November 29, 2012

WSJ: "The Racializing of American Politics"

The big money conservative press is starting to get alarmed by all the in-yo-face-white-boy chest-thumping since the election (much of it coming from white boys, of course). Here's another column from the Wall Street Journal, although more naive than Taranto's good one recently.
Henninger: The Racializing of American Politics 
Even the exit polls now force people to put themselves in a racial category. 
By DANIEL HENNINGER 
... It may be over four decades since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, but whenever America votes today, the exit polls can't move fast enough to divide voters by the color of their skin. Mere moments after the 2012 exit polls were released, a conventional wisdom congealed across the media that the Republican Party was "too white." 
Let us posit that this subject wouldn't have been raised if the bottom hadn't fallen out of the GOP's share of the Hispanic vote. When George W. Bush attracted 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, there was no cry that the Republican Party was "too white." The GOP's problem with Hispanics today is a tangle of issues involving the law, labor and assimilation that is hardly reducible to the accusation that the party is too white.

The mainstream media has been assiduously trying for years to racialize Hispanics. Maybe they're succeeding?
In virtually every instance, the idea that the Republican Party is "too white" is dropped with almost no discussion of what exactly that means. The phrase is being pinned like a scarlet "W" on anyone who didn't vote for the Democrats' nominee. It's a you-know-what-we-mean denunciation. Its only meaning is racial. 
... During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wrestled over race, first in January when Bill Clinton was accused of racial signaling during the South Carolina primary, and in March when Mrs. Clinton repudiated the late Geraldine Ferraro for referencing Mr. Obama's color. A New York Times report then said Mr. Obama was "puzzled" at this preoccupation with race and sex. It quoted Mr. Obama as saying: "I don't want to deny the role of race and gender in our society. They're there, and they're powerful. But I don't think it's productive."

Race has been damn productive for the career of B. Obama, President of the United States.
A welcome thought. The truth is that no prominent Democrat since Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan has been willing to sustain opposition to this constant racializing of American politics and culture. 
In the famous 2003 Supreme Court decision upholding the University of Michigan's race-based admission policies, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in support: "The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." 
In 2008's election, many Republicans and independents voted for Mr. Obama to put a final nail in the coffin of Justice O'Connor's racial anxieties. The millions of them who then cast votes against Mr. Obama in 2012 did so almost wholly because of the status of the economy after four years of his presidency. No matter. They lost in 2012 because they're "too white." 
The Democrats' insistence on pandering to political categories is a dead end for the country.

But, not apparently, for the Democrats.
... No one can beat the Democrats at the politics of social division. Instead, the GOP should tell prospective voters that no matter what their country of origin or happenstance of birth, their success in the U.S. will depend less on celebrating their assigned category than on supporting political policies that expand economic opportunity. A Republican Party that fails to tell that story in a way anyone can grasp is a party that will never escape the box the other side dropped it into on Nov. 7.

Maybe, just maybe, the GOP should, on the rare occasions when it has power, do something about, say, affirmative action. Of maybe it should mention during the Presidential campaign that it will nominate judges skeptical of racial preferences. Who knows? The GOP might even go all crazy and run a TV commercial showing your job application being crumpled up because you are the wrong race? An insane idea, I know, but it did work 22 years ago, so maybe the GOP could try it again?

But, fundamentally, the point is that if you don't want increasingly racialized politics, then you don't want an increasingly racialized electorate. As Nate Silver noted, New Hampshire still has pretty good politics -- "elastic," as he calls them, where people care about the issues more than just the identity of the candidates. But that's because, as Silver more or less admits, the New Hampshire electorate still looks pretty much like it did in Norman Rockwell's Freedom of Speech painting of a New England town meeting, where the main division is by class (the working man is surprising the suit-and-tie crowd with the cogency of his argument), not race.

59 comments:

desert lady said...

when will you admit that the same big money controls both sides?

Big Money wants affirmative action and mass immigration because it lowers wages by increasing the supply of labor faster than the demand for labor increases.

Big Money wants racial integration in all places because diversity is strength for Capital and weakness for Labor. Capital buys Labor. So Capital wants Labor divided by factions. Race is the most divisive faction. Factionalization is the primary founding principle of pseudo-democracies such as the USA.


The same Big Money that wants mass immigration and affirmative action and multiculti also wants lower taxes on the rich, and it wants a war machine that controls the world, and it wants weaker workers rights. All these things make fat wallets fatter.

Big Money wants the liberal Dems to hate whites because that hatred of whites drives many whites away from the Democrats and into the arms of the GOP. If the Dem activist base did not have such a strong hatred of whites, the GOP would have a much smaller voter base.

So anti-white animus is promoted in the pseudoLeft subculture that is dominant in academia, media and entertainment industries.

