From my new column in VDARE:
Let’s recap what happened:
Governors: As of my writing this, some 36 hours after all the polls had closed, Republicans had won 23 gubernatorial races, Democrats nine, independents one, and four were still up in the air.
State legislatures: Numbers are hazy at present, but Republicans supposedly took 500 legislative seats from Democrats. That will be important in the upcoming redistricting based on 2010 Census numbers, and in furnishing bench strength for future races.
Senators: Republicans won 23, Democrats 12, with Alaska still not called.
House: Republicans have won 239 races, Democrats 186, with ten yet to be decided.
"House Democrats lost more than half of the land mass they once held."
In other words, the historic Republican House advances of 2010 occurred largely in the less densely populated parts of the country. This was as predicted by my theory of Affordable Family Formation. Back in the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin pointed out that the less crowded the country, the lower the land prices and the higher the wages. That means that more people can afford, and at younger ages, to get married and have children. The 21st Century partisan corollary to Franklin’s insight: "The party of family values" thrives most where and when family formation is most affordable. The political implication: urbanizing more and more of the country through mass immigration is bad for Republicans. But Republican politicians have been remarkably slow to grasp that concept.
It’s important to remember: this fairly strong Republican performance in the 2010 mid-term elections wasn’t supposed to be demographically possible anymore. After 2008, the whole country was supposed to have become like California—where, indeed, Republicans were mostly thrashed on Tuesday. (One commenter has suggested Republicans could now label Democrats "the Party of California.")
The question was repeatedly asked after 2008: How could the GOP ever win again when the population becomes less white each year?
Well, the answer is obvious, but only semi-mentionable in polite society: the GOP needs to do two things—get white people to turn out; and get them to vote Republican. This is the “Sailer Strategy”.
That’s how Republicans have long won in the South, where the white share of the population is already lower than California. (Outside of Florida, GOP candidates won all but a handful of Southern Congressional districts that weren’t specifically gerrymandered to be majority minority.)
You’d prefer not to live in a country where whites vote like a minority bloc? Me too! But maybe we should have thought about that before putting whites on the long path to minority status through mass immigration.
In the GOP’s 2002 and 2004 victories, whites turned out in large numbers and voted Republican by sizable margins—basically as a patriotic response to 9/11 and the subsequent Bush wars.
With the war going sour in 2006, however, the Republicans failed to hold their share of whites: Republican House candidates only won the white vote 51-47 and thus lost the House.
In 2008, McCain beat Obama by a mediocre 55-43 among whites. That’s not awful, but McCain also didn’t inspire whites to turn out to vote in large numbers, while Obama excited minorities and the callow. (In 2008, 11 percent of voters said it was their first time ever in a polling booth, compared to only three percent in 2010.)
As David Paul Kuhn, author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Party, pointed out in RealClearPolitics, the MainStream Media rewrote the history of 2008 in line with their worship of Obama. The forgotten truth: after picking Saran Palin as his veep, McCain led Obama in the Gallup Poll for the nine days preceding the epochal bankruptcy of Lehman Bros. on September 15, 2008, after which Obama regained the lead. But the Crash of 2008 didn’t so much convert whites into Obama voters as depress them.
In 2010, in contrast, GOP House candidates crushed Democratic House candidates 60-37 among white voters. And minorities had a hard time getting interested in a non-Presidential contest lacking in personalities and Will.I.Am videos.
The GOP picked up 91 percent of its votes among whites—in contrast to the Democrats’ 65 percent.
The two biggest governor’s races—California and Texas—illustrate how it works. In California, Hispanics and blacks together accounted for 31 percent of the voters—compared to 30 percent in Texas. In California, Democrat Jerry Brown won Latinos 64-30. Democrat Bill White carried them 61-38 in Texas.
(Interesting side note: as Hispanics become more dominant in California’s Democratic Party, blacks have been trending slightly more Republican. Among blacks, Meg Whitman lost only 77-21, while Rick Perry lost 88-11. As I’ve argued, immigration will cause problems for the Democrats too)
Adding blacks and Hispanics together, Rick Perry did slightly worse with the Non-Asian Minority vote in Texas, losing it 73-26, than Meg Whitman did in California, where she lost 68-27.
Why, then, did Perry cruise to a 55-42 victory in Texas, while Whitman failed 41-54 in California?
Answer: because Perry won the Texas white vote 69-28. In contrast, Whitman only edged out Brown 50-46 among California whites.
Moral: If a Republican candidate can’t win a majority of whites, he or she can’t win the election.
Read the whole thing there and comment upon it below.
Posts
200 comments:
Well, the answer is obvious, but only semi-mentionable in polite society: the GOP needs to do two things—get white people to turn out; and get them to vote Republican. This is the "Sailer Strategy".
And it's also called "Thought Crime".
Better enjoy the Taki gig, 'cause Rich Lowry ain't gonna be calling your house anytime soon.
