organized) and that the American worker needs some organization to counteract the suicidal, neofeudalist demands of big business.

Capital is organized. It should come as no shock that labor should, in some way, be organized, too.

simon said...

Most of the GOP are just wretched, as this amply demonstrates. No wonder white Catholics vote for guys like Biden and white Proestants vote for blue-dogs like Webb.

Starker said...

"Those of us who read Steve at the time of Katrina are all wondering the same thing, "What's Steve's Take?" Steve is kind of (or is?) an alpha male who can be quite fearless, but even he may be afraid to tread there." "There" refers to the Haiti situation, of course.

Dahlia, I'm glad you can recognize an alpha male when you read one. You're one up on your sisters who get tingles from the $500k/year parasites on Wall Street.

But let us recall that after Steve's Katrina column, in which he referred to the less-than-optimal behavior of some of N.O.'s citizens, he was pilloried by SPLC, Media Matters and the usual pc enforcers. The egregious John Podhoretz then waddled into the fray at NRO online, announcing that he found Steve's remarks "shockingly racist," enabling the lefties to point to JPod and say "even conservatives are disgusted by..." You get the picture.

I look forward to Steve's take on Haiti should he chose to comment on it. But we need to recognize that there are costs to the kind of tough-minded analysis he brings to a subject. Metaphorically speaking, he did some bleeding for his truth-telling on Katrina, and they will recycle the "racism" charges for many seasons in attempts to discredit his views on totally unrelated subjects. Maybe better to wait at least until they bury the dead on this one. And of course there will be many angles from which to approach the story i.e. the U.S. government's response or comparing Bush's crisis-managing abilities with Obama's etc.

Kijkfaas McGee said...

Boethius's article was excellent. There's something refreshing about his hardnosed cynicism. Sailer and others often get side-tracked by undue ideological or racialist considerations. People don't read the NYT, they don't watch the news all that much, they don't care what some liberal pundit has to say about race, etc. etc.--they care about their pocketbooks. That's the grubby reality, and it's the reality that has allowed for illegal immigration for as long as it has existed. Illegal immigration has made life easier for many in the short-term, and who is thinking of the long-term?

eh said...

They're not called the Stupid Party for nothin'.

Otis the Sweaty said...

"But I don't think these upsides are playing out and it's disappointing."

Yes they are, it's just happening slowly.

Unemployment is only 10% right now, so don't expect to see a whole lot just yet. What we need is for unemployment to get to 15% and stay there for years. If we can mix that with some 70's style inflation, then all the better.

Tsoldrin said...

While this might be good strategy normally, in the current political climate the best thing the GOP can do is stfu and let the Dems hang themselves with the economy and healthcare and soon immigration reform. People are mad and getting madder. About the only thing that should worry the GOP is a third party uprising against both sides.

It's actually too bad imo... the R's needed more time in the wilderness to rediscover conservatism.

Anonymous said...

steve, why do you keep pretending that there is no issue of CLASS and CULTURE here? In that respect, you play the same game that the media, the GOP and the Dems do.

The affirmative action issue is a Lip Service issue that the GOP honchos (who are from the UPPER CLASS) throw out as a sop to their working class base. The upper class is taught in youth that doing these things, e.g., being against affirmative action, is racist and vile. ALso, affirmative action benefits the upper class.

The upper class, both GOp and Dem, are PRO-affirmative action. Also, the media would excoriate/demonize any GOPer who took affirmative action beyond a lip service level.
The Dems take the same lip service approach on issues like healthcare. We see now that healthcare reform will be a boon for insurance companies.

Also, the media is supported by advertising revenues. The business investors and owners who own the businesses that buy the ads want to pay LESS in wages. That is the core of their expenses--LABOR. Affirmative action brings into the workforce not only cheap labor (aka nonwhite labor), but AA and its consequential racial diversity also diversifies the workplace, which fragments the workplace, creating factions among workers. A fragmented workforce cannot easily unite against employers. THus, wages are as a consequence lowered.

