November 1, 2010

Election Open Thread

Come Wednesday, I have to discourse on the Meaning of It All, so any insights you have, please post in the comments.

113 comments:

OhioStater said...

Liberals come to power, enact a lot of legislation, and then quickly lose power, but their legislation remains and the center was moved slightly to the left taking once prominent issues like slavery, segregation, prohibition and women's suffrage off the table. The dems losing on Tuesday is part of the overall trend.

adsfasdfdsaf said...

Teacons will turn into Teocons, and Teocons will turn into Neocons.

Rasputin said...

Buy gold.

Shouting Thomas said...

OMG, this is an open invitation to the Smartest Man in the Room (SMR)!

Steve, I find you to be remarkably succinct and to the point.

Unfortunately, something goes haywire in your followers.

Instead of traversing Point A to Point B in the shortest distance, they like to travel in a zig-zag fashion, perform loop-de-loops and, finally, spiral in for a landing.

You'll be sorry you asked for these comments.

Simplicity be damned. SMRs, spin your majestic theories!

Anonymous said...

Conservatives need to remember that there is no easy short-term answer to our problems.

For instance, there are no longer enough young Whites & Pacific Rim Asians in the USA to provide grist for another 1980s Kemp-Roth or 1990s Cap-Gains tax cut miracle:


2010 Statistical Abstract of the United States
Section 1, Population
Table 9. Resident Population by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age: 2000 and 2008
pop.pdf

Not Hispanic White alone, 2008

45 to 49 years: 15,964K
40 to 44 years: 14,085K
35 to 39 years: 12,981K
30 to 34 years: 11,456K
25 to 29 years: 12,740K
20 to 24 years: 12,949K
15 to 19 years: 12,903K
10 to 14 years: 11,660K
05 to 09 years: 11,222K
00 to 04 years: 11,065K



However, the situation is vastly better in the Red States [and in the (rural) Red counties of the Blue States]:


Republicans' fertile future
By Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer
September 17, 2006
articles.sfgate.com

Take a randomly selected sample of 100 liberal adults and 100 conservative adults. According to an analysis of the 2004 General Social Survey -- a bible of data for social scientists -- the liberals would have had 147 kids, while the conservatives would have had 208. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent.


Bottom line: The Blue States are dead, but there is still some hope for the Red States, so the best thing that a new GOP majority could accomplish is to begin laying the foundation for a peaceful parting of ways between these two irreconciliable approaches to the human condition.

Polistra said...

It means nothing. Soros Red Label and Soros Blue Label have maneuvered their respective followers into discussing nothing but Big Numbers.

Deficit, Debt, Spending, and the thorniest question of all: Is a trillion a really really really large number?

All other questions, like whether we're going to have a nation or a culture or an education system or an economy, are undiscussable.

Anonymous said...

Just because Obama has been revealed as a left-wing fascist, traitor and a deeply stupid affirmative-action parasite doesn't mean that we should now yearn for a return to the Bush era or even think of glorifying that imbecile. Obama represents nothing more than a continuation of Bush policies with a new layer of tyranny and treason. But Bush was himself a left-wing fascist no better than a Clinton or a Kennedy. Admittedly Obama is worse. It's time to face reality and the reality is that our government is our enemy and Bush was one of the worst.

And the Republican Party is still in the hands of left-wing fascists, like Bush, who are no better than most Democrats. Look for the Republican Party to utterly betray the Tea Party movement. Let's remember what a coward and a traitor Bush was and what we can expect in the coming years:

Among the Bush crimes:

Bush collaborated with Kennedy and attempted to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, most of whom are the worst kind of third-world savage.

Bush pronounced Islam "the religion of peace." Bush is either an idiot, a liar or both.

Bush celebrated Kwanzaa. A disgusting symptom of the politically-correct, leftist pathology.

Bush almost single-handedly caused the housing bubble and the ensuing meltdown by cajoling, forcing, encouraging, directing lenders to give home loans to third-world savages who wouldn't otherwise have qualified for a prepaid credit card. All in the name of the leftist project of increasing the percentage of third-world homeowners. This is social engineering of the most evil kind.

Consider how George W. Bush unleashed subprime lenders. He signaled to federal regulators at his October 15, 2002 White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership that old-fashioned mortgage regulations requiring a down payment were discriminatory because minorities were less often able to come up with the cash. So, let Countrywide run wild.

Bush did every thing he could to avoid securing our border with Mexico, our worst enemy, and then he lied about it and said he was doing everything he could to secure that border while collaborating with Mexico to increase immigration and give amnesty to illegal aliens.

Bush started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that had nothing whatsoever to do with the 911 attacks and everything to do with the neocon project to somehow transform the middle east into a colony of the West. Stupid and evil.

Bush savaged civil liberties right and left while doing nothing to roll back evil leftist legislation on gun control, freedom of speech (see McCain/Feingold), affirmative action, third-world immigration and over-regulation of the economy. Bush also was an eager proponent of the so-called free trade agreements, which are not free-trade agreements at all. They are treaties that impose every disadvantage on our own economy while giving every advantage to foreign economies. Meanwhile Bush spent taxpayer money we didn't have, borrowed from foreign governments and essentially set up the dollar for complete destruction. Obama represents a continuation of all these policies.

Bush's attorney general might as well have been a hostile Mexican mole.

These are just the most egregious of Bush's crimes and they are all part and parcel of the same evil leftist pathology espoused and imposed on us by Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et al.

Kylie said...

Anonymous said..."...the best thing that a new GOP majority could accomplish is to begin laying the foundation for a peaceful parting of ways between these two irreconciliable approaches to the human condition."

Agreed but that won't happen. The left will never let the right go peacefully. The left doesn't just want to do things their way. They want everyone to do things their way.

Vox said...

I believe the material outcome of the Republican landslide will render it irrelevant. This is a conclusion based on examining the reasons Rep. John Boehner gave for voting for Republicans tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Off topic--I told my incompetent ethics professor that the affirrmative action debate ignores the fact that discrimination exists in part because blacks aren't as smart as whites on average. The prof was shocked. I know that was dangerous and reckless for me to do that, but frankly I don't care and feel good for fighting back against both the pc and this idiot professor. Hbders need to fight a guerrilla war by speaking out on every occassion, IMO.

Polymath said...

I have a couple of posts about this on my blog, here:

http://polymathblogger.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/why-the-liberals-will-lose-tomorrow/

(short version: liberal progressives, unlike moderate progressives and conservatives, always get rejected but not early enough to stop them dragging the country to the left, and there needs to be an alternative right which will drag it back more forcefully than "conservatives" are willing to)

and here:

http://polymathblogger.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/usa-political-prediction/

(short version: GOP takes House, Senate will be 50-50)

There are also a couple of posts where I talk about some of the speeches (including Steve's) from the HL Mencken Club conference last month.