But as a white person - why would I ever vote Republican, the party that is intent on trashing my heritage? The Republicans oppose everything that has made white people great - willingness to innovate, distrust of authority, curiosity, scientific empiricism, embracing change, etc. etc. Republicans are know nothings who would be just as happy living in China as long as they can do business and play golf - for the most part the fruits of Western culture are wasted on them. The GOP leadership would be pleased as punch if the US looked like Brazil or Mexico - a country with a morally depraved white elite ruling a mob of semi educated laborers.
It's not clear exactly how Republicans are supposed to turn out more white voters. Whites are still a heterogenous groups, maybe less so than in the past, but it's still true that something that attracts one white voter will repel another. California whites are more liberal than white Texans, so they're less inclined to vote Republican, which probably explains Whitman's poor showing as much as anything else.
Answer: because Perry won the Texas white vote 69-28. In contrast, Whitman only edged out Brown 50-46 among California whites.
Moral: If a Republican candidate can’t win aN OVERWHELMING majority of whites, he or she can’t win the election.
FTFY.
A couple of points Steve.
One, the WSJ notes White women split 50-50 in 2006, as opposed to 41%-57% D/R. Among White Men that was in 2010 36/62%, D/R, a gender gap of five points. It has come down, but it is not even.
Two, though they don't credit you, the WSJ and other media outlets note that Obama has lost Whites (I read a link off Hotair mentioning that). RCP has the notation of White flight for Dems.
As for Affordable Family Formation, Steve you leave out the issue of the mating market and gender imbalance. As Roissy or any other person in NYC, DC, etc. will tell you, liberal, high cost prestige cities draw lots of ambitious young women (including those in law, accounting, HR, finance, real estate etc) who tend to remain in and around these high cost areas. Not only do these young women have delayed families, but they tend to remain given their surroundings fairly liberal. The SWPL female worship of Obama as dream boyfriend is a real phenomena among this class of women.
Angle, Whitman, Fiorina, O'Donnell, all did poorly because White SWPL women dislike them intensely. Fiorina was effectively linked to Sarah Palin, whom SWPL women hate with that of a thousand fiery suns. Women hate "lower class women" who "don't know their place" and are "uppity" and love, love, love the Princes and aristocracy and long time barons.
Reid won because he was endorsed by Joy Behar and Angle lost because Behar called her a "bitch" and said she would go to hell. For most working/middle Class White women, that's enough. Meanwhile Rand Paul and Marco Rubio won, as did Scott Brown.
Call it the "Adam Baldwin Factor." You can be as conservative as you want, as long as you are young, hunky, alpha dominant, and even better, non-White. Thus status-mongering and such.
White men can be easily convinced, to vote Rep. Heck Dems are the anti-White guy party and they are proud of it. White women on the other hand find most White guys, particularly older ones, non-handsome/Alpha ones, "icky" and less preferable than non-White guys.
The winning strategy for anti-Obama votes is getting White women via a hunk, who exudes vigor and Alpha Dominance. Non-White if possible. I don't like this. But this is how White Women vote.
One more thing. As more and more younger White women are living in places like NYC, or California, or Chicago, seeking "glamor" and excitement (and the most Alpha male possible), it is vital Reps go hunk and non-White.
Victory is in the margins. Female conservatives tick women off. Particularly those who are from lower class backgrounds. [Think: why are SWPL women so obsessed with Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, or Sharon Angle? Instead of Chris Christie or Marco Rubio?]
And yes, for SWPL women, anti-immigration is a HUGE loser. We have to accept, the innate and eternal liberalism and disdain for White guys that most single White women exhibit. Indeed most SWPL women period, regardless of marital status. Most White single women figure, if Illegals hurt you economically, you are a loser and not good mate material anyway. Meanwhile having lots of illegal alien nannies and gardners means no bothersome need to compromise with a "Kitchen Bitch" beta mate, when you can have an exciting dominant Alpha A-hole.
The economic devastation and huge influx of crime in Arizona (Zeta Central in the US) has skewed White women slightly, from where they exist where crime/money issues don't matter as much (i.e. social spending limited, money for illegals means none for things they like such as arts, libraries, etc.)
Tancredo lost big time in Colorado. Because he was a non-Alpha, non-Hunk, older White guy who by existing in the first place, turned off White women voters, and then confirmed "loser" status by being against illegal immigration.
Hilarious:
"minorities had a hard time getting interested in a non-Presidential contest lacking in personalities and Will.I.Am videos."
"California whites are more liberal than white Texans, so they're less inclined to vote Republican, which probably explains Whitman's poor showing as much as anything else."
Yes, but everywhere the gentried white elite trend liberal. We have to look at what will change that mindset.
It's pretty depressing to look at the red/blue maps of the country and realize that not just the two coasts, but only pockets of those coasts outvote the rest of us.
In the case of the West Coast lunacy, you have Seattle, SF Bay Area, LA which account for Murray, Brown, Boxer, etc.
The one issue that would make these lib elites change their song is to attack them where it hurts--their child's prized education. Now, most of these gentried elites were Hilary or Obama supporters and we have both those pols on record as wanting, eventually, a single payer health system. Their elite followers are the idiots who think national single payer to be the cat's meow for all of us so let us argue we pursue the same course for education.