Why do you are Vdare never mention these crucial issues of class and economics when you talk about why the GOP refuses to go beyond lip service on issues like affirmative action and immigration? Are you also complying with certain unwritten rules about political discourse, rules that are followed by the media?

Why is it that you ignore class, workplace unity, and media-advertiser economic relationships when you discuss these issues? You and vdare seem to deliberately ignore them. You seem to delight in pointing out the elephant in the corner of the the room that the establishment ignores, but there is more than one elephant in that room, Steve.

-cryofan

l said...

Re: Haiti -- When I saw the headline for the following I thought "Sarcasm is sorta inappropritate at a time like this." It turns out the writer is worse than sarcastic. He's sincere.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100114/cm_csm/273950

Anonymous said...

Real unemployment is a lot higher than 10%. Those figures are derived in a ridiculous way.

Anonymous said...

Coddled public service unions led by radicals and populated by working class whites who have in effect been bribed into going along with an agenda set by folks who despise them.

What do you think the effort to take over health care and (in due course) retirement benefits are? When the government controls everyone's health care and retirement, then in effect, everyone belongs to the union, and nobody will dare oppose the government.

Anonymous said...

"Union workers in general don't deserve a lot of sympathy."

Unlike financiers who get billion dollar bailouts.

gig said...

this, BTW, is the Brazilian model. Which only proves that California is leading America´s Brazilification.

The current government of Brazil distributes money for the poorer 30% of the population, which is almost entirely NAM, and has massive support both among those 30% and the public sector, largely white. Public Servants except when they are not in a politically correct job (like the Ministry of Gender Equality or Racial Awareness) tend to be conservative and particularly disgusted by NAM crime. Yet they´d rather vote on the pro-criminal left than risk any slightly rightist administration that would cut benefits

I support fat wages for the public sector. It is not that expensive to pay for them. Their benefits and pensions should only be cut in the extremes, like judiciary pensions. White people enter the public sector, and white brazilians have an awesome ability to produce unbelievable beautiful daughters, so anything that increases the number of white Brazilians is a net benefit for the human race, so high wages for lazy whites is a good thing.

It is the mammoth cost of healthcare and education, not to say anything of violence, for NAMs that screw the country. Brazil pays USD 1 bi a year just to distribute AIDS´ drugs.

Mr. Anon said...

"airtommy said...

To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Haitian governments for many generations. Our most recent coup d'etat (2004) immediately made the country noticeably worse. Haiti will never be achieve anything remotely resembling Chinese success, but we have made Haiti a worse place than it would naturally be."

How does one wreck Haiti?

Mr. Anon said...

"oogly moogly said...

Many white working class folks voted for the GOP though it favored the financial class over others and shipped tons of jobs overseas. Goes to show the power of symbolism and ideas and taboos."

And you think that the Democrats DON'T favor the financial class? Check out where most of Goldman-Sachs political contributions went in the last election. Both parties represent wealthy interests. Sometimes they represent different interests. Sometimes they represent the same interests. What is always true is that they are never OUR interests.

For the rest of us hoi-polloi, the democrats want us all to be social workers (except for straight white men - they can just go to hell), and the republicans want us all to be real-estate agents or work for Walmart.

Expect nothing from either party, and you won't be disappointed.

Mr. Anon said...

"Tsoldrin said...

While this might be good strategy normally, in the current political climate the best thing the GOP can do is stfu and let the Dems hang themselves with the economy and healthcare and soon immigration reform. People are mad and getting madder. About the only thing that should worry the GOP is a third party uprising against both sides.

It's actually too bad imo... the R's needed more time in the wilderness to rediscover conservatism."

Well said. Just look at FOX news (if you can stomach it) - they're still stumping for the idiotic war, and routinely interview the same old bunch of nitwits (Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, for example) as if they had some wisdom to offer. The Republicans have learned nothing. They are still worse than useless, and will apparently remain so for, well, probably for ever.