This anti-white subculture was born of decades of propaganda put out via activists and writers paid by the plutocrats' nonprofit foundations. THis started about 100 years ago. See, e.g., Dr. Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND SOCIAL POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM.

Bill said...

Interestingly enough, that Rockwell painting is currently on display in Ulaanbaatar. I don't know quite what to make of that, but somehow I think the descendants of Genghis Khan might appreciate it more than most of our new Americans.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Hispanics are racialized. I think the thing with Hispanics is as simple as they are poor and they see the GOP as the party of the rich. In their own country there are parties for the rich and parties for the poor too. These people are low IQ but they aren't retarded.

anony-mouse said...

Er, NH has been invaded by Whites recently-White liberals from (mostly MA) who like lower taxes (and lower alcohol prices). Unfortunately (see also NJ, NV, CT, etc) these are Democrats who also want government services so eventually the taxes will rise and the Dem vote totals will rise, too.

Anonymous said...

Is it any coincident that both wings of Wall Street - the right-wing (WSJ) and the Left-wing (NYT) are both hysterically and 110 percent in favor of Open-Borders and mass-immigration (legal or illegal)?

As "Desert Lady" states, it all about the "Greenbacks" for the Republicans and all about the votes for the Democrats.

The Repubs will of course do ANYTHING to get elected EXCEPT betray their wealthy donors and Big Business. Look at the current Kerfuffle over Copyright reform. One word from "BIG HOLLYWOOD" and House Republicans cover in fear. That, despite "Big Hollywood" giving 90% of its millions to the Democrats.



Anonymous said...

"when will you admit that the same big money controls both sides?"

When will you get a new account and stop pretending you are female?

Anonymous said...

As for the "Hispanics" one hates to beat a broken drum but:

1) Many Hispaninics not only aren't assimilated, they don't even speak English. One can vote and be citizen and earn a living without learning English. "Press one for English"

2) Many poorer Hispanics who immigrate are SOCIALISTS. And they don't stop being left-wing because they came here.

3) Many Hispanics are PR's and 3rd Generation Cubans. These groups naturally trend Liberal and Democrat.

4) Most Hispanics are poor/working class. There is zero economic reason for them to vote conservative/Republican.

Anonymous said...

When talking about the "Racialization" of American politics, it's hard to make any points if you're talking about Republicans vs Democrats. It gives people who benefit from this racialization too easy of an out. There are so many examples of this happening within the Democratic Party itself. The mayoral races in Chicago and New York are almost enough.

"An insane idea, I know, but it did work 22 years ago, so maybe the GOP could try it again?"

I suspect it wouldn't work... while I think more people would agree with the sentiment now than just a few years ago(just look at the gigantic 17 point swing away from Obama by young white voters that NOBODY is talking about), they would get shouted down and wouldn't know out to verbalize a response.

The "Sailer Strategy" won't be able to save the GOP. The only hope(for whites) is to abolish political parties. The (probably Obama supporting) Google co-founder Sergey Brin called on politicians to quit on political parties... this would be good for us.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/06/google-co-founder-brin-calls-on-politicians-to-abandon-political-parties/

The Economist... AKA Gawker for the Elites... it fond of telling Republicans, Tories, French Conservatives, and every conservative party that exists that they have a race problem... that they're too white.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100148320/george-galloways-victory-shows-that-british-politics-is-dividing-down-tribal-lines/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2012/03/conservative-party-and-ethnic-minority-voters

The Economist, and the rest of the elites, need to be confronted by the fact that Democracy itself has a race problem... and that people will vote for their own people... wars were fought in the 20th century over this right. Those who advocate for free migration are undermining democracy.

This is what the ideology of The Economist reading The Elites are bringing to western civilization.

"Niggas In Paris" Used In French Presidential Campaign Video par FRANCOIS HOLLANDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOXhp0BuaiM

'Before, Africa was yours--now, France is ours.'
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-africanization-of-france-one-in.html

Black immigrants in France hit white girl for not giving number
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=737_1343775329

Prophet said...

The problem with the GOP isn't just a demographic one, it is a cultural one. The libs control the mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, the music industry, etc... Thus, it is hard for conservatives to counter the message that the GOP is the party of white racists when they don't control or have influence on the message that is sent out by the media/entertainment complex.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

NH native here. Fifty years ago it was hard to paint anyone as racist because there were few black people and few citizens had been observed doing anything overtly racist. We were disparaged as not very welcoming to blacks, perhaps, but little else.

In the 60's racial events became more national than local, and what you thought about events in Detroit or Mississippi (or Boston) became the data for whether one was "racist" or not. The Democrats have succeeded in nationalizing the race issue, so that your personal behavior is now completely irrelevant in determining your racism. By long chains of association, one can be tagged as racist for any of a hundred opinions that have little to do with actual prejudice.