Anonymous said...

Demographics favor democrats in the long run.

America is getting blacker and browner by the day.

Social justice is judt around the corner.

Brazil just elected a former marxist freedom fighter as president.

David said...

The owners of the United States of America (TM) will have their "Romp to the Right" (remember that headline? ah, nostalgia!), Britany Spears will fall off the wagon again, etc. etc.

Tea and circuses from the international elite. The hogs will be slopped.

spacehabitats said...

At least there are a few REAL choices among the main stream party candidates this year. Rand Paul(Senate/KY). B.J. Lawson (House/NC). John Dennis (House/CA).

Of course the MSM has done their best to focus on the personalities, quirks, and college pranks of the new political pariahs. Heaven forbid that they might treat any of the issues that they champion with anything more than sound bite dismissals.

spacehabitats said...

P.S.

Rasputin, I disagree.
Buy silver.

Dahlia said...

*Nothing has made me ask the question, "What would Steve Sailer Say?" more than the election of Alvin Greene as the SENATE Democratic candidate for South Carolina. Such craziness has always been confined to the U.S. House elections until now.

This has been so painful for the Dems that one would be forgiven for not knowing he even existed. The Moderate Republicans have only mocked it, but did not reflect on it.

Greene's election argues for the Sailer theory of the Dems turning into the black party while Allen West of Florida argues against.

*Allen West is probably going to win according to most prognosticators. He is a very conservative, self-labeled "right-wing extremist" black Republican going against a moderate to liberal Jew in a district that is 10% Jewish according to the Forward. It is evenly divided between Rs and Ds and is a very moderate. I don't think it reflects anything more than the country's huge step to the Right and he just happens to be black and well-liked.

*Perhaps redistricting as we know it will increasingly result not in the "black party", but the "incompetent party".

*Van Tran sent out the greatest mailer of all time (against Loretta Sanchez) and deserves to win for that alone. Do the ethnic flare-ups there mean anything?

*The more time goes on, the more we see the real Obama and less Axelrod's Obama. I don't think he'll be the Democratic nominee in 2012: more Nixonian than Nixon and gives too little to the whites in the Democratic coalition.

*Due to changing racial demographics, the midterm electorate and the Presidential electorate will become increasingly different. Not that that is mostly to blame for the Dems' headaches this year.

Anonymous said...

Ohio Stater,

Slavery? It was Republicans that ended slavery and the Republic at the same time.

Segregation? It was Democrat politicians and sheriffs in the South that passed and enforced those laws.

Women's sufferage? Bipartisan.

So, 1 out of 3. If you batting in baseball you'd be a superstar!

Anonymous said...

About the Neocons:
Many here regard them as the spawn of Satan.
But if not for the Iraq War, wouldn't they mostly be seen as just a curious tribe of liberal Republicans, who also happened to be involved in some interesting quantitative social analysis?

A big "if", I know, but all of the other paleocon criticisms of the neocons seem to ring a little hollow when you realize it's really all just about that one misguided war (which wasn't entirely their doing, anyway).

Whiskey said...

Short version: its all about the money.

Slightly longer short version: Redistributive policies to encourage illegal immigration (drown Whitey demographically), spend money on vote-buying by Community Organizer patronage projects in the ghetto/barrio, and "Nice White Lady/Man" feel-good SWPL elitism has run smack into a collapsing economy.

So its all about the money. Who gets it, who pays it, who gets what spent on whom.

Mercer said...

I think the GOP would be better off not winning control of the House.

They have not learned from the failure of the Bush years. Other then opposition to amnesty how is their agenda different from Bush? They don't even talk about legal immigration. They still think tax cuts and trade deals are always the answer to any economic problem. Few conservatives will say the economy did well in the last decade but they push the same policies.

Their pledge document calls for tax cuts and to have Medicare and military spending growth untouched. This is a formula for insolvency. A party that is this incoherent on fiscal matters does not deserve to be in charge of the public purse.

Felix said...

What's the meaning of it all? Basically, the "American people" are fed up with what the Establishment is doing, so they're about to vote one of the Establishment's two approved parties out of power and vote in the other. So in other words, the meaning of it all is that there is no meaning. See, I never understood the appeal of one-party totalitarian systems. Two (or 3, or whatever) party totalitarian systems are much more clever!

Indy said...

So, let's deconstruct "the meaning of it all". We want the meaning of the election results which are going to show somewhere between decent and very-strong gains for the Republicans vs. the Last Election. So, we're really after the meaning of that change - and that means we're really after the changes in who shows up to the polls and how they vote.

Gains for the Republicans can come about through two factors: turnout of both kinds of partisans and position-shifting from Democrat to Republican of "centrist independents and moderates".

The turnout stories write themselves, but party-switchers will be key. What I want to know is how many people switched from voting Dem to Republican is, why they did so, and whether or not they fit any kind of profile(s).

So, for example, if a few million people of no particular common-thread who voted for Obama and the local Democrat in 2008, switched and voted for the local Republican in 2010, and when polled and asked why say. "the crappy economy" - that would fit nicely into the Liberal's pre-written narrative of, "The ignorant peasant voters are throwing a temper tantrum and failure to attribute the cause of our troubles to the rightful responsible parties on the Right".

On the other hand, if those few million people were middle-class White and Asian suburbanites who answer "Illegal Immigration, the deficit, and the slide towards Socialism", then a very different narrative emerges - one that rejects the Democratic party for its policies and actions and is testing the Republicans to finally show some real Conservative mettle.

So, I await the numbers, profile, and rationales of the party-switchers. That makes the narrative - and that in turn explains, "The meaning of it all".

ASDF said...

You should read the last two weeks' worth of entries at the "From the Provinces" blog.

http://fromtheprovinces.wordpress.com/

The author makes the case that whites leaving the Democrats, and the grassroots takeover of the Republican party will turn it into an overtly White party.

Anonymous said...

With specific reference to the Nevada senate race, people need to hear and understand the following equation and what its implications are for this country: more third-world immigrants=more poor people=more government-dependent people=more Democrats which means an ever-increasing and speedy spiral down the hole to permanent third-world status. One need not even point out the racial aspect. It speaks for itself.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how little attention Californians pay to state politics.
I guess because we are as big as we are, politics is just such an impersonal phenomenon.

Unfortunately, I expect a lifetime pol, Jerry Chameleon Brown, to win and Babs Boxer to do the same, just because they have "D's" by their names.

Currahee said...

Here's the litmus test: the Republican majority kills funding for PBS/NPR; or they are revealed as more of the same Bush/Rove bullshit.

And the Republican party dies.

OneSTDV said...

Here's my article today on politicians and intelligence:

"Smart" Politicians and How the Left Keeps it that Way

Anonymous said...