Let's push for legislation doing away with private schools k-12. After all, how different is that from doing away with private health insurance? Let's have a one size fits all school system. Every child must go to a public school. Next, realizing, of course, that schools on one side of town are better than schools on another and that schools in one community are better than those not far away, let's just bus their kids to those other schools, schools which, of course, will have a lot of NAMS; or we can bus the NAMS to their neighborhood schools and hey, we've leveled the field.
We can even use the data they often worry about (that troubling "gap thing") to help level the field. The higher the scores of one school, the more we have to bus in kids with lower scores because we really can't accept schools with scores much higher or lower than those in other parts of a community, a county, a state.
One size fits all health delivery system--one size fits all education delivery system. Now, what pol can we get to push this?
Senators: Republicans won 23, Democrats 12, with Alaska still not called.
When did we add four more states?
"We have to accept, the innate and eternal liberalism and disdain for White guys that most single White women exhibit."
God, Whiskey is obnoxious. What's the point of anything we are fighting for, if we are going to "accept" that.
To get more white people, the GOP needs to drop or strip down it's social conservatism and go more libertarian. I can't agree with fellow whites about what should be taught in public schools, but we can agree to have a voucher that enables us to send our kids to private schools. We just don't agree on enough issues to have such a big state anymore. Strip the thing down. And they need to slash defense spending as well as other spending. The whites we are talking about are obviously coastal/urban and they aren't going for a southern preacher or an Alaska grizzly mom. They will respond to a strong man of reason though.
Qaz
Sorry - are we allowed to talk about how abrasive Whiskey is?
"Whitman, Fiorina, O'Donnell, all did poorly because White SWPL women dislike them intensely. Fiorina was effectively linked to Sarah Palin, whom SWPL women hate with that of a thousand fiery suns. Women hate "lower class women" who "don't know their place"
Whitman and Fiorina lower class?
You have a strange definition of lower class.
Rand Paul and Nikki Haley were also linked to Palin. How did they keep from getting burned from the hatred? Did they have a special shield to protect themselves from the heat?
"Reid won because he was endorsed by Joy Behar and Angle lost because Behar called her a "bitch"
I don't know why Gallup and other outfits bother to conduct polls. They only have ask Behar who she supports.
"Reid won because he was endorsed by Joy Behar and Angle lost because Behar called her a "bitch" and said she would go to hell."
That Joy Behar is quite the power broker, eh?...
"I MADE YOU SHARRON, AND I CAN BREAK YOU!!!!"
Saran Palin
A reference to Reagan and Teflon?
But as a white person - why would I ever vote Republican, the party that is intent on trashing my heritage? The Republicans oppose everything that has made white people great - willingness to innovate, distrust of authority, curiosity, scientific empiricism, embracing change, etc. etc.
Put down the banana peels. Republicans are more trusting of government than Dems? Republicans are more opposed to innovation than Dems? Less curious than Dems? Where do you get this crap?
As for "change," gimme a break with the semantics already. How 'bout I change you into a bloody pulp? No? Fearful wretch, you must embrace change!
Scientific empiricism? Let's face it, dems/leftists DESPISE Darwin. He's only on their lips as long as the bible-thumpers are in the room, then they go wash their mouths out with soap. Darwin makes them shiver. Republicans either don't believe in evolution, or pretend not to. Dems don't believe in Darwin, and pretend to. Wow, big diff.
The GOP leadership would be pleased as punch if the US looked like Brazil or Mexico - a country with a morally depraved white elite ruling a mob of semi educated laborers.
Can't disagree with you there. Dems are the "10 helpings of suck" party, and the Reps are the "9 helpings of suck" party.
Whiskey is a visionary -- he's constructed a unified theory that starts with his own inability to get laid and from that deduces a grand Republican strategy for the 21st century.
I take back the "Whiskey's on the path to normal" thing.
Steve,
I hope you're right about Obama being down for the next couple months; I'm a little nervous about this lame-duck session even if many Dems have been chastened and nervous.
Whiskey,
There is scant evidence for what you say about white women wanting non-whites.
One of the other things you do endlessly is tell us about SWPL women. All SWPL women, all the time.
When you're not trying to tell the men here that their women don't want them, you're letting women like me and others here know you think we're nobodies. Do you realize you do this? That you're insulting us? You do not obsess at all about what white small-town conservative women want or about their proclivities. SWPL women are only a fraction of all white women, but very out-sized in your mind.
Worse, you hijack threads to do this.
You know, the best hope we have for immigration reform is tea party enthusiasm. I'm highly encouraged by the energy and patriotism of the Tea Partiers and will continue to support them. I think there were some setbacks due to the political immaturity (not saying this pejoratively) of some Tea Party candidates (O'Donnell, McMahon, Angle), but overall the Tea Party is a net positive for conservative patriotic Americans.