This is largely driven by the need to feel morally superior. The image of dog-whistles is peculiarly apt: because the sound of purported racism is inaudible it is considered more credible.

desert lady - I have heard for too many years the both parties/ big money argument. It is superficially attractive - I'm sure it makes you feel wonderfully clever to know so much more than the rest of us* - but can only be supported by squinting and ignoring three-quarters of the actual data. Stop believing what you prefer and learn what is actual. Real life is complicated.

*If you didn't wish to be addressed that way, you shouldn't have started with that first sentence.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever seen a diverse rich liberal neighborhood?

Neither have I.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think the Hispanics are racialized."

Yeah, La Raza isn't racialized... it's impossible for hispanics not to be racialized considering their separate media outlets and the pandering in their own language.

A note on France(from a comment that hasn't made it through the filter yet), Hollande would not have won that election if only the native French were allowed to vote.

Anonymous said...

Palestine baby!!!

Steve Sailer said...

"Have you ever seen a diverse rich liberal neighborhood?"

During the 1988 campaign, I went to see Jesse Jackson's big house in South Shore, near the U. of Chicago. It looked about half white-half black. The Secret Service really gave us the gimlet eye the second time we drove past to check out Jesse's house.

DaveinHackensack said...

Mickey Kaus suggests that even Obama's post-victory lunch with Romney today was racialized ("White turkey chili").

Anonymous said...

You're watching the implosion of the GOP specifically because they are adopting a key part of the the Sailer Strategy.

Rove promised that he would make immigration the wedge issue in 2006. GOP misrule overshadowed that issue but in '08-now, that issue finally caught fire with the base. Plus all the rhetoric about makers/takers is ideally suited for a white middle class resentful of lazy NAM welfare bums (although their parents/grandparents take out far more in SS/MC than said NAM bums).

Indeed, one leg of the stool held up: whites flocked to Romney in '12 and to McCain in '08, albeit less enthusiastically. But the problem with appealing to white nationalism is that white people are too nice to think in such crass tribal terms. 60% might be the hard upper limit on how many votes any Sailerian candidate will get.

Prophet said...

"Indeed, one leg of the stool held up: whites flocked to Romney in '12 and to McCain in '08, albeit less enthusiastically. But the problem with appealing to white nationalism is that white people are too nice to think in such crass tribal terms. 60% might be the hard upper limit on how many votes any Sailerian candidate will get."

I would be interested in finding out how much of the white vote is possible for the Republicans to get. I think Reagan was able to get 66% of the white vote in his second term, and this remains the highest white percentage in recent times. One flaw of the Sailer Strategy is that it assumes that all whites (or a very high percentage) can be persuaded to vote for the "white party" by being pandered to.

However, realistically, anyone who is white and conservative already votes for the Republicans, so getting a higher white vote than Romney (60%) means turning left-leaning whites to the Republican party. That is difficult to do since it involves, for instance, turning white single women who live in large cities over to the Republican party. A tough thing to do considering the Republican party is home to so many conservative Christians who do not want the party to budge on abortion.

That is why I think that the problem really boils down to the fact that whites don't vote like minorities do, so I have to agree with the Derb that white identity politics is another 20 - 30 years away.

Anonymous said...

""""
You're watching the implosion of the GOP specifically because they are adopting a key part of the the Sailer Strategy.

Rove promised that he would make immigration the wedge issue in 2006. GOP misrule overshadowed that issue but in '08-now, that issue finally caught fire with the base. Plus all the rhetoric about makers/takers is ideally suited for a white middle class resentful of lazy NAM welfare bums (although their parents/grandparents take out far more in SS/MC than said NAM bums).
""""

Let me guess... you're either that CATO douchebag or that guy from that openborders blog?

1. Bush and Rove didn't try to win 2006 on top of immigration. What f'n world do you live in? The only "wedging" going on was to split the party up 6-9 months before the election.

2. Those people paid for that SS/MC... they should get it back.

Anonymous said...

Reagan was like Vito but his sons have all been Sonnys or Fredos. Romney was like freaking Senator Patrick Geary.

Dems produced the ultra-smooth Clinton and Obama. They got the gangster style.

Anonymous said...

The 'White Turkey Chili' was clearly being taken as a slap to Romney by the washington dc-area radio news reader I listened to tonight driving home from work. She enunciated it slowly and loudly like she was speaking to a deaf person. The knives are out.

Anonymous said...

When whites get together, it's 'racist'. When non-whites get together, it's 'racialized'.

Eric said...

Rove promised that he would make immigration the wedge issue in 2006.

This is patent nonsense. Rove was the chief architect of the Hispandering strategy. When Bush won the 2004 election with only margin-of-error improvements in the Hispanic vote Rove's solution for 2006 was we're not Hispandering hard enough. The most charitable thing I can think here is you have Rove confused with someone else.

desert lady said...