Take a randomly selected sample of 100 liberal adults and 100 conservative adults. According to an analysis of the 2004 General Social Survey -- a bible of data for social scientists -- the liberals would have had 147 kids, while the conservatives would have had 208. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent.

I keep hearing people mention things like this that liberals don't have as many kids and are doomed. Half of your kids will become liberals after going through the education system. Liberals don't need to have kids to propagate. They control the education system and the media and they will garner a healthy number of converts from so-called conservative families.

Anonymous said...

We need to convince Thomas Friedman
that the Blue People and the Red People need to go their separate ways.

B Lode said...

Let's have a Top Ten Reasons the Tea Party Will Fail.

I'll start:

1. Because they're too radical.
2. Because they're too moderate.
3. Because they haven't been around long enough.
4. Because the election season is so long that they've been around a long time.

Six more to go. ("Because they're not as funny as Colbert" doesn't count as a reason.)

Simon in London said...

Obama has revived the historic American nation, under the banner of the Tea Party.

I guess those "worse is better" guys had a point.

Anonymous said...

Tea Partiers followers are lining up to vote for a party that only exists to serve plutocrats, and would never think of slowing down immigration, changing the trade structure, or removing implicit insurance from TBTF Wall Street.

The GOP will claim gains are a sweeping mandate for smaller government. In reality, regular people are too busy to pay much attention to a political system over which they've lost influence, and vote out incumbents when their own economic prospects are poor.

Anonymous said...

A sad aspect of this election season is the deficit hysteria echoed by the media, in spite of the fact that further stimulus is the only realistic way to stimulate the economy right now. Remember econ 101? When output is constrained by lack of demand deficits pose no burdens on future generations because the Fed can buy and hold the debt indefinitely without increasing inflation. Long term deficits prospects are real but are entirely due to inefficiencies in the healthcare system. If we spent as much per capita on health care as any other first world country with longer life expectancies, we'd have long term surpluses. If you don't admit that, you're admitting that you don't know arithmetic or are a sheep who hasn't bothered looking at the numbers for yourself.

Simon in London said...

Felix:
"What's the meaning of it all? Basically, the "American people" are fed up with what the Establishment is doing, so they're about to vote one of the Establishment's two approved parties out of power and vote in the other. So in other words, the meaning of it all is that there is no meaning. See, I never understood the appeal of one-party totalitarian systems. Two (or 3, or whatever) party totalitarian systems are much more clever!"

From an outside perspective, the important thing is that in the US you have open primaries, where Tea Party approved populist insurgents have won nominations away from establishment Republicans. Every one of those who then goes on to win on the back of Tea Party support is a big deal; it's America electing a new party.

We have nothing like that in the UK. Here the party leaderships decide who the candidates for Parliament are, there is no significant popular input to the process, and no prospect of a populist movement having the effect the Tea Party has had.

Anonymous said...

Good luck America.

corvinus said...

What's the meaning of it all? Basically, the "American people" are fed up with what the Establishment is doing, so they're about to vote one of the Establishment's two approved parties out of power and vote in the other. So in other words, the meaning of it all is that there is no meaning. See, I never understood the appeal of one-party totalitarian systems. Two (or 3, or whatever) party totalitarian systems are much more clever!

It's all about whether we're at war (and have always been at war) with Eurasia or Eastasia.

Anonymous said...

I don't expect any change in California because of the large number of minorities here. There are not enough people left in the state who care about society as a whole. Minorites are concerned with me, me, me ! My group ! My needs. They believe in two things, (1) they have a grudge against whitey, and (2) whitey owes them a living. The democratic party is the umbrella party for people who think like this. The problem for California and similar blue states is that they're running out of white people.

corvinus said...

I keep hearing people mention things like this that liberals don't have as many kids and are doomed. Half of your kids will become liberals after going through the education system. Liberals don't need to have kids to propagate. They control the education system and the media and they will garner a healthy number of converts from so-called conservative families.

You're also assuming that the conversion factor is all one way (i.e., no conservatives with liberal parents), and you're not taking youthful idealism versus older realism into account (people, especially women, are inherently more liberal when young and single).

Bob said...

Both parties are controlled by large corporations so it won't matter.

Republicans will win big in 2010, and then Obama will win big in 2012 because by that time the economy will be recovering and black and young voters will show up to the polls like they did in 2008.

Thrasymachus said...

2011 will be a repeat of 1995. The Republicans will try to cut the budget, but under pressure from the media and Obama, and probably a government shutdown, will back off.

The people who are "mad as hell" will realize nobody cares what they think and they do not live in a democracy. They will either resign themselves or things will get uglier.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals come to power"

When haven't they been in power?

"quickly lose power"

lololol

Bob said...

Republicans got lucky having their best year of the decade the last election before redistricting.

It is easy for the GOP to blunt hispanic demographics where they control redistricting because hispanics vote in very low numbers because of lack of interest and non-citizenship.

You can put 300,000 white exurban people in a district with 400,000 hispanics and you'll end up with a fairly safe seat for conservative republican.

The GOP won't be able to do that in CA/NY because they refuse to nominate candidates like Richard Riordan that are palatable to white liberals, who are the swing voters in those states.

But we will see this in TX, AZ, and NV.

Bob said...

"The prof was shocked."

In my experience professors like competent challenges to their views from students. 98% of students are too dumb or cowardly for this so it's a welcome change of pace.

I never got a bad grade from submitting papers with HBD arguments in them to liberal professors.

Anonymous said...

Aside from very indirect symbolism, the GOP leadership has done absolutely nothing for their white working class constituents regarding demographic change, affirmative action, Section 8, or the assault on living standards from underclass minorities that you described in a recent column. The lesson Republicans will learn is that they can still win anyway, so why bother?

Bob said...

"Demographics favor democrats in the long run.
America is getting blacker and browner by the day."

No, moderate and eventually even liberal whites will just move into the GOP when they feel they've lost control of the democratic party.

The GOP does just fine in many places where whites are in the minority or nearly so, and conversely Democrats do fine in areas that are 97% white like North Dakota, Maine, Vermont, and Western MA.

I predict 50/50 and 53/47 type elections for decades into the future.

Bob said...

Elite whites will also continue running things when whites are a minority because minority legislators are easily bribed.

You can find examples of black democratic congressmen from very poor districts voting to weaken credit card consumer protection laws and for estate tax repeal.

dearieme said...

It's all too late.

Nate said...

I predict Rand Paul will lose by at least 44 points to conservative Jack Conway.

Anonymous said...

Something big - and very near & dear to the hearts of the VDare/iSteve faithful - just happened to the conservative movement:


Tancredo picks up Palin endorsement
Monday, November 01, 2010 6:47:33 PM
freerepublic.com


Remember, Tancredo is NOT running on the GOP ticket - he's running third party.