As whites continue to decline as a percentage of the population and feel squeezed, we'll see more of hemorrage of them to the Republican party. We just need to hope that the Republican party is led by Tancredo, Sessions, Barletta, and Nathan Deal - not Dick Armey, the Chamber of Commerce, and neoconservatives.
There is a tremendous amount of energy directed against Obama and the general establishment right now. Republicans channeled that well in the House and local legislative races, but in the Senate races (where personalities overshadowed races), the anger was a little bit blunted. This is why Republicans found it more difficult there. The lesson here is to pick less flamboyant, though commited conservative, candidates and have been push out a disicplined, anti-Obama, anti-establishment message, ie fewer Angles and more Rand Pauls. With that, we can hopefully take even more of the House and the Senate next time in 2012.
I'm happpy to see Republicans back in charge, Rand Paul in the Senate, and Lou Barletta in the House. There's a lot to look forward to, but we need to be on our A game and stay vigilant. My advice to anyone that has free time and money: support your local Tea Party.
I think it's interesting that Whitman and Fiorina did win the white vote. Not enough of it, but they did win it. California isn't quite the land of loopy liberals that it's portrayed. I don't know if they can get a higher percentage of it, but I do think they could drive even more whites to the polls if they got better candidates. Whitman was horrible, Fiorina marginally less so.
I don't understand why Republicans don't pursue Asians in California. A lot of the current immigrants are raising kids here and the kids are totally gettable, although politically oblivious.
I would like to see how the white vote varies according to regional demographics.
Here in Seattle, an overwhelmingly white city with a sizable Asian minority, Democrat Jim McDermott got 81 percent of the vote in his Congressional district (which may be low for him).
The consequences of mass immigration, "bad" schools, and urban blight are far removed from the minds of Seattle residents. But I bet that whites in Houston, Miami, Phoenix, or even in Chicago see things a little differently.
"It's not clear exactly how Republicans are supposed to turn out more white voters."
Very true.
"According to the bishops’ statistics, the ‘most Catholic’ state in the union is Rhode Island, where Catholics make up 59.5% of the population. Obama received 63% of the vote in Rhode Island.
Second on the list was Massachusetts, where Catholics comprise 42% of the state’s population. Massachusetts residents gave Obama 62% of their votes.
New Jersey, where Catholics make up 41% of the general population, voted 57% in favor of Obama.
New York was fourth on the list, with Catholics comprising 37.1% of the population. New Yorkers voted 62% for Obama.
The fifth ‘most Catholic state’ in the U.S., according to the bishops’ statistics, is Connecticut, with a Catholic population of 36.6%. Obama received 60.2% of the vote in Connecticut.
Sixth on the list was Nevada, where 32.3% of the population is Catholic. Nevadans voted 55% for Obama.
In Illinois, Catholics make up 30.1% of the state’s population. Residents there gave Obama 62% of their votes.
Catholics comprise 29.7% of the population of Delaware, where Obama received 62% of the vote.
In Wisconsin, Catholics are 29.5% of the overall state population. There Obama received 56% of the vote.
Rounding out the ‘10 most Catholic states’ is California, where the bishops’ statistics say 28.6% of the state’s residents are Catholic. Californians gave Obama 61% of their votes."
Whiskey, if your gig is to try and provide an alternative to 'jews run things' as an explanation for American public life, then you CAN do better than 'white girls like black dudes.' Seriously. You're putting shame on the "Scotch Irish" with that nonsense.
Asians in Nevada: I'd expect Steve and all his readers to be familiar with the Rushtonian gaps between Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians, particularly in wealth, intelligence and crime. Just who are Nevada's Asians? Japanese ranchers or Philippine and Cambodian croupiers?
Southern bloc voting: This is much older than the black vote itself. Lowlanders were always solidly opposed to the hated "Yankee", and were joined by the hill folk when the Democrats moved far enough left-- i.e., Wilson and Roosevelt, who set records.
"He's not, you know, black...". Exactly. He's African and he's American, without being African-American. Kind of like Kerry's being Catholic, Protestant and Jewish all at once.
One striking change, on the map-- the half-circle along Lake Superior, traditionally Gus Hall country, is suddenly GOP. Vacation homes? (In November?). But it was nice to see Jim Oberstar, midwife of the TSA, go down.
"Saran Palin"? Is that a wrap?
Seriously, Mrs Palin reminds me more and more of my old gov, Jesse Ventura-- talented, and quite capable of the job, but fundamentally unserious about it. Cue Gov. Christie for the Tim Pawlenty role...
"And it's also called "Thought Crime".
Better enjoy the Taki gig, 'cause Rich Lowry ain't gonna be calling your house anytime soon."
The more dangerous the thought crime, the more likely the blackout. It won't do to publicize strategies that would disempower the current ruling elites:
http://www.whitenationalism.com/rj/rj-32.htm
"But by way of introduction, I must discuss the three basic strategies of the inner party for coping with exposure.
If the facts underlying the exposure are wrong, the media will quickly carry stories from the university professor contingent of the inner party and demonstrate that the facts are false.