Assistant Village Idiot wrote:
"The Democrats have succeeded in nationalizing the race issue, so that your personal behavior is now completely irrelevant in determining your racism. "

No, the Dems have a platform that has been evolved to fill a certain ecological niche, and they do that.


you wrote:
"By long chains of association, one can be tagged as racist for any of a hundred opinions that have little to do with actual prejudice."


Obviously. But can you peel the onion another layer and ask why? Forget the answer: can you even ask the question?

you wrote:
"This is largely driven by the need to feel morally superior. "

Very good! Everyone has that need, though. It's not that liberals are some evil monstrosity. They have been exposed to, and accepted, internalized a certain set of mores and standards. This is called a culture, and perhaps more properly, a subculture. What is this subculture? Name it. Tease out its characteristics, its salient and most prominent aspects.
How did this subculture come about? Where was it propagated and how?


you wrote:
" desert lady - I have heard for too many years the both parties/ big money argument. "

why 'too many years'?

you wrote:
"It is superficially attractive - I'm sure it makes you feel wonderfully clever to know so much more than the rest of us* "


It does. And perhaps I am. IQ and knowledge are bell curved. SOMEONE has to be on the right end of that curve. Perhaps I am there. Why not?


you wrote:
"... but can only be supported by squinting and ignoring three-quarters of the actual data. "


I eagerly await your exposition of this data!

you wrote:
"Stop believing what you prefer and learn what is actual. Real life is complicated."

Please tell me what is actual.

Here is what I live by: Cui bono: Who benefits.

Here is what I live by: Darwin. Darwin went to the galapagos and saw a flower with a very long throat. He predicted that on the island lived a bird with a very long beakk--the flower must have been pollinated somehow. Somehow.

Later a very long tongued moth was found.

When I look at the american political and economic ecosystem, I take the same view. Immigration, affirmative action, taxation, healthcare, foreign policy, etc.: I am always looking for the long beak.

The dominant ecological forces will ALWAYS make their presence felt in ANY ecosystem. And so I ask: cui bono.

*If you didn't wish to be addressed that way, you shouldn't have started with that first sentence.

David Davenport said...

....Rove confused with someone else.

Maybe the orginal Porky Pig?

Anonymous said...

Meet Juan Bro.

Anonymous said...

Question...

suppose 'Hispandering' did work for the GOP..

Would you be for it?

Is it worth opening the gates to millions of Mexicans, legal and illegal, in order to win elections if indeed elections could be won that way?

Luke Lea said...

"Instead, the GOP should tell prospective voters that no matter what their country of origin or happenstance of birth, their success in the U.S. will depend less on celebrating their assigned category than on supporting political policies that expand economic opportunity."

Which can't be done without reforming trade, immigration, and tax policies in ways the Republican Party opposes.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the GOP isn't just a demographic one, it is a cultural one. The libs control the mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, the music industry, etc... Thus, it is hard for conservatives to counter the message that the GOP is the party of white racists when they don't control or have influence on the message that is sent out by the media/entertainment complex

________________________________

This says it all--we live in the age of American Pravda. The media may be privately run but it's behind the libs.

Anonymous said...

Did non-white voters in the South make the South less receptive to social welfare spending ala New England or Europe? Or does the large presence of non-white, debased workers, for centuries, in the South tell us something about the South?

Southerners voted against education and social welfare at a time when blacks had no power. They voted against these things for other white Southerners, with the notable exception of FDR's New Deal.

Mr. Sailer, your blissful California childhood was, in part, due to the absence of large numbers of 3rd world peasants empowered by 1960's identity politics. Just as importantly, California is not the South. If the Okies had their way, you wouldn't have had that nice library or other amenities. Unless, you were a member of the Southern upper class, who always looked after each other, and continue to do. The South has always been the closest the US has been to Brazil, not just culturally, and that can't be blamed on La Raza.

Paul Gottfried, a particularly perceptive writer, was proven wrong on a similar issue to this in a VDARE article. He argued that MS was more violent than NE because of blacks. What Gottfried did not account for was white Southern violence.

Look, paleocons need to realize, Southerners are not your allies, you'll never be able to bring them in on your plans to recreate some sort of Germanic Midwestern style society with a prosperous middle-class and sense of community spirit leading to worthwhile projects. The current collapse of the US is a result of Southerners and Far Leftists having their way.

And Clyde Wilson and other ineffectual intellectuals are not the center of Southern power, contra SPLC neo-Confederate fear mongering. George W. Bush captured the knuckle-dragging Zeitgeist of Dixie pretty effectively.

Anonymous said...

I like how people can present perceptions of the south ripped from stuff Mencken wrote in 1925 with such supreme confidence that they are both original and know what they are talking about. If America had effectively burned to the ground and occupied a third world country for thirty years these South bashers would never stop making excuses for why that country lagged in achievement, but for some reason it is ok to rag on the South when as Iowahawk has demonstrated Texas students of all races beat Wisconsin kids of their same race at all levels of testing. To my mind Texas while certainly no ideal certainly takes the cake for the best run state in the union. Certainly better than any mid western state. One look at the Big Tens expansion plans tells you what the future of the Mid west is.

ben tillman said...