Again, allow me to repeat myself: This is big.

B.I.G.

Big.

Anonymous said...

One of the most prescient comments I heard on US politics in the last two years is based on the observation that most Americans loath Washington politics but love their country's traditional culture, social system, economy, and polity. Obama was elected because he promised to change Washington but instead he and his dimocrat [my neologism for the current left-wing leaders of the party] fellows in Congress left Washington as is and used Washington politics to attack traditional American values. This is why we're likely to see such a Republican upset this year. But if the current Republican leadership doesn't realize this and meet the desires of the electorate things are going to get far nastier than we've yet seen.

SF said...

So why is Meg Whitman going to lose to Jerry Brown when the disastrous fiscal condition of the state cries out for a conservative leader? First, the Republicans have made a religion out of the Laffer curve. Cutting captal gains taxes when the state has a $19 billion dollar deficit is just a non-starter. Sure, tax cuts worked to some extent for Reagan, but oil prices were going down in his administration. Tax increases by Clinton were followed by an economic upswing and budget surpluses. (Oil went way down in Clinton's administration.)
Tax cuts by GW Bush led to huge deficits, because oil went way up and we blew at least a trillion in Iraq.
Then, like most politicians, she tried to work both sides of the fence on the immigration issue, pleasing nobody. At least Brown is honest in saying he favors amnesty. For this voter, the choice is between Brown and none of the above.

ricpic said...

For the cynics on this thread: the difference between a government run by relatively prudent Republicans and utterly irresponsible destructive tax and spend Democrats is the difference between economic life and death for the great mass of middle class productives out here in the hinterlands. That's what's at stake tomorrow.

Chicago said...

Nothing will be resolved, public disgruntlement will continue to rise, demographic change will go on, political rhetoric hardens and becomes more shrill, the mainstream culture gets yet more decadent, the government will exert greater control over the citizenry which it sees as a threat, and so on. A charade of an election won't satisfy anyone; most people now see it as just a puppet show.

Wes said...

Isn't the biggest story with this election, the Scott Brown election and the Tea Party in general, the beginning of what may be a nascent realignment based on what Kevin MacDonald calls "implicit Whiteness"?

Clearly Whites in Texas and Whites in Massachusetts have never voted the same, yet there appears to be a kind of grasping on all sides to preserve something fundamental about the country that all Whites now seem to fear losing. It isn't explicit yet and therefore isn't well thought out. But with the new anxiety and apprehension in the land, there seems to be a desire to strike out in a new direction. We'll see.

Anonymous said...

"I keep hearing people mention things like this that liberals don't have as many kids and are doomed. Half of your kids will become liberals after going through the education system. Liberals don't need to have kids to propagate. They control the education system and the media and they will garner a healthy number of converts from so-called conservative families."

Hi, Lamarck!

sup witchu mang?

Wanderer said...

To quote a wise man:

__________________________________
Politics is almost entirely irrelevant.

Politics is arguing over the color of the pen you sign the peace treaty with after a hundred years of war.

The important bit is the hundred years of warfare that lead up to the treaty and that warfare is cultural warfare.

It is cultural warfare that decides the values that politics *must* conform to.

However you can't really do that to adults on a mass scale.

So how did they do it?

They went after our children.

Link
__________________________________

Wanderer said...

America is getting blacker and browner by the day.

60.5% white : The 2008 graduating high school class [18 years old on July 1 2008]

51.9% white : Under-1-year-olds on July 1 2008.

Source: The useful link from anon-#02498 above. Pg.17, table-10.

Oh, and 80-year-olds on 7-1-08? 82.2% white.

Dahlia said...

I feel I was a little flip earlier...

I'm excited, hopeful, and will be praying for a rout tomorrow. I've told my children and others who aren't so political that their grandchildren will read about this election and the Tea Party movement someday in history books.
In addition to being a needed correction to Obama, it also shows the strength of the baby-boomers and their conservatism in older age.

I endorse everything Lawrence Auster wrote here:

Never, never forget what the Democratic Party is and what it has done. They are not a legitimate American party. They are a criminal, leftist party that is alien to this country. In the name of meeting a national economic emergency, they passed one of the biggest spending bills in history, and then loaded it with gifts for their favorite special interests, thus showing that they weren’t spending that unprecedented amount of money and putting the country in unprecedented debt for the sake of the country, but for the sake of their corrupt constituencies. For that breach of faith alone, the Democratic Party deserves to be, not just defeated, but destroyed. Then, the next year, against the will of the country, they used legislative legerdemain to push through a nationalization of health care that would destroy one of our premier industries and turn America into a bureaucratic nightmare from which there could be no escape. For doing this, they deserve to be, not just defeated, but destroyed.

And this is the party whose leader, the president, recently told Hispanics that they should look on all Americans who oppose the legalization of Hispanic illegal aliens as their “enemies” whom they should “punish.” The Democratic Party is the party of nonwhite ethnic retribution against whites.

tanabear said...

"2010 will be a repeat of 1994."
Roissy November 3, 2008

So what'll happen to the Tea Party after the election?

Starker said...

"It means nothing...All other questions, like whether we're going to have a nation or a culture or an education system or an economy, are undiscussable."

Well yeah, it seems to me most of the issues discussed at this site are not on the table during elections. I'm always reminded of a well-scripted "reality show" where they let the suckers call in at the end to declare a winner, kind of like "American Idol."

But in fairness, in the other corner is the "Manhattan Mauler" himself, direct from his Upper West Side condo, Lawrence Auster:"The Democratic Party is the party of nonwhite ethnic retribution against whites. The Democrats are not a legitimate political party. They are a gang of looters and destroyers, whose only aim is to seize wealth produced by others and give it to themselves and their friends. They are a criminal leftist party, and they deserve to be driven out of American politics."

Yikes, Auster scores with a vicious right hook. What he says is indisputable, but in what ways do the Republicans in general dissent from the egalitarian, multiculturalist, politically correct premises that animate the Democrats. Glenn Beck had a rally with several hundred thousand white folks attending and spent his time, I read, lauding MLK and Lincoln and telling black folks "We love you." Well they don't love us, as Auster points out continously. The party of Bush, McCain, Rove, Michael Steele, Hannity and Beck is not an opposition party. If these clowns take both houses of Congress virtually nothing of importance will change.

keypusher said...

I'll just point out the screamingly obvious: the most that can be achieved from this election is gridlock. 2012 -- when the electorate will be younger, browner and blacker than this year -- is what matters.

Ron Guhname said...

jjhjhjhhjhjhh

none of the above said...

We didn't like the taste of the poison we were offered as food, so we tried some of the poison we were offered as antidote. That also left a bad taste, so we're back for more of the food-flavored poison.

none of the above said...