If the facts underlying the exposure are true, then the inner party will use its anti-defamation forces to demonize the one doing the exposing. The argumentum ad hominem is the most important visible tool in the inner party's defensive arsenal.
However, the most damaging forms of exposure typically are those that would threaten the cooperation of the elites of the outer party and thus endanger inner party' control over these elites. The inner party has a strategy for handling such exposures. They are ignored. I call it the "blackout" strategy.
Thus, the most interesting and important facts about the inner party are those which are unmentioned and ignored. Truly dangerous critics of the inner party are routinely subjected to the blackout. Gore Vidal slipped down the memory hole a long time ago.
And indeed, the most important intellectual quality that we can develop - the most important for the long run survival of our people - is to detect a "blackout " and pursue its mysteries until the underlying riddle is understood."
The "Sailer Strategy"? Haven't Republicans have been doing that in the South for a very long time? I think it's even already called the "Southern strategy."
The thing to remember about all of this in 2012 is that blacks and Latinos will likely be coming out in LARGER numbers as well.
2012 will be a VERY PIVOTAL election
Whiskey said...
But this is how White Women vote.
~~
This is how SWPL white women vote. And, yes, they still love Obama.
The trouble with this strategy is this: Once elected our representatives leave home in Iowa or Montana to live in D.C.
Once in D.C., they want to be accepted as nice, intelligent and forward looking people.
They want to attend cocktail and dinner parties, be invited to cultural events, etc.
That means that they will be swept into the Diversity is Strength column within weeks of taking up residence in D.C.
Who wants to be a social outcast?
"But Republicans need to start thinking, finally, about how they are finally going to "reward our friends"
How about, instead of focusing on the estate tax repeal and other tax cuts for the top 2%, they increase the deduction for children?
This only benefits people in the top half of the income spectrum since the bottom half already pays very little or nothing in income taxes. It also encourages the upper-middle class to have more children.
Right now someone making $150,000 a year gets about an extra $1200 off their income taxes for having a new dependent. They should double that.
Peter A doesn't seem to have picked up a newspaper or turned on a TV since summer of '09.
Actually, the tea party movement started in 2007. By ME! I was placing calls to the offices of Senate Republicans supporting Kennedy/McCain and getting into a shouting matches with staff members. I remember saying things like,"I have never voted for a Democrat for any office at any time in my life. This amnesty is a bloody betrayal of party loyalists like me who live with the negative consequences of 3rd world immigration in every day life. In the long run it's political suicide for the Republican party. Maybe its time to split the Republican party so middle income conservatives who oppose the insane social policy and big spending agenda of RHINOs can go their own goddam way!"
Well, we did. But it looks like the Republican party plans to tag along with us for a while. I agree with Steve, it's time for the Republican Party to reward its friends, like me, with real support for an immigration moratorium.
Whiskey, based on your theory, the perfect candidate for the Republicans would be Marco Rubio. He's non-white (in theory if not actually), and he probably can use the "Latin Lover" alpha male stereotype to attract SWPL women voters.
But Steve, the fact is this.
In terms of immigration policy and/or racial spoils, the Republican Party has been just as bad if not worse than the Democrats.
A simple point but one that needs repeating.
It was Reagan who enacted the amnesy of 1986 - which really was the rubicon crossing point toward a non-white America.
It was George W. Bush who tried, tried and tried striving might and main to push through another amnesty, but was thwarted by a peasants' revolt.
It was the Nixon administration that first mandated affirmative action, and none of the many Republic administrations since has ever attempted to curtail it.
From the full Vdare article:
"The MainStream Media so flagrantly covered up the real Obama in 2007-2008 that many naïve voters were surprised and displeased to discover in 2009-2010 that he was a black liberal from Chicago"
People here seem to live in some alternate universe where Obama is some left-wing firebrand trying to ram through a socialist agenda, rather than just another centrist business-as-usual politician who unpleasantly surprised his supporters by turning out to be a conservative democrat.
While Whiskey, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about, it would be nice to see more J.C. Watts types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Watts
And who knows? Maybe Whiskey is right and it was female Republican that voted for him in that deeply conservative part of the country.
"How could the GOP win again when the population becomes less white every year"...
Very simple really. How about just ending immigration?
Whiskey overstates his case, but he has observed that Republicans have had bad results with female candidates, who tend to lack gravitas.
The Republicans and Tea Party would be wise to factor in gravitas and other electability factors before endorsing someone.
No just a majority of white votes, Steve, but a vast majority. Whitman won the majority of white votes, but it wasn't nearly enough. She needed to perform more like Perry, in terms of blowing the doors off among whites. In other words, whites need to be voting more like a racial bloc in order for Republicans to win.