Southerners voted against education and social welfare at a time when blacks had no power. They voted against these things for other white Southerners, with the notable exception of FDR's New Deal.

What are you talking about?

Fun said...

Look, paleocons need to realize, Southerners are not your allies, you'll never be able to bring them in on your plans to recreate some sort of Germanic Midwestern style society with a prosperous middle-class and sense of community spirit leading to worthwhile projects. The current collapse of the US is a result of Southerners and Far Leftists having their way.

After the U.S.-Mexico border fence is built, we need another one parallel with the Mason-Dixon line. Call it Hadrian's Wall 2.

ben tillman said...

To my mind Texas while certainly no ideal certainly takes the cake for the best run state in the union. Certainly better than any mid western state.

Just imagine what it would have been like if the Feds hadn't intervened to dismantle things like the prison system (which was praised in James Q. Wilson's Bureaucracy).

Timshel said...

The GOP stands for lowering wages through illegal immigration and lowering taxes for billionaires, not advancing the welfare of white people. What's the point of winning if it means betraying everything you stand for? When you understand that they'll take your votes, but they'll never represent you, you may finally have some practical advice for whites in your country. As long as you're clinging to the delusion of Republican reform you're a lost cause.

Norville Rogers said...

your blissful California childhood was, in part, due to the absence of large numbers of 3rd world peasants

Right--he wasn't up in Bakersfield, with the Dutch/Scandinavian Okies

Anonymous said...

However, realistically, anyone who is white and conservative already votes for the Republicans, so getting a higher white vote than Romney (60%) means turning left-leaning whites to the Republican party.

I think it is realistic for a good GOP candidate to get 65% of the white vote. First, a number of whites did not even vote. Second, 1 to 2 percent of whites voted for a third party. Third, there are still whites who vote democrat because they hate the GOP as the party of the rich and the war mongers. I think there are some who hate the GOP's social positions. But I think the GOP would gain more support if they adopted a Pat Buchanan approach to trade and foreign policy then they would by ditching their social stances.

Personal anecdote, I know a guy who votes democrat who is a demographer's nightmare. This guy owns guns, uses racial slurs and yet voted for Obama because he is convinced the GOP is only out for the rich. I am not saying there are too many white males like him, a blue-collar, middle class, gun toting, non-PC, white male who votes democrat. But who knows it might represent a percentage point on two. And the GOP only needs to pick up about 4 to 5 percentage points to make the Sailer strategy work.

Anonymous said...

Anon @950,

How would TX look if all that Federal money went away? And the current prosperity is pure Southern, absolutely no outside role. It's like the Indians taking credit for the British built railways.


And TX's past prosperity, like the prosperity of the Saudis, was based on oil. That is to say, semi-savages happened to be on some profitable real estate, real estate made profitable thanks to the development of more advanced civilizations who needed their black gold. Without oil and the Fed gov, TX would still be a cotton and beef producing backwater, characterized by rural decadence except in some of the more German and Czech districts.

jack strocchi said...

Anonymous 11/29/12 4:02 PM said...

I don't think the Hispanics are racialized. I think the thing with Hispanics is as simple as they are poor and they see the GOP as the party of the rich. In their own country there are parties for the rich and parties for the poor too. These people are low IQ but they aren't retarded.

Hispanics Left-wing DEM voting tendency may be over-determined, on both economic, ethnic and possibly ethical grounds.

Most commentary on Hispanic voting concentrated on the increase in overall share of the voting electorate, from 9% (2008) to 10% (2012). And the increasing preference for DEMs over REPs, going from 65% (2008) to 70% (2012).

But these aggregate figures have to be broken down by income to factor out class-based partisan alignment. Most Hispanics will vote DEM on economic equity grounds because, for whatever reason, they earn below-average wages and want some progressive redistribution.

Steven Malaga of the WSJ observed the strong connection between Hispanic economic class and partisan alignment:

Among Latino voters whose total family income is below $50,000, 82% voted for Obama while 17% voted for Romney.

But even controlling for income, most Hispanics still seem to vote DEM. Possibly on ethnic identity grounds because, for whatever reason, their race is considered lower-status and they want the DEMs to administer a societal status elevation.

The Pew Centre exit poll analysis revealed that even relatively well-off Latino voters still tended to lean strongly to the DEMs:

Among Latino voters with family incomes of $50,000 pa or more, 59% voted for Obama while 39% voted for Romney.

This compares with the generic voter who earned > $50,000 pa, whose vote split 53 REP-47 DEM. So the typical well-off Hispanic voter was at least 15% more DEM leaning than the generic voter. Probably more like 20% more DEM leaning if you discounted the Hispanic voters from the non-Hispanic voting public.