Anonymous said...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/satellite-photos-of-haiti-before-and-after-the-earthquake/

These image comparisons, especially in the more developed ares, remind of Detroit before and after blacks took over the city government. But in many of the the photo pairs you can't tell before from after, except that there is apparently debris scattered over what were roads and open spaces.

This slide show makes me wonder why immigration restrictionists don't do stuff like this, instead showing suburban neighborhoods before and after immigrants take them over. It's an incredibly potent visual argument that requires milliseconds to grasp. Hispanics are trashing America.

Evil Sandmich said...

Ahh Haiti, the over-bred land of murderous criminal thugs and rape gangs, and then that earthquake happened!

I had half a thought that maybe this time the U.S. wouldn't show up so that the Haitians knew that it was up to them to self organize to solve their own problems. Unfortunately as others have pointed out that strategy would only result in nine million people making off for our coast in their handmade boats.

Anonymous said...

I'd be interested to see the Republicans take an anti-illegal immigration stance. I don't think it's going to happen based on Bush and McCain.

As far as AA, what'd Bush do with that? Not much as far as I can tell.

I don't see what the Republicans do for working class people of any color. Oh yeah, they lower their estate taxes. Que bueno.

David said...

>[Californication] sounds good in theory, but who [elsewhere] can afford it?<

But there is a desire for Californication all over. The "dream job" of many lower and middle class whites is some kind of government job.

>White gov't employees absolutely do HATE affirmative action.<

Which makes Steve's proposal valid, only I don't think the Repubs will take him up on it. A third party should.

jody said

>[white democrats'] notions of the democrat's agenda were based on 50 years ago, when [...] democrats pos[ed] as the party of the "little guy", standing up for the middle class working man agains the big, evil republicans.<

They still believe this everywhere I look, jody. Symbols are more powerful than thoughts. It doesn't help that, as you point out, "in 2010, if you don't live in a well to do, upper class town, [your white kids get screwed]." Thus cryofan, Greens, the Democratic Underground and - still more support for the Democratic Party.

It's true that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties. Both are against any sustainable White community, for reasons of profit or ideology or ethnic aggression or all three. The elite must be overthrown.

Anonymous said...

Some of the previous posters are right, Mr Sailer, the class angle is avoided too much. The issue of class is intertwined with all the other issues touched on in this blog. The class struggle is real.

Peter A said...

The GOP elite despises the white working class just as much as the Dems do. Even GOP elites who come from white working class backgrounds - they may share the values of the white working class, but deep down they still think white working stiffs are just lazy for not accomplishing what they did.

If you want to make a racist argument - it's also subconsciously easier to boss around and exploit people from a different race. People who get a twinge of conscience screwing over people who look like their aunts and cousins may simply feel better about themselves screwing over latinos. I think the elites wish the white working class would just go away - it would make life much simpler.

Peter A said...

I also believe that Texan Hispanics tend to come more from the North - which is much more mestizo. California has a lot of Hispanics from the South which is very indio. Anyone know if that's true?

albertosaurus said...

When I was a senior at San Francisco State like most of my buddies I was concerned about graduate school. One popular ploy was to work for the fire department. Normal men preferred to work in the downtown areas where they at least occasionally had a fire. Working in "the avenues" (white middle class single family houses) was considered unbearably dull - no fires. But those precincts were perfect for graduate students or for those who restored old cars or some other time consuming activity. I personally knew a couple guys who were full time graduate students while working full time for the Fire Department. I was tempted myself but I couldn't pass the eye exam.

The same qualities that got you those good scores on the GRE would get you good scores on the Fire Department's civil service test. Even in those unenlightened times some of us wondered if this policy made any sense. No doubt all things being equal it was better to have a smart fellow fireman in that burning building with you. But just how smart did they have to be? Back then the unintended assumptions about requisite mental ability were ridiculous. Blacks were at a severe disadvantage because the tests favored high IQs.

It seemed uncontroversial when the tests were reformed (made easier) to allow more NAMs to get in. The first result of which was probably fewer white graduate students working on advanced degrees on the fire trucks - not much of a loss.