We didn't like the taste of the poison we were offered as food, so we tried some of the poison we were offered as antidote. That also left a bad taste, so we're back for more of the food-flavored poison.

Anonymous said...

The left will never let the right go peacefully.

Whatever happens, we must not be the side that shoots first at Fort Sumter.

The side which is fired upon is going to react with a terrible vengeance.

Statsquatch said...

Lyndon Johnson said that affirmative action will be the end of the Democratic Party. Did he have Obama in mind?

Anonymous said...

The purpose of a tribe or nation should be to maximize the survival and reproductive chances of the individual members of that tribe or nation.

or

Diversity kills

or

God grows out of empathy and fear of the unknown (and therefore will always be reborn three days after Man kills him).

or

Immigration causes a drop in native birth rate.

Mechanism: A neighborhood has x families and y homes. There's always churn as some households disappear and new ones form so there's usually some empty housing stock available at any one time.

The group who would normally be the ones creating new households and moving into the spare housing stock are young couples moving out of their parent's homes.

Mass immigration or integration into that neighborhood uses up the spare housing stock thereby preventing new household creation by the original inhabitants who have to move elsewhere causing a knock on effect. The sequence of events slows down family formation among the natives.

If true, native birth rates between identical populations in high and low immigration neighborhoods and how they changed when a neighborhood went from low to high immigration should prove it.

(This may have already been done but i haven't seen it.)

Anonymous said...

I'm proud to say that I can't name the baseball teams currently playing (I saw some reference to a World Series that they may or may not be in middle of), don't know what astrological sign we're in at the moment (I haven't a clue how to allign the dates with the signs) and would love to go at least a couple of days without knowing the results of this season's meaningless political circus.

Unless you've got money on this game, it's absolutely ridiculous to care what happens.

Furshlugginer said...

I don't know which wing of the Permanent Conspiracy Against the Public will win, but the common people will lose, again.

The situation isn't bad enough yet to force any changes. All the folks crowing about how this time is different, the people are really angry, blah-blah-blah, are wrong. The people are not even angry enough to vote any crooked politicians out of "safe seats" (the ersatz excitement is all about a very few "swing" seats).

You watch. After the election, again the banks will be bailed out (of the foreclosure scandal), again Goldman Sachs' staff will split more than 9 figures in pay+bonuses, again the Administration will fail to deport illegal aliens, and the unemployment rate will hardly improve (again).

America has ten percent clueless recent immigrants (illegal or otherwise), 15 percent hapless MLK Boulevard shoppers, and 30 percent Obamessiah worshipers who won't shame themselves by admitting they were wrong. Nearly all of those people are carefully distributed in "safe" gerrymandered Congressional Districts. Their angry, clueful neighbors can march and wave signs but, like a toddlers throwing tantrums, they'll get picked up and carried along, perhaps with a few soothing words ("virtual fence"), perhaps with a few swats on their behinds ("half-percent sales tax increase for mass transit").

I predict no significant policy changes after the election, though there may be some theatrical sturm und drang to distract the rubes.

(Though I am hoping, not very optimistically, for the repeal or even just temporary postponement of Obamacare. I think that's just barely possible since the Permanent Conspiracy is itself divided over the wisdom of Obamacare.)

There's an awful lot left to loot in America and most people still think the robbers will hit some other guy, some guy down the street.

Real change will happen only after the robbery reaches into people's kitchen pantries (which it will, we're headed for Weimar or even Zimbabwe now, what with the looming public-pension crisis). When people get physically hungry, they'll do something, and we may well get the kind of wrongheaded revolution the "liberal" spokesdroids for the current looters are always threatening us with.

"The alternative to us," the establishment says, "is Hitler! You're all a bunch of racists. If you didn't have us to take your money and use it to turn the house next door into "low income housing" for illiterate criminal aliens, you'd probably put on a brown shirt and march to put someone nasty in charge."

Uh-huh. Look who's making the suggestion.

AmericanGoy said...

Republican win (but not as big as trumpeted), which will lead to absolutely no change in any of this nation's policies (gasp! surprise! shock! LOL).

Instead lots of shouting, in the tone of "we gotz our countree buck!" and "lets put god where he belongs - in this nation yeeehaw!" and others of this ilk.

Meanwhile the lobbyists will say hello to some new faces, shake some hands, pass some stuffed envelopes, and welcome the new initiates to the coke and whore Washington circuit.


Oh, and clueless white people will cheer and whoop and holler as tough words are spoken on immigration and border control, and words said to the effect of "we need to help middle class America!" will be spoken as an increase of H1B visas will hit my market...

Really, there are no significant differences between the two parties that I see, on immigration, Israel, multinational business other than insignificant wedge issues like gays, god, etc. but no discussion allowed on actual, meaningful geopolitical issues.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if Steve's fragile coalition theme plays out. In 2008 Obama wins with White Catholics, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews. The majority of White Protestants voted for McCain. No doubt the White Protestant vote will ramp up for the GOP, but it will be interesting to see if White Catholics swing in any demonstrable way towards the GOP, deserting their Democrat roots.

How else is the Blumenthal v. McMahon race to be understood?

The largest ancestry groups are:[32]

* 19.3% Italian
* 17.9% Irish
* 10.7% English
* 10.4% German
* 8.6% Polish
* 6.6% French
* 3.0% French Canadian
* 2.7% United States or American
* 2.1% Russian
* 2.1% West Indian
* 2.0% Scottish
* 1.9% Swedish
* 1.6% Portuguese
* 1.4% Scotch Irish
* 1.3% Hungarian
* 1.0% Lithuanian


Except that White Catholics, (Italians, Irish, French Canadians, etc.) are hugely partisan Democrats.

Anonymous said...

I keep hearing people mention things like this that liberals don't have as many kids and are doomed. Half of your kids will become liberals after going through the education system. Liberals don't need to have kids to propagate. They control the education system and the media and they will garner a healthy number of converts from so-called conservative families.

Evolution needs only a little variation to work with and political belief has been shown to be hereditary. Eventually the conservative families left propagating will be those ones who are, for what ever reason, more resistant to conversion. Consider the rapid expansion of the Amish. Are white conservatives at the stage now where they are inoculated against liberalism? Who knows. It's an historically unprecendented Meme vs Gene battle.

Anonymous said...

"About the Neocons:
Many here regard them as the spawn of Satan.
But if not for the Iraq War, wouldn't they mostly be seen as just a curious tribe of liberal Republicans, who also happened to be involved in some interesting quantitative social analysis?"


No. That's like saying, apart from WWII, wouldn't FDR mostly be seen as just a genial old man who saved America from the Depression and saved Capitalism from Communism by finding a middle way. Sorry, but you can't compartmentalize them like that. Their foreign policy is tied in with all of their other evils.