So at least 20% of Hispanic DEM-preferencing is unexplained by income differentials. Thats 20% of 10% of the voting population, about 2% of the total vote. Enough to swing the election. If this fraction is ethnically motivated then the REPs are doomed, even if Hispanics get to own homes and buy stocks and the REPs come to their senses.

Of course its always possible that Hispanics lean DEM on general ethical grounds, given that the REPs having been acting plumb crazy for the past decade or so.

Brandon H. said...

" Fun said...

Look, paleocons need to realize, Southerners are not your allies, you'll never be able to bring them in on your plans to recreate some sort of Germanic Midwestern style society with a prosperous middle-class and sense of community spirit leading to worthwhile projects. The current collapse of the US is a result of Southerners and Far Leftists having their way.

After the U.S.-Mexico border fence is built, we need another one parallel with the Mason-Dixon line. Call it Hadrian's Wall 2"



- Actually, if it were built in modern day America, it would be keeping the denizens of the failed liberal NE and west coast from invading the South. That's the direction the traffic is going.

While you can be forgiven for going along with the spoonfed assumptions of the leftwing media that whites in Southern states are a bunch of mouthbreathing alcoholic dimwit whites having sex with their sisters, the reality is that you're told this because it helps promote the agenda of the left.

The reality is that blacks depress the average performance of test scores in some southern states, and that whites are as talented as elsewhere and if anything have their heads more clear there about race, about conservative economic ideas, etc. But reality runs counter to the narrative, so the hordes of Deliverance nonsense is what the media feeds you.

Hunsdon said...

To quote that famous savage, the Hon. David Crockett, "You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas."

There was nothing "semi" about Crockett.

Cail Corishev said...

"I am not saying there are too many white males like him, a blue-collar, middle class, gun toting, non-PC, white male who votes democrat. But who knows it might represent a percentage point on two."

I just wrote a long post about this on my blog, so I won't repeat it all here, but I think the percentage is higher than that. It certainly is where I live, in the kind of mostly-white, working-class area that Republicans need to dominate to win the battleground states.

The fact that the media and experts are unanimous in telling them to stay away from this strategy is the best proof I can see that it would work.

pat said...

I think we may be moving into a period where race is ever more important. I can't be bothered to be alarmed, because it seems so inevitable.

You Steve Sailer are one of the major figures in modern human biodiversity. Did you think that people would take your insights and then not apply them?

In the interest of brevity I won't lay out the whole likely process. I'll just cut to the endgame.

Right now our jurisprudence applies as much as possible to all Americans irrespetive of their personal chacteristics. We take pride in our adherance to the idea of a Common Law. That looks like it must change.

Martin Luther King wanted us all to be color blind. You have argued in effect to consider race. I think the debate is going your way. Currently the courts regard elderly Asian women the same way they regard young black males. That can't be right.

Young black males who have dropped out of school and are unemployed are very, very dangerous. I can foresee the day when we will engage in preventative detention. Black teens will be assigned to a work camp in the woods not based on their personal actions (e.g. rob a 7-11) but solely on their race, age and employment status.

This kind of confinement before an offense is very un-American, but it is rational. Right now we impose confinement with the burden of proof on the state. We seem to be moving towards a situation where that is reversed. Unemployed black teens may soon be sent to the camps and only be set free if he can demonstrate he is safe enough to be let out.

Trayvon Martin in that world would never have been allowed to roam free. That, it seems to me, is the natural consequence of racial realism.

Last night I watched the big Sci-Fi movie Prometheus. The time of the action was a century or more in the future. Mankind had FTL travel and artificial gravity. Yet the captain of the ship was a black man. How likely is that? There were no Chinese or Japanese to be seen but there was this very black guy in the captain's chair.

Darwin and Galton expected the advanced races to eliminate the more primitive races. Me too. Galton advocated replacing Africans with Chinese. I see now that some African leaders are becoming worried that the Chinese seem to be colonizing their continent.

By the time of the movie's action it seems more likely to me that half the ship's crew would be Asian and none African.

Race, partly because of your own efforts, is coming back as a critical factor in politics, jurisprudence, and all social matters.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

"Look, paleocons need to realize, Southerners are not your allies, you'll never be able to bring them in on your plans to recreate some sort of Germanic Midwestern style society with a prosperous middle-class and sense of community spirit leading to worthwhile projects. The current collapse of the US is a result of Southerners and Far Leftists having their way." - It wasn't the south that voted to destroy all of that, they were the last holdouts. And on every issue the south was eventually overruled.

Severn said...

California is not the South. If the Okies had their way, you wouldn't have had that nice library or other amenities... George W. Bush captured the knuckle-dragging Zeitgeist of Dixie pretty effectively.