My understanding of the way the fire department worked was that the junior guys were assumed to not have the experience or judgement to act on their own. They were ordered about by senior men at the fire site. If that is true then you only need one guy per fire to be smart and wise. The grunt firemen can be pretty dumb as long as they are obedient.

The problem comes with promoting grunts to positions of authority. At that point you need a reservoir of reasonably smart grunts who are capable of filling the roles that need more brains. If you dumb down entrance requirements everything will be hunky-dory for a decade or more. Fire Departments promote from within.

It would make sense for fire departments to have plenty of black junior firemen as long as the higher ranks were filled by persons from the smarter races. Alas this kind of eminently reasonable solution isn't in fashion anymore.

Dahlia said...

Starker,
I agree with everything you said about Steve and Haiti.

Another thing I remember from that episode was the bleating of Glenn Reynolds. It was during that episode that I learned Steve is fearless and hits back hard (especially w/ Podheretz). Yeah, he's an alpha. Lawrence Auster is THE alpha of this side of blogosphere, but perhaps marriage and fatherhood has mellowed Steve a bit, LOL!

Svigor said...

Not at all like the aftermath of last May's 7.9 mag quake in Chengdu, China, where residents immediately got organized to rescue victims and build makeshift shelters for the destitute. In fact, in the huge tent city that sprang up, people set up little markets and businesses and civilization pretty much carried on, even before government aid arrived.

And still you have huge numbers on the "right" (from conservatives to Amrenners to ethnopatriots) whose refrain is that blacks are more collectivist than whites, and to hell with Rushton. I just don't get this illusion, there's no there there.

Blacks are not more collectivist than whites, not even close. Carrots, sticks. Environment does matter.

Anonymous said...

"How does one wreck Haiti?"

One can only stir the mess.

Svigor said...

I like how Sailer always writes like there is, in truth, a two-party system in plutocratic America. He's been doing it for years, and I'll just assume he'll continue doing so for the rest of his life, scratching his head, angrily typing.

Yeah, count me in on the idea that there's The Party, and it has two wings. I was thinking about this the other day, that I should stop referring to them as separate parties and start calling the lot of them (and plenty more in other "parties," who agree on The Agenda, the crap that needs to go) "The Party." Not a new idea, but maybe it's finally sinking in all the way.

Svigor said...

Union workers in general don't deserve a lot of sympathy.

I'm kind of agnostic on unions, in theory. I mean, I like the concept; the little guy collectivizes to bring his bargaining power up closer to that of the big guy. It's nice to at least fantasize about power going from the bottom up for once.

So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?

Svigor said...

The egregious John Podhoretz then waddled into the fray at NRO online, announcing that he found Steve's remarks "shockingly racist," enabling the lefties to point to JPod and say "even conservatives are disgusted by..." You get the picture.

This kinda seems like the point of neoconservatism, after you remove the Israel-first part I mean.

kudzu bob said...

>This slide show makes me wonder why immigration restrictionists don't do stuff like this, instead showing suburban neighborhoods before and after immigrants take them over.<

That is simply brilliant. I very much hope that anti-immigration activists use your idea. Seeing is believing. And actions follow beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Some of you may have noticed that good-paying working-class jobs have been drying up for, say 40 years or so. It may even have something to do with free trade/globalization? The policies that caused this have been advanced by both parties. So working people are faced with this choice: the Democrats will send your job to China but offer you government services and jobs in return -the Republicans will just send your job to China. The Republicans have been able to get away with this to a certain extent by an adroit manipulation of wedge issues. The collapsing economy will make this progressively more difficult. Maybe they should actually reverse the policies that have slammed the working class? Don't hold your breath!

Anonymous said...

I know plenty of civil servants and they used to vote Republican and now vote Democrat for exactly the reasons Steve stated.

The Republicans always want to support Big Business and screw over the little guy - somehow they NEVER, EVER, EVER get around to overturning Roe v. Wade, stopping illegal immigration, or doing anything truly conservative on social issues or even balance the budget.