"A big "if", I know, but all of the other paleocon criticisms of the neocons seem to ring a little hollow when you realize it's really all just about that one misguided war (which wasn't entirely their doing, anyway).

You are a troll. If you think that all of the paleocon criticisms of the neocons is "really just about that one war (which wasn't entirely their doing anyway)", you are either consciously lying, or you are too ignorant about this topic to form any kind of opinion whatsoever.

For starters, paleocon critiques of the neocons go right back to 1981 and the first Reagan administration, if not earlier, so you're way, way, way off on your facts. The paleocon critique of the neocons isn't just about the Iraq war or about foreign policy. You are either new at this paleocon/neocon thing or deliberately trying to misinform others.

Anonymous said...

"I keep hearing people mention things like this that liberals don't have as many kids and are doomed. Half of your kids will become liberals after going through the education system. Liberals don't need to have kids to propagate. They control the education system and the media and they will garner a healthy number of converts from so-called conservative families."

Very true, and I wish more people would realize this before trumpeting birth rates as somehow the only barometer.

Anecdotally, I've known quite a few home schooled kids with very conservative Christian parents, and more than half of them are liberals even before they get to college. I've noticed a similar pattern amongst those who went to Christian private schools.

Kids tend to rebel against their immediate authority figures, their parents. It never occurs to them to revolt against the culture, the TV, the internet, music, politics, universities, etc.

Sure, you can keep the TV out of the house, but are you also prepared to keep the internet out? Because I found the home schooled kids I knew went from highly Christianized isolation, to hip, with-it pop culture sophistication within a few years of having internet access and sufficient literacy to use the internet without parental supervision. Kids will use the local library internet access if they have to, but they will find out this stuff sooner or later - at college at the very latest.

You can try to lock down your kids from all contact with the popular culture, but they'll either rebel or end up very ignorant and isolated. Even without university, kids have been moving steadily leftwards, culturally, for many generations now. Living in a Red State amongst Bible Thumpers doesn't change anything; if anything it is worse as the more intelligent kids are the ones more likely to rebel and/or be recruited into the university indoctrination system.

Cultural conservatives will wind up left with only the stupidest, most ignorant children to carry on their traditions. Any solution to this problem that doesn't focus on capturing and keeping elite youth isn't going to accomplish much. Simply having more kids is not the answer.

Anonymous said...

OhioStater that is a spot on post. All the back slapping and congratulatory BS I see going on as if merely changing the guard will do anything of substance is both disheartening & frustrating. It is sadly reminiscent of 1994 which ultimately brought much larger and intrusive government, Ever increasing diversity and culture destruction, an unsustainable debt and more liberal BS than you can shake a stick at. It also brought us GW, speaking of liberals and now we are here. It reversed nor 'conserved' anything. Time will tell but partisan BS, I fear, will continue us down the road of destruction we have been on for sometime now.

Anonymous said...

"Ohio Stater,

Slavery? It was Republicans that ended slavery and the Republic at the same time.

Segregation? It was Democrat politicians and sheriffs in the South that passed and enforced those laws.

Women's sufferage? Bipartisan.

So, 1 out of 3. If you batting in baseball you'd be a superstar!"


Uh, he said "liberal" not "Democrat".

The Republicans used to be the liberals, the party of the left, up through Reconstruction at least, and had a very powerful leftist/progressive wing up through at least WWI.

Typical that you should confuse this for a partisan party issue when it's nothing like that at all.

Anonymous said...

Like the World series, elections are a bore. We have corporate baseball and corporate politics. As soon as the Republicans take power, the Tea Party folks will go along to get along, trolling for reelection dollars from special interests, instead of adopting the necessary kamikaze philosophy needed to get things done.

More interesting is the article in the Sunday NYT Health section reporting results from recent biological studies showing that all the Great European plagues originated in China. It might have been ripped out of the pages of Vdare as a cautionary tale about the dire consequences of contact with alien overpopulated countries where the people have exotic culinary habits like eating voles and marmosets.

dr kill said...

Hope? Be realistic, and abandon hope in America as a nation. America only remains as a concept.

1. Master a geographically-transferable skill.
2. Simplify your financial life.
3. Prepare to move someplace where poor people are still underfed.

Dahinda said...

If you listen to Sarah Palin's and Judy Tenuta's voices with the picture off they sound exactly the same. The mannerisms and inflections and all!

sabril said...

I basically agree with the other posters. I remember the Republican revolutions in 1980 and again in 1994. In hindsight, what did they accomplish?

David Pilavin said...

I never thought about it like that, but OhioStater is absolutely right.

The reason for this unidirectional process involves the very essence of Conservatism - namely: all that Conservatives can do is to resist change.

Evil Sandmich said...

I almost didn't vote at all when my sample Cuyahoga county ballot was half Spanish. As a compromise I went to the polls all ready to write something profane in the mile long, bilinqual 'how to vote' section, only to discover that the official ballot was only in English. I then thought about not voting since we're all doomed anyway...

Polichinello said...

Obama will be restrained until at least 2013. Neither the House or the Senate GOP have a lightning rod like Newt Gingrich or Tom Delay. Boehner's just not a very good villain for the media. He's too bland to be the anti-Christ. So the GOP can still be the Party of No to the most radical propositions and can even filibuster a radical judge or two. This will set them up for the 2012 elections.

As far as Obama's agenda being "irreversible," I don't buy it. The health care law is really a regulatory act. It's becoming an apparently bad piece of regulation at that. Well, it's not like the country hasn't deregulated before, and there are some steps that can be taken, like removing interstate barriers and encouraging individually held high-deductible policies.

As for immigration, the GOP is becoming more and more aware of the need to protect it's bases demography. I'd expect more work in the e-Verify direction and possibly a limitation on family re-unification to work its way through. These are pretty easy political fights for the GOP. But this is going to be a long fight with small yardage gains and some losses. So patience is in order.

Anonymous said...

Once again I have to say I couldn't care less about the elections.. Instead, let's talk about:

"Report: 10-year-old gives birth in southern Spain (AP)

Spanish newspapers said the mother is of Romanian origin. The daily Diario de Jerez quoted medical staffers who treated the girl as saying they were told by her mother that giving birth at such a young age is common in their country."

"Romanian origin" is a sleazy way to avoid saying Gypsy.

Wow, in Gypsy culture it would appear that raping a 10 year old girl (or boy) is routine. Get those Roma into Oshkosh on a diversity visa, pronto!

Φ said...

Here's something you can address.

I would think that political jurisdictions containing substantial immigrant populations would give rise to politicians who exploit national fellow-feeling on behalf of amnesty and open borders. But that doesn't seem to play out in practice.