Yup, because nothing says "knuckle-dragging anti-intellectual Neanderthal from Dixie" like a New England WASP with degrees from Yale and Harvard!

Anonymous said...

Personal anecdote, I know a guy who votes democrat who is a demographer's nightmare. This guy owns guns, uses racial slurs and yet voted for Obama because he is convinced the GOP is only out for the rich.


That's the power of the media at work.

Hunsdon said...

"Texans"

A Hunsdon Poem


Semi-savage we sit
about our campfires
naked but for a rude twist of cloth
about our loins

When the thunder rolls
we peer forth fearfully
for we have angered the
Gods of the Long Horns
as they charge through the sky

If only, we pray unceasingly,
some Yankees would take up
the white man's burden
and rescue us from our rude state

Benighted people we
dependent on the largesse
of our betters
to save us from ourselves

ATBOTL said...

"Martin Luther King wanted us all to be color blind."

That was just rhetoric. White people are so naive.

Anonymous said...

Hunsdon, that poem was genius.

The Sunbelt migration is a result of Far Left snafus in the post 1960's era and Globalization, including a stop off in Dixie before heading on to Mexico and Asia for cheaper labor.

Dixie offered Northern companies cheap, pliable labor, and non-unionized. If you complain about outsourcing and depression of wages through immigration, don't crow about the Sunbelt migration.

Next, where there is smoke there is fire when it comes to stereotypes, including those of the South. You don't need narratives or Mencken [btw, one of the greatest writers this nation ever produced] to condemn the South. Statistics bear it out. And one doesn't have to be a recipient of Marshall Dees' shacking old Jews down for cash through fear newsletter to have no patience with Dixie or her denizens.

The South's recent prosperity is post WW2 owing to increased Federal Spending, particularly M.I.C. stuff, the aforementioned move of companies South sort of proto-outsourcing/Globalization. I might be wrong, but I suspect on average in the South non-Southern white Sunbelt migrants are wealthier and healthier than their native-born counterparts.

The great tragedy of the US is that the Germanic-Midwestern societies have collapsed due to Globalization and Far Left b.s. The fact that a place like TX is doing well, seemingly, is a cause for concern.
Just like when Perry talked seccession until the hurricanes hit, and then didn't he whine for cash, Southerners have always benefited from the energy and nohow of other Americans.

Anonymous said...

And yes Dubya captured the Zeitgeist as part of his schtick. It's called pandering, cynicism and politics and decadence. Dubya was also a legacy cheerleader so let's not emphasize the Ivy thing too much.

Moreover, just as the Brits feared in India, one doesn't want the kids hanging around too much with the locals and picking up their bad habits. GHW and Martha's boy might have done just that, assuming his faux cowboy personna wasn't fake.

Anonymous said...

Look dude I'm sorry the UAW were stubborn and your wing nut job at the factory got shipped to Dixie, but really update your "facts." Your "smoke" consists like has been pointed out from Mencken (who is completely overrated) and pop cultural. Houston is far superior to any Rust Belt city. Have you seen Detroit recently? This is were istever's get it all wrong. It isn't the racism that makes people go shut up losers its that loser's like desert lady and anonymous come here and spout of about how mad they are that they can't get overpaid to do jobs machines now do. I'm no libertarian in fact I'm pretty tolerant of featherbedding because it is quite clear that machines are basically making too many people superflous, but no one owes you insulation from market forces. They just don't and stomping your feet and whining about Dixie just makes those who say the Civil War was just Northern imperialism seem right. You rested on your laurels (laurels which your Irish ancestors had nothing to do with building), allowed corruption to rot your cities, and didn't breed. Now your time is up boo hoo.

Corn said...

"I am not saying there are too many white males like him, a blue-collar, middle class, gun toting, non-PC, white male who votes democrat."

Illinois native here.

I would actually say in various parts of the Great Lakes and Midwestern states there are quite a few voters like that.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Texas should invade New York and teach you guys a thing or two about storm clean up. That and how to act when the Foot Locker runs out of Air Jordans.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Next, where there is smoke there is fire when it comes to stereotypes, including those of the South."

And I would suppose the same is true of northerners - that you are arrogant, self-righteous d**k-heads, who revel in bossing other people around.

Mr. Anon said...

"pat said...

Martin Luther King wanted us all to be color blind."

I don't think so. He wanted white people to be color blind.

Anonymous said...

This Pew chart shows the history of Hispanic voters in presidential elections:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/11/hispanic-2012-11-07-latino-vote-00-01.png

I'm consistently amused by the citation of GW's performance with Hispanics. It was truly anomalous post-Amnesty vote with extremely different dynamics.

1) You had a lifetime Texas resident who was affluent, but not megarich running against a megarich Masshole

2) This last go you had Rs running a megarich Masshole who happened to be Mormon running against a person of color

3) Reagan was at least from the Sunshine state and it was on the early end of racial politics... and he was running against an unpopular white guy

Romney couldn't have been further away from what the typical Hispanic voter relates to -- especially in the shadow of a minority candidate. This isn't rocket science.