Look at the SCOTUS, in 2008 in you had 7 out of 9 SCOTUS judges nominated by Republicans. Between 1969-2008 - forty fuckin' years - the Democrats only nominated 2 judges. Nixon/Ford had 5, Reagan 3, Bush 2, and Bush Jr. 2. Yet the SCOTUS has ratified every Warren Court decision, approved AA, refused to overturn Roe V. wade etc.

Truth said...

What always amazes me is how most (all?) European countries are socialist and heavily unionized.

Why is this?

I think white people (along with most other races) inherently dislike the uncertainty/cruelty of capitalism.

Sure, they don't mind the upside to capitalism (profits), but they sure hate the downside (losses, layoffs, etc).

Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.

Socialism is much more appealing in a racially homogeneous country since there is no free-rider problem. For instance, whites dislike paying for a "welfare queen" (black woman) to pop out kids and live on the government dole.

Unionization is also much more effective in a country will little or no immigration since the capitalists can't just replace their union workers with non-union immigrants.

So, in a strange twist of fate, you Republicans have minorities to thank for the strong fiscal conservatism in the USA.

Anonymous said...

I suspect Sailer is following a certain unwritten set of rules that would theoretically allow him entrance someday into the Club of Income-Earning Conservative Writers. Just like the Club of Income-Earning Liberal Writers, there are certain unwritten rules. There are certain elephants standing in the corner that must be ignored if one hopes to someday gain entrance to either club. For wannabe liberal writers, race differences are ignored etc. The sorts of things that sailer points out in his column. But then there are certain things the Club of Income-Earning Conservative Writers must ignore. One must ignore Class.

If you take things a step too far,you come to the conclusion that both parties has a political platforms that are calculated to enrich the rich and keep the rest of us working as hard as possible for as little money as possible.

Steve seems to have his beady eyes set on getting in that Club. So he follows the rules, points out what Limbaugh points out. Ignores the same things the others in the Club of Income-Earning Conservative Writers ignore.
Ignore that the media is supported by ad revenue paid by businesses that increase profits by lowering wages and fragmenting the populace, and that both of these goals are furthered by affirmative action and multiculti.

Ignore that there is a unwritten set of mores that are mandatory for those at the top of any institution because if they do not exhibit those mores, the media will demonize them. Why does the media demonize these people? Couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with money? Could it? NO! Of course not. America is not about money. That would be silly to think that.
Well, yes, it has to do with $$. Every public policy and media unwritten rule has to do with MONEY. M-O-N-E-Y.

Follow the money.

Capital. Labor. Wages. Unions. Unity. Labor organization. Supply. Demand.

All these ideas are central to Democrat and GOP rules and mores. Same for the media. MONEY.

Affirmative action is there because of MONEY. Rich people make MORE money because of affirmative action. It reduces wages and reduce worker unity, thus giving Capital more power over Labor.

Democrats ignore certain racial truths because of money.

GOPers ignore class and only give lip service fight against Affirmative action because of MONEY.

Now, you may argue that many Democrats and GOPers and journalists may favor affirmative action etc not because of money but because of a sense of what is right and wrong. And you would be perfectly correct. But our sense of justice, fair play, and decency is only constructed via SOCIAL interaction and CULTURAL pressure.

People have genuine emotions about affirmative action and civil rights. And those emotions cause them to behave in certain ways.

But peel the onion another layer, and you will realize that those cultural and social forces that cause those behaviors are there because of the forces exerted on american institutions by ...wait for it.... Capital, i.e., Big Money.

yes, Capital, big money has over the years molded our social institutions so that the culture itself causes people to find aff action just and right.


-cryofan

DAJ said...

Can we please wait a few more days or maybe even a couple of weeks before excoriating Haiti and the Haitian people? We all know the ramifications of HBD with regards to Haitian failure.

Low mean IQ, low-trust culture, and low human capital notwithstanding, in light of the recent disastrous events, unthinkable suffering, and abject misery, let us apply some sort of grace period for Haiti. Remember that the "H" in HBD stands for "human."