Consider some examples from ALIPAC's endorsements. Georgia, whose relatively strong economy has attracted large numbers of immigrants both legal and illegal, also has a strong reductionist candidate in almost every district. Ohio, in contrast, has a moribund economy and almost no non-black minorities. It's predominantly blue-collar population is most vulnerable to low-wage labor competition, and yet its Republican politicians have very weak records on immigration.

What's going on? Even if the issue lacks local salience, why are Ohio's politicians so eager to sell out their constituents to the cheap labor lobby?

Severn said...

all of the other paleocon criticisms of the neocons seem to ring a little hollow when you realize it's really all just about that one misguided war



The problems with the neocons extend far beyond the Iraq war. Their whole "proposition nation" idea and its attendant open-borders outlook is a vastly greater danger to America than any other single policy stance in American politics. The Iraq war is frivolous nonsense by comparison.

OhioStater said...

Will Michael Steele get any credit?

Marc B said...

As much as many on here that may feel that there is no difference between the two parties, I am glad there are more options available nationally for traditional Conservatives than ever before to unseat the Democrats, most of which are nothing but the most blatant sell-outs to my interests. The Tea Party is actually making a difference when Colorado, a state that has become an SWPL mecca because of the tech industry and California flight since the early 1990's, has a toss-up between a Tom Tancredo and George Hickenlooper for governor.

I doubt many in here upset if Harry Reid is unseated by a nationalist conservative like Sharon Angle.

Svigor said...

I read somewhere that increasing volatility is a sign of an impending crash?

Anonymous said...

Apropos of nothing in particular, here are two recent news stories which might interest iSteve readers [especially in the aftermath of this election].

First, a math professor at UIC basically concedes that most kids are [more or less doomed to be] innumerate, and that trying to teach them math is a waste of time:


How Much Math Do We Really Need?
October 31, 2010
science.slashdot.org

...'All the mathematics one needs in real life can be learned in early years without much fuss,' writes Ramanathan. 'Most adults have no contact with math at work, nor do they curl up with an algebra book for relaxation.' Ramanathan says that the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body, but even with generous government grants over the past 25 years, countless courses, conferences, and books written on how to teach teachers to teach, where is the evidence that these efforts have helped students?...


Note that that thread has gotten more than 1100 replies at Slashdot [which is pretty dagum impressive]. Also, note that the UIC edumakashun department is home to Barack Hussein Obama's ghostwriter, William Ayers, and it would be interesting to know whether Ayers tries to work behind the scenes to undermine Ramanathan.

Second, it looks as though a decade of Community Reinvestment Act shenanigans & DOJ "red-lining" thuggery & Bush-Rove vote-buying has been wiped right out of the history books:


U.S. Homeownership at Lowest Level in a Decade
November 02, 2010
foxnews.com

...The percentage of households that owned their homes was unchanged at 66.9 percent in the July-September quarter, the Census Bureau said Tuesday. That's the same as the April-June quarter.

The last time the rate was lower was in 1999, when the rate was 66.7 percent.

The nation's homeownership rate was around 64 percent from 1985 through 1995. It then rose dramatically during the Clinton and Bush administrations, hitting a peak of more than 69 percent in 2004 at the height of the housing boom...

Svigor said...

Agreed but that won't happen. The left will never let the right go peacefully. The left doesn't just want to do things their way. They want everyone to do things their way.

The crux of the problem, I'm afraid. The founders would've had some choice thoughts on this conundrum, methinks.

Svigor said...

Off topic--I told my incompetent ethics professor

If you really want to give his head a spin, tell him HBD is a moral imperative, because liberals have blamed "black failure" on whites. It is this false accusation that makes HBD a moral obligation, and letting sleeping dogs lie into negligence.

Dutch Boy said...

B Lode: The TPers will fail because they are Republicans at heart and so:
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly"

Proverbs 26:11

Svigor said...

Their pledge document calls for tax cuts and to have Medicare and military spending growth untouched. This is a formula for insolvency. A party that is this incoherent on fiscal matters does not deserve to be in charge of the public purse.

Far be it from me to defend the Republicans. I despise the lot. But, barring reducing the tax burden and government spending, might reducing the tax burden and letting the chips fall where they may be the next best thing? Bankrupting the government, at this point, can't be all bad can it?

Anonymous said...

Use the Almanac of American Politics racial percentages (2007 data) by Congressional district to investigate whether House seats lost by Democrats today have a higher percentage of non-Hispanic whites than those seats retained. I suspect the difference in non-Hispanic white percentage between retained and lost Democratic seats will be sizable.

Half Sigma said...

"might reducing the tax burden and letting the chips fall where they may be the next best thing?"

No Svigor, that approach has failed. We need to try the opposite. Raise taxes really high, and say "well, if you want the taxes lowered, we need to cut some spending." That will motivate spending cuts.

Kylie said...

Dahlia said..."I feel I was a little flip earlier..."


Maybe a little, but not inappropriately so. In that earlier comment you also said, "The more time goes on, the more we see the real Obama and less Axelrod's Obama".

Beautiful. Definitely an entry in the "I wish I'd said that" category.

And like you, I endorse everything Larry Auster wrote in his blistering denunciation of the Dems.

Svigor said...

No Svigor, that approach has failed. We need to try the opposite. Raise taxes really high, and say "well, if you want the taxes lowered, we need to cut some spending." That will motivate spending cuts.

I wouldn't rule that out, either. Close any loopholes for the rich and tax the crap out of them until they get the picture...

Dave said...

"I read somewhere that increasing volatility is a sign of an impending crash?"

Here's a five year chart of volatility (as measured by the VIX index) versus the S&P 500. What conclusions do you draw from it?

B Lode said...

The reason to be pessmistic is that "optimism won't help"?

Couldn't we just as easily choose to be optimistic because pessimism won't help us?

If you guys turn out to be right, it's doesn't retroactively make the people who were hopeful in November 2010 wrong. Hope can't be wrong, but pessimism can be ennervating.

Think on that for a moment.

Svigor said...

Glenn Beck had a rally with several hundred thousand white folks attending and spent his time, I read, lauding MLK and Lincoln and telling black folks "We love you." Well they don't love us, as Auster points out continously. The party of Bush, McCain, Rove, Michael Steele, Hannity and Beck is not an opposition party. If these clowns take both houses of Congress virtually nothing of importance will change.

Beck & Co. are openly using "color-blindness" against liberals. That's not exactly a surrender-monkey's tactic. In fact it's subversive. That the country's so far gone that it's a subversive tactic is pretty disgusting, of course...

David said...

>a government run by relatively prudent Republicans<

It's amusing to pretend we have a say. But how to describe someone who slaps you one time at 9:00 AM, then returns at noon after changing his suit and slaps you three times? "Relatively less violent"? It's the same man, it's the same bunch: politicians. Abandon political solutions and fight culturally.