Also keep in mind the "gender gap", which is really only a phenomenon among whites. Other races don't have a significant sex-based voting gap. My guess is that this is because white men tend to be the "bad guys of history" according to the popular/dominant liberal narrative, and therefore have the least incentive to vote Democratic of any group, whereas white women have feminism to motivate them to vote against white men, who are also seen as being their oppressors. The impact is marginal in some elections -- in this one it was smaller than in most. But it's still 6-8 points. If that were not the case, and white women voted more like white men do, the GOP would be a much more formidable political force. That fact is why the Democrats never cease banging the feminist drum -- they need to sustain a significant gender gap in white voting in order to win elections. If the wedge between white men and women is ever removed and white women were to vote more like white men, the Democrats would be quite screwed, because in many races the 5-7% white gender gap equals or exceeds the margin of victory.
My suggestions: what about an immigration moratorium?
I don't understand why this cannot be introduced as a way of contending with current unemployment levels. Every month I hear the news people mention how many new jobs have been created, followed by the statement that the number is insufficient to cover out population growth. But from whence comes this population growth? From the wombs of American mothers? No, from our international airports and poorly secured borders. Our population growth is immigration.
Why should it be shocking for a candidate to say, "We need a moratorium on immigration until our unemployment rate falls below 5 percent. We need to put American workers, including recent immigrants, first."
Once implemented, it would be easier to keep it in place regardless of unemployment statistics.
Also, you mention that Angle lost the Hispanic vote 68-30. Jan Brewer lost it 71-28. Both these candidates were strongly anti-illegal immigration and amnesty. However, did they do any worse among Hispanics that Rick Perry, who opposed SB 1070, or Whitman or Fiorina, who were not defined by their border control positions? (It's a little confusing to me as you lump the black and Hispanic percentages together when discussing the latter candidates.)
I have often contended that the term "Hispanic" is a bit cumbersome for HBD purposes. There are people of various races (white, black, Native American, mixed-race "Mestizo," mixed- race "Mulatto") who are called "Hispanic," their common factor being only that they derive from cultures where Spanish is the predominant language.
The behavior of the various "Hispanic" groups during the election shows just how questionable that term is. Groups such as Mexicans, who are primarily Mestizo, voted Democrat and helped to bring that party to victory in California. By contrast, Florida's Cuban-Americans, who are primarily white, have been strongly Republican, as shown by the fact that all Cuban-American congressional representatives from Florida are GOP. The GOP candidate for Senate from Florida, tea party favorite Marco Rubio, is Cuban American.
(Ironically, a true example of so-called "Hispanic" emergence as political power players is in Florida, except you dont hear about it because it contradicts everything such a term is sipposed to imply. In Florida, the group in question is white, heavily business oriened and middle class, heavily Republican, and their most well known candidate is a tea party supporter.)
A technological answer to the family formation question would be to reduce the cost of housebuilding. This may sound difficult with the same amount of land & an increasing population but the US does not have a high population ratio. Even the densely populated north eastern states have large areas of forest which were once farms & villages before the midwest farmlands out competed them.
My opinion is that most of the cost of housing is various sorts of regulation that themselves cost & that prevent the use of mass production off site modular housing being more widely used. Housing has yet to enter the age of the Model T & when it does it will be family affordable. The Republicans could make a priority of cutting the inappropriate regulations & even some bonus for any factory builing 100,000 modular houses to kickstart production lines.
Steve - you mention that there's no difference in education levels between the parties. Have you (or anyone else) looked into the distribution, as opposed to the mean? I keep hearing that people with multiple degrees are more likely to be Democrats, and I've seen a number of plausible reasons for that. But Democrats probably also are over-represented among high-school drop-outs, particularly because most blacks vote Dem, and blacks have a very high rate of dropping out of school.
I really think people need to see this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326885/Man-disguise-boards-international-flight-flat-cap-arrives-Asian-refugee.html
California's top-ticket races had their own special features, too. The Republicans believe that successful businesspeople make good candidates, and they're partially right about that. But Fiorina wasn't a successful businesswoman. She nearly destroyed HP, and was fired by HP's Board. It was also obvious, though mostly unspoken, that she was a token hire as CEO.
The HuffPo is worried about the Sailer strategy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/white-southern-democrats-_n_779345.html
I understand Republicans got 60% of the white vote nationwide. Steve, if it is not much trouble, how often have Republicans topped 60% in a presidential year? ('72 and '84, clearly...) In an off year?
Here's some really simplistic number crunching.
If whites are 3/4 of the electorate, .6 x .75 = .45. Republicans then need to get 20% of the remaining 1/4 non-white voters to reach 50%.
.20 x .25 = .05
Let's assume a minority electorate of 10% blacks and 15% Hispanics (I think Asians vote pretty much like hispanics -- correct me if I'm wrong).
Let's give the Republicans 30% of the Hispanic vote and 10% of the black vote (too high, probably).
.3 x .15 = .045
.1 x .10 = .01
Cutting it pretty close.
OK, what if the electorate is 70% white?
.7 x .6 = .42
Republicans then need to get 27% of the non-white vote to reach 50%.
Assume a non-white electorate that is 12% black and 18 Hispanic. Give Republicans 10% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic vote, as before.
.1 x .12= 1.2%
.3 x .18= 5.4%
That equals 6.6%, and Republican defeat.