Why do you suppose Steve and Half Sigma have thus far avoided discussing the Haitian situation?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.

Wow, Truth - for once you say somehting I can agree with - a racially homogeneous America would have more welfare, not less.

For what it's worth, however, it's not that whites don't want to help blacks. It's the blacks help to identify the reasons many people need welfare. It's not that they've just fallen on hard times - it's also about the way they behave; the way they live their lives.

Blacks help whites to see that most poor people are poor because of bad choices, not bad luck.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.

Wow, Truth - for once you say somehting I can agree with - a racially homogeneous America would have more welfare, not less.


Evidence against this: there were quite a lot of white American intellectuals in the midcentury who began as progressivists/ socialists, thought out the consequences of socialism and/or looked at what was happening in Europe and became passionate opponents. Rose Wilder Lane and Robert Heinlein are two, there are more.

Truth(er) said...

Svigor wrote:

So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?

I can explain it in English pretty well for you. Unions are bad because they are monopolies on labor. A union's ability to produce a real (inflation-adjusted) wage above prevailing market rates is due to its ability to prevent other workers from working at a lower wage in the industry that is unionized. The result is that the union industry employs a pool of workers smaller than it otherwise would given the wage. This surplus pool of workers is then thrown into the labor market to compete for a smaller percentage of jobs, reducing wages in other fields.

There really is no power given to the little guy. Union and corporate management simply split the proceeds of a monopolized market.

I hope this helps.

ben tillman said...

To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Haitian governments for many generations. Our most recent coup d'etat (2004) immediately made the country noticeably worse.Haiti will never be achieve anything remotely resembling Chinese success, but we have made Haiti a worse place than it would naturally be.

No, "we" haven't. "We" are not the government.

Svigor said...

Every public policy and media unwritten rule has to do with MONEY. M-O-N-E-Y.

That's a bit strong. The media's refusal to make Christian movies doesn't seem to be about M-O-N-E-Y, at least not in any straightforward, non-whacko sense.

tailor said...

What always amazes me is how most (all?) European countries are socialist and heavily unionized.

Why is this?


1. Europe is older while America is younger. America was settled and created by people seeking freedom as INDIVIDUALS. Thus, there is a greater American sense of succeeding on one's own. Also, US didn't have a privileged aristocratic overclass to rule over the masses. Since Europe tended to be more oppressive and hiearchical, people traditionally had to band together to make demands on the elite. In the US, you could break out on your own, get a piece of land, and farm your own land--at least in the old days--, and that pioneer spirit is still with us.
In Europe(where land was precious and traditions were restrictive of individual liberty), you sought concessions from the powerful. In the US, you wanted to be left alone by the government. Since most Americans are no longer farmers and have been living in cities for a long time, the spirit of individuality and independence have been slipping(though Americans still have more of it than Europeans do).

2. Europe used to be racially more homogeneous. Thus, European masses see welfare as coming mostly to themselves. Also, there is a sense of national-racial family: a people united by culture, race, and history taking care of one another. Socialism in this sense can be moralizing than demoralizing. Economically, National Socialism and Swedish Social Democracy had much in common in this sense.

In the US, which has a huge non-white underclass, many white people see welfare as going to the non-white underclass who just keep breeding and breeding. White people in the 1930s to the 1950s supported New Deal socialism where most of the benefits came to themselves, but they opposed welfare programs since the 1960s which transferred white wealth to black welfare mothers. Things will change in Europe too, as Muslims and African immigrants start gobblign more and more of the national wealth through welfare.

3. Aristocratic Noblesse Oblige morphed into Euro-socialism. After all, the government elites in countries like France, UK, and Germany mostly went to top schools and even have distinguished backgrounds. To the traditional fading elites who could not economically compete with New Entrepreneurs, government was the natural sanctuary for power. Though officially managing the socialist apparatus in the name of the people, they held elite powers like their ancestors had for centuries.

raft said...