BTW, Hispanic breakdown by income was even more telling. Low income voters no matter their race swung hard to Obama. A look at the most recent Census data on median household income shows that Hispanic median income trails by 30.9%.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/household_income.html

Anonymous said...

"Southerners have always benefited from the energy and nohow of other Americans."

We Southerners have always benefited from the "nohow" of other Americans?

Amen, brother.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 6:51 said: Hunsdon, that poem was genius.

Hunsdon demurred: If it had been genius, you would have understood that I was mocking self righteous Yankees who think they have "done" brought enlightenment to us.

I threw that "done" in there so you'd know I was from Texas.

Also, you are aware of the fairly large scale German and Czech immigration into Texas in the 1840s and 50s, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Hunsdon, and those German and Czech immigrants created far better functioning communities than their Anglo-Celtic Southern neighbors.

And yes, I understood it was tongue in cheek. I still think it funny.

And I'm not a Yankee, so spare me the hurt down home routine. I just happen to be a Southerner who agrees with paleocon ideas and loves Mencken, and who is honest about his own people. They are presented someone like Ron Paul, who offers a chance to save 'em, and they reject it because Paul doesn't do the cowboy talk b.s. which is a mixture of war-mongering and sappy feel good b.s. ("compassionate conservatism") Paul's the only major candidate in recent decades to not spit in Dixie's collective face, but since he doesn't support the M.I.C. the South's got no use for him.

And to anonymous, Yankees were the ones back in the day funding missionary schools and trying to do something about hookworm. The South is prosperous today because of the Fed Government and the Yankees. The Yankees, including the Germans, were always better at creating bourgeois communities of the sort Sailer praises. That their societies have collapsed in the face of Globalization and Far Left b.s. (including having to deal with all the blacks who left the South, i.e. our problem) shouldn't give us reason to crow. Like I said, take away Fed money and oil wealth and see how well TX would have done. Oil wealth, whether in TX, AK or Saudi Arabia is dumb luck.

Southerners are more than willing to sell each other out in the name of cheap labor, or, at the very least, we aren't willing to take on our elites who sell us out for cheap labor. The Southern masses go on, like their forebears, sullenly, lashing out in self-destructive ways. Those mean Yankees made fun of us, so we'll show 'em by electing Dubya or Gingrich. We'll support the folks in Tel Aviv, because they got our back.

The South's problem for generations has been a lack of self-reflection and smugness. Yes, we've produced some great thinkers, but they were few and ineffectual. I feel for working class and lower middle class kids, they will suffer for our greed and hubris. Def. a case of the sins of the fathers visited on the children.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 12:40 AM responded to Hunsdon!

Hunsdon continues:

I hope no down home hurt came across. I could spend the day chronicling a list of Southern flaws and failings, but probably not a whole day chronicling uniquely Southern flaws and failings.

I am a long-time Ron Paul fan. He is the only politician to whom I have donated (and donated regularly). You may say that the South rejected him, which neatly overlooks his long career in Congress representing Angleton and Lake Jackson. (OK, the whole 14th!)

I might quibble about his candidacy being the only one not to kowtow to our mandarins. What about Dennis Kucinich?

The assertion that the South rejected Ron Paul presupposes that his campaign and his ideas were given a fair shake in the media, an assertion that causes me to shake with barely suppressed laughter. "Dang Southerners, rejecting Ron Paul out of hand, after a careful consideration of his message!"

I regard Rick Perry as a blow-dried blowhard, but when I lift my gaze above narrow parochial concerns and survey the scene from sea to shining sea, I mostly see blow-dried blowhards rising to success in every state in the nation.

As for Texas' oil wealth, I honestly think a comparison with Saudi Arabia is inept, and inapt. Perhaps Norway would be a better comparison, or England? Oil may have been the foundation of Texas' spring to greatness (aside from the ports of Houston and Galveston, and cotton, and beef, and timber), but it's not as if you can say, "Absent oil, they huddle around their campfires." Accidents of geography abound. Would England be England without the Channel? Would Russia be Russia, if it had defensible borders?

Continuing! I am also a fan of Mencken, but wouldn't hold the man out as some sort of enlightened philosopher. He was a satirist, a humorist, and a man writing for his living. But if we're going to drop Mencken quotes, how about this one?

"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness."

In closing, sir, I thank you for engaging, and responding. (Whiskey does neither, to pick only one example.) Further, I implore you to adopt a moniker here. If you choose not to publish under your own name, pick a good name from history. Hotspur, for instance. That's a fine old Anglo name. (No prince but a Percy! Ah, good times, good times.)

I might have been a little butthurt, come to think of it, and apologize.