Not loving the math.
Meg Whitman lost because she wasn't pretty enough. When she smiled she revealed too much gum line.
Women politicians seem to need to be extra good looking. Consider: Sarah Plain - how far would she have gotten if she were the female equivalent to Haley Barber?
The Germans have the maturity to elect a chubby, plain old woman like Merkel but Americans expect more. So we get lookers like Nicky Haley. We get Nancy Pelosi who looks better at 70 than most women do at 50.
Fox News is like electoral politics. There is one woman - Greta Van Susteren - who made it in spite of her looks but otherwise all the female reporters and anchors are knock outs.
Whitman looks like your long ago discarded first wife - homely and worn. Such women can be appointed - see Sotomajor - but they find it hard to get elected or to win a news desk at Fox.
Jerry Brown like Andre Agassi or Bruce Willis before him discovered the unlikely appeal of a bald head. This is an option that women just don't have. Men can grow a beard or shave their head if they don't like how they look at maturity. Women are forced to continue to pretend they are still 25.
Whitman may indeed be impressive in person but on the tube she just doesn't have the face you want to see in in your living room for the next few years. She doesn't look like Megyn Kelly.
Albertosaurus
Dahlia said:
"Whiskey,
There is scant evidence for what you say about white women wanting non-whites."
Is there an data supporting Whiskey's theories about white women? Here is data contradicting him:
"White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else—and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively. These three types of women only respond well to white men. More significantly, these groups’ reply rates to non-whites is terrible. Asian women write back non-white males at 21.9%, Hispanic women at 22.9%, and white women at 23.0%. It’s here where things get interesting, for white women in particular. If you look at the match-by-race table before this one, the “should-look-like” one, you see that white women have an above-average compatibility with almost every group. Yet they only reply well to guys who look like them."
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/
keep in mind the "gender gap", which is really only a phenomenon among whites. Other races don't have a significant sex-based voting gap.
Actually they do, and a larger one. Black women vote Democrat by several percentage points more than black men. For instance, in Pennsylvania, Sestak got 95% of the black female vote but "only" 88% of the black males.
You can see the full national polling numbers here.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1
The gender spread among whites was 5%. For blacks it was 8%, For Hispanics it was also 8%.
The difference is that the Dems can lose several percentages points worth of the black and Hispanic male vote and still carry those demographics in a landslide, while losing an equal percentage of the white female vote pushes the GOP below 50%.
"Money is the mother's milk of politics" according to a late California politician. Too true. The Republicans have two constituencies: the average Joe white people who would benefit from immigration restriction and the moneybags who fund their campaigns and are adamantly opposed to immigration restriction. Guess which constituency they listen to?
People here seem to live in some alternate universe where Obama is some left-wing firebrand trying to ram through a socialist agenda, rather than just another centrist business-as-usual politician who unpleasantly surprised his supporters by turning out to be a conservative democrat.
What you mean to say is that the rather dim-witted left was shocked to discover that left-wing politics, in actual practice, tends to be pretty much indistinguishable from crony capitalism. Perhaps if the American left ever bothered to observe how left-wing politics manifest themselves in other countries around the world ....
In Europe, where even the "right-wing" parties tend to be to the left of the Democrats, you see the same collusion between the state and wealthy business interests.
The more “independent” women claim to be the less likely it is that they really are! Single women, single-mothers, divorcees, and women who have tenuous relationships are all looking to the state as a potential husband / daddy figure. Affirmative action, single payer health insurance, progressive income tax, government jobs, “anti-discrimination” laws (that is laws that favor women) are all programs that effectively transfer money from men to women. Women who fit this profile have no use for beta males other than as tax slaves.
This is why Sara Palin is such an icon for conservatives and so hated by progressive women. She is a woman who invested 100% into her family. In return she had a successful family witch provides financial security and social support which many of her liberal “sisters” will never enjoy. Basically she has a marriage similar to what the WW2 generation had vs. what the Boomers had /got. Compared to someone like Joy Behar, who is a self centered solipsistic bitch with a personality like sandpaper and will always have trouble sustaining a relationship no matter how fabulous she is or how much money she makes, Palin looks like a pretty good catch.
Normal people will always make weird anti-social people uncomfortable. Functional people don’t need dysfunctional people even if the reverse is true.
The difference is that the Dems can lose several percentages points worth of the black and Hispanic male vote and still carry those demographics in a landslide, while losing an equal percentage of the white female vote pushes the GOP below 50%.
Thanks for that correction and info.
Essentially what that means is that the white vote is still far too split, among men and women alike, but moreso among women.
Meg Whitman lost because she was never consistent on the issues. Meg addressed voters as though they were consumers. She would change her views on issues to please the audience.
Dahlia said..."Whiskey,
There is scant evidence for what you say about white women wanting non-whites.
One of the other things you do endlessly is tell us about SWPL women. All SWPL women, all the time.
When you're not trying to tell the men here that their women don't want them, you're letting women like me and others here know you think we're nobodies. Do you realize you do this? That you're insulting us? You do not obsess at all about what white small-town conservative women want or about their proclivities. SWPL women are only a fraction of all white women, but very out-sized in your mind.