Can we please wait a few more days or maybe even a couple of weeks before excoriating Haiti and the Haitian people? We all know the ramifications of HBD with regards to Haitian failure.
Low mean IQ, low-trust culture, and low human capital notwithstanding, in light of the recent disastrous events, unthinkable suffering, and abject misery, let us apply some sort of grace period for Haiti. Remember that the "H" in HBD stands for "human."


Okay, we should go easy on the Haitians for awhile BUT we must keep our guard up against all those--Obama, Hollywood, leftists, NWO, Danny Glover, open borders lunatics, white people who wanna adopt Haitian babies, etc--who are shamefull exploiting this crisis for racial or ideological reasons.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

What always amazes me is how most (all?) European countries are socialist and heavily unionized.

Never underestimate the effect of population density on public attitudes. More densely populated jurisdictions tend to favor more government welfare and regulation. People want more control over their too numerous neighbors, and they also doubt (perhaps legtitimately) their ability to make ends meet.

In a wide open country, however, one can always move over or move on. The ability to engage in "white flight," for example, is why whites have yet to riot over integration.

To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Haitian governments for many generations.

You're right - once America steps in to run a country it's permanently ruined. My goodness, look at how much chaos there is in Germany and Japan. Those countries will never recover.

Evidence against this: there were quite a lot of white American intellectuals in the midcentury who began as progressivists/ socialists...

Well I wasn't arguing that there weren't other reasons for opposing socialism. I don't think most Americans who are opposed to welfare are opposed because of Heinlein, however. The sterotype of lazy, promiscuous black welfare parasites has had a much larger effect on attitudes towards welfare than has any intellectual opposition.

Truth(er) said...

Svigor wrote:

So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?

I’ll take a stab at explaining why unions, in plain English, are bad.

Basically, unions are monopolies on labor. A union drives, directly, a wedge between a business and an industry’s access to the labor market by preventing any worker from working at a lower wage. This is how unions obtain above-market real wages (as opposed to nominal wages) for their employees. This is what is called a closed shop.

The problem with the closed shop concept is three-fold. First, it reduces the number of people employed that would otherwise be employed if the business or industry was non-union. The reason why this is the case is that a company still retains its control over hiring. The artificially high wage reduces the demand for labor the company would otherwise have. Second, the workers who are not lucky enough to get the union job are forced to enter the balance of the non-unionized work force. This surplus of workers is now competing for a smaller pool of jobs and depressing wages in non-union industries.
Third, because the union is a closed shop, with massive barriers to entry, the union wage paid in the industry has no effect on the wages paid in non-union industries. Union wages can only be a credible threat to the cost structure of other companies if it was actually easy to get union jobs. This lays to rest the idea that unions are somehow looking out for the best interests of all workers.

Basically, unions are anti-social institutions that raise consumer costs and reduce the wages and employment opportunities for the vast majority of the public.

Steve Johnson said...

Svigor said...
So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?

Truth(er) gives a good summary of the conventional economics reasoning about unions. Here's my more political economy take.

Private sector unions basically own any company in which they gain a foothold. The company can't legally fire those workers and have to deal with them. When you are negotiation with a side that knows you have to agree, you've got no bargaining power. These businesses are then run with one goal: maximize the amount paid in wages and benefits.

What's wrong with that? Well, the owners of capital then start to do things like moving all the jobs they can overseas and importing people who can't unionize.

Conventional economics states that wages will end up at the marginal productivity of labor (i.e., every worker is the same to a business; some are more productive but cost more others are less but cheaper). There should be no reason to pick any pool of labor over another. In reality, every business that is fixed in place (because it has to build factories or buy expensive non-mobile equipment) will avoid locating in a country with rules that give unions that kind of power.

Businesses then use their own political power not to oppose unions, which is futile because of numbers and the fact that they have to pay for both sides, but to open borders to cheap labor. Alternatively, they get government to exclude competition. Ultimately, unions force labor costs to exceed labor value and that can't go on forever in a competitive industry.