Anonymous said...

"Will Michael Steele get any credit?"

Probably not. Folks aren't voting FOR the Republicans, they are voting against the leading political brand. Now if messaging and strategy really mattered, maybe he would get credit. But the stampede of white middle class voters to the polls is more of a spontaneous thing driven by survival instincts.

Wanderer said...

Slightly OT:
"Anti-Chinese" Ad airs on CNN

This well-done ad aired during election coverage on CNN Tuesday.

I was stunned at the open appeal to American "nationalist" (and even vaguely "racialist") sensibilities. I don't think an ad like this would've been possible even 5 years ago. [Maybe 125 years ago]. The winds of change are blowing!

none of the above said...

A country run by prudent, competent republicans would indeed be a win. But I have seen essentially no evidence of any such republicans, or for that matter such democrats. Instead, we get a choice between borrow and spend democrats and borrow and spend republicans. Neither group seems to value much of what I value, neither group seems especially interested in the long-term well being of the country. That's why most of their appeals are either on identity or on fear.

none of the avove said...

svigor:

You might want to look into how well it has worked out for other countries to run up unmanageable debts, and either default or be crushed under the payments. I don't think this is likely to lead anywhere you'd like the country to go. A US default while were still the biggest economy and the worlds reserve currency would probably melt the global economy down alongside ours. God knows how that would fall out.

Desperate times often make politicians and other decisionmakers behave less rationally, acting to deal with thus weeks crisis at whatever cost to next week. We are liable not to like how that turns out.

none of the above said...

Anon:

I figure you can give your kids tools, but you have to let them decide who they're going to become. So maybe my kids will live on a free live commune or something. But I want them to arrive at the commune with full command of English grammar, math, science, and a decent knowledge of the technological civilization and the Church theyre rebelling against.

They will rebel--it's programmed in. But if they rebel in knowledge instead of ignirance, iif they approach their rebellion with the mental toolkit of an educated 21st century first world citizen, I'll have done my job.

Anonymous said...

Why in hell wouldn't you people explain all of this stuff to your kids beforehand?

"Yes, you are going to be tempted to rebel; here are the pseudo-arguments which will be used to tempt you, here are why the pseudo-arguments are wrong, here is the horror you will experience if you do decide to rebel, etc etc etc."

Don't you guys TALK to your children?!?

Good grief.

Anonymous said...

"You're also assuming that the conversion factor is all one way (i.e., no conservatives with liberal parents), and you're not taking youthful idealism versus older realism into account (people, especially women, are inherently more liberal when young and single)."

No, we're not assuming that the conversion factor is all one way; the point is, the net result still favors the blues, not the reds. The blues don't need to replace their numbers as much as the reds, because they get far more recruits on balance than the reds do.

Nor does the argument that "SWPL will change their tune and join our side once they are a minority and can't deny the realities of NAM behavior" hold true, because SWPL are experts at living in denial; white flight is an easy solution to allow one to remain a good liberal by not having NAM behavior shoved in your face every day. As long as the numbers of NAMs are small, SWPL can feel smug and morally superior to those nasty racist whites in the red states. Once the NAMs grow too numerous and the SWPL start to feel uncomfortable, they move to a whiter area and the process repeats.

Consider the very SWPL site Boing Boing and its take on the Beck rally and the Stewart/Colbert rally ie "can you spot the non-white person":

http://boingboing.net/submit/2010/11/can-you-spot-a-non-white-person-at-the-rally-to-restore-sanity.html

The above is a perfect example of the problem. Note that they are all happy that their tiny rally was 95% white, whereas the much larger Beck rally, with all those nasty racist 'teabaggers', was, say, 99% white. What's the freaking difference? In total numbers the Beck rally probably had just as many non-whites because it was a larger rally; but to the SWPL on Boing Boing, that extra four or five percent non-whites is a 'badge of honor'. But at some unspecified tipping point, as non-white numbers grow, the SWPL become quiet and go elsewhere - not to our side, just 'elsewhere'. You can't count on them as a reliable source of recruits/conversions simply due to increases in NAMs; it will take more than that - including the strong likelihood that we, too, need to change some of our thinking, not just the SWPL.

If you really want a 'white party' you are going to need to go beyond the old political dichotomy which assumes a white majority, white nation; no more red state vs. blue state, right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, religious vs. secular, etc. Simply continuing to pound away at the issues which divide whites is not going to win you anything if you are serious about HBD/WN identity politics. A political agenda that unites the greatest number of whites is the only realistic long term solution, and that includes SWPL and liberal whites to the extent they begin to open their eyes to the HBD problem - which will happen, but which won't automatically make them join our side if we remain hostile to them and oppose them on issues that are entirely secondary to the issue of white survival.

Anonymous said...

"I don't expect any change in California because of the large number of minorities here. There are not enough people left in the state who care about society as a whole. Minorites are concerned with me, me, me ! My group ! My needs. They believe in two things, (1) they have a grudge against whitey, and (2) whitey owes them a living. The democratic party is the umbrella party for people who think like this. The problem for California and similar blue states is that they're running out of white people."

Most of those minorities don't vote, at least not in big numbers in a mid-term. Hell, most of those minorities aren't even registered to vote.

Those who DO vote are the liberal gentry in SF, LA, and in the Penisula tech corridor (and we have exhaused analyses of why those people vote against their own interests and the interests of their own offsprinf) and state worker, teachers and union members.

When you talk to teachers, they still act as if they think pumping more money into the schools helps. When you ask them to detail explicitly how dollars thrown here and there have improved student achievement, they can't provide any data. What they do know is that extra dollars sometimes reduces class sizes by one or two kids. That's it.

none of the above said...

Anon:

Rebelling against your parents (who suddenly seem unbearably stupid and unfeeling when you turn about 15) is more-or-less programmed-in behavior. I suspect talking your kids out of rebelling is as likely to work as talking your boys out of getting into fights or wanting to get laid (depending on the age). Good luck!

Better to give them good tools, a good foundation for understanding the world, and recognize that they will rebel in some areas, but that much of that will be temporary. And it's necessary--kids need to think things out on their own, as part of becoming adults.

Svigor said...

I don't buy into the common theory of teen rebellion. Yeah, as they become sovereign people rather than children, kids rebel. That doesn't mean they instinctively rebel against everything their parents represent. It means they want to run their own lives. They're young and dumb and easy to manipulate, so some people take advantage of that.

none of the above said...

Svigor:

Yeah, fair enough. Hell, with me, it was classical music and Ayn Rand I used to differentiate myself from my parents.

The point is, your kids will rebel against some of what you believe and have taught them temporarily, as they're finding their way. And they'll rebel against other stuff because, as adults, they're convinced you were wrong. That's how it's supposed to work.