Public sector unions end up negotiating with the politicians that they elect. They then vote themselves do nothing jobs with huge pay. They do this until the state or city runs out of productive people to tax.

David said...

> let us apply some sort of grace period for Haiti.<

Why? The left hasn't. They're currently hustling to bring 'em in by the boatload.

Why must the people who are correct be silent and permit the insane people to bray without challenge? Because Jesus said to turn the other cheek, I guess.

This is how our side loses. We dress up in pink blazers and talk about 17th Century philosophers and the Church, and are terribly careful to watch our "language" lest we "offend" each other - while the brutes bash down the gates and tear civilization to pieces.

If you think it "beyond the pale," "inhumane," and "offensive" to observe the fact that an influx of Haitians would be bad for your neighborhood, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Just look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

This is how unions obtain above-market real wages (as opposed to nominal wages) for their employees. This is what is called a closed shop.

And how do corporations gain access to below-market wages?

By spending billions to bribe congress and the president to do their bidding like, say, not enforcing immigration laws and constantly increasing the numbers of legal immigrants.

The problem with unions today is that they tend to focus on raising wages for their employees through bargaining when they should really be focussed on lobbying against immigration.

Truth(er) said...

The arguments against unions are at least 50 years old. I doubt old economists like Friedrich Hayek anticipated that corporations would outsource or import immigrants as ways of getting around the problem. I think they genuinely believed getting rid of unions would be a net benefit.

Also, keep in mind unions face an agency problem similar to corporations. Union management may have interests opposed to those they represent.

Anonymous said...

Some excerpts of comments from above:


Anonymous said...

Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.

Wow, Truth - for once you say somehting I can agree with - a racially homogeneous America would have more welfare, not less.
Europe used to be racially more homogeneous. Thus, European masses see welfare as coming mostly to themselves. Also, there is a sense of national-racial family: a people united by culture, race, and history taking care of one another. Socialism in this sense can be moralizing than demoralizing.

In the US, which has a huge non-white underclass, many white people see welfare as going to the non-white underclass who just keep breeding and breeding. White people in the 1930s to the 1950s supported New Deal socialism where most of the benefits came to themselves, but they opposed welfare programs since the 1960s which transferred white wealth to black welfare mothers. Things will change in Europe too, as Muslims and African immigrants start gobblign more and more of the national wealth through welfare.




I have been saying these things for about 5 years now, a lone voice on the internet, and a lone voice in america, as far as I can tell. Is it that my internet rants are spreading or is it that others are starting to see the truth as well?

Anyway, the way to save america and give it a real left like western europe has (and is quickly vanishing due to immigration) is to take power from the federal govt and give it to the states. Rob the fed govt of all funding and it will have no power. The states can then racially segregate and effectively break up the union, and then in those states, or subsections thereof, we can have real communities, real nations.

-cryofan

fredaline said...

Maybe GOP should be for bigger government and bureaucracy--for white workers--but instead of playing the role of giving free stuff to the poor, the programs pushed by GOP should be for closer regulation/inspection of Wall Street banksters and more extensive check-up on fraud by welfare cheats.

Let Democratic Big Government be about giving free stuff for the lazy and corrupt.

Let Republican Big Government be about going after the corrupt and venal from rich guys to poor folks. And illegal aliens.

That way, many white people can have jobs in government AND their main purpose will be to curtail corruption among the populace who leech off welfare, corruption among rich guys who get corporate welfare, and corruption within the fattened government itself.

We need good big government to go after the abuses of bad big government. Just like the Land of Oz had the good witch to balance out the bad witch.

This way, GOP can win with big government that provides jobs to whites AND use that big government to go after enemies of conservatism. The Founding Fathers called for limited government in the idea that most people would take care of themselves. We now hae a case where billionaire bankers, auto industry, and the underclass all manipulate government for their benefit. We need good governance to go after these abuses from top to bottom.
We need the kind of state power during the time of Frederick II of Prussia. A government to make society harder and leaner, not to make society fatter and lazier.