Worse, you hijack threads to do this."
Incredible as it may seem, Whiskey is a tad better about this than he used to be. A year ago, I repeatedly objected to his referring simply to "white women" without using any other qualifying adjectives. Now, at least, he does say "most" or "SWPL".
Also, humans tend to focus on the negative, which explains Whiskey's obsession with female SWPLs. Whiskey probably thinks since small-town conservative women are already on the conservative side, they need no further attention from him.
Now that he's acceded to my modest request to use modifiers when describing women, I don't really have any serious complaints about him. I just read his posts when he's in his right mind and skip over them when he's not. I certainly don't feel insulted by someone else's personal problem, I just consider the source.
I should add that here in my small, conservative town (pop. 17,000), I literally cannot go to WalMart without seeing the white woman/black man pairing and/or the white woman/biracial child pairing. If you went shopping with me one week, I bet you'd give Whiskey's beliefs a bit more credence. Yes, he's obsessed but frankly, I also think the problem's worse than many of you realize.
After all, the result of one such pairing now occupies the White House.
"Answer: because Perry won the Texas white vote 69-28. In contrast, Whitman only edged out Brown 50-46 among California whites."
Problem is this. Many white Californies are liberal, and pro-white message(of Sailer Strategy) is precisely what turns them off even if it's rationally good for them.
Similarly, many not-so-affluent white conservatives are offended by bigger government message though it may be economically beneficial to them. (What's the Matter with Kansas? Similarly, many poor conservative whites oppose abortion rights though
it's good for them by lowering the black birthrate. Rationally, it's better for tax payers to spend $500to allow a black woman on welfare to have an abortion than to have her have the child, whereupon, it will cost taxpayers at least %500 a month for the raising of the child, who also has a good chance of turning into a criminal who'll likely rob and kill white folks. But Christian Right is so into 'every sperm is sacred' that rational calculations are beyond them.)
It's a matter of ideology. White liberals believe in the faith of equality and diversity, and white conservatives(even poor ones)believe in the ideology of smaller government.
Man doesn't live on bread and blood alone. In the secular age, ideology is faith. It's not rational but spiritual. For white liberals to embrace white interests would be like a Christian dropping God to go with Satan. Very difficult to do. It's good for their bodies and wallets but bad, evil, and sinful for their souls... or so they've been taught since cradle. Even GOP is into MLK faith.
So, the most we can go for is colorblindness, which is essentially implicit whiteness.
SWPLs work for the government.
The whole point of continually increasing the size of the government is to increase the number of people who will vote to preserve and increase it.
If you want to reduce the number of SWPLs then trash the size of the government and put them all out of work where they have to fight for jobs with immigrants.
Ex-SWPLs in no time.
The gender gap is partly due to the same thing - so many female government jobs. It's also partly due to cultural marxism spending 60 years trying to replace husbands with the state. A lot of single mothers rely on the state-husband.
Make marriage financially attractive.
"You’d prefer not to live in a country where whites vote like a minority bloc? Me too! But maybe we should have thought about that before putting whites on the long path to minority status through mass immigration."
"Like a minority block" can only mean vote in their own group interests. Why would any sane white not prefer that at anytime? If we did that all along we wouldn't be on the path to destruction. You've internalized that hatreds of your enemies.
Dahlia said...
One of the other things you do endlessly is tell us about SWPL women. All SWPL women, all the time.
When you're not trying to tell the men here that their women don't want them, you're letting women like me and others here know you think we're nobodies. Do you realize you do this? That you're insulting us? You do not obsess at all about what white small-town conservative women want or about their proclivities. SWPL women are only a fraction of all white women, but very out-sized in your mind.
Small town conservative women don't really have any effect on the nation at large, and so don't really need to come into these discussions.
On the other hand, the women Whiskey talks about, those who live here on the coasts and who occupy positions in media, law, advertising and pr, publishing, fashion etc, exert an enormous influence over the rest of the women in the nation, particularly young ones.
I'm in college right now and hope to join their ranks soon in order to spite Whiskey. :-)
'Why should it be shocking for a candidate to say, "We need a moratorium on immigration until our unemployment rate falls below 5 percent. We need to put American workers, including recent immigrants, first."'
This also leads well into the argument for a border fence. "We don't want to refuse entrance to people who are following the rules and trying to enter the country legally, but as long as it's so easy for people to cross the border illegally, our only choice is to cut the numbers where we have control. If we got real control of the border, we could spare some jobs for legal immigrants again."
Make it legal immigrants versus illegal aliens, not rich Americans versus poor Mexicans, which is how too many soft-hearted folks have learned to see it.
Anonymous said..."'Like a minority block[sic]' can only mean vote in their own group interests. Why would any sane white not prefer that at anytime?"
No, "like a minority bloc" means voting as a group in the hopes of getting represention, despite being a minority.
In other words, as I understand it, Steve isn't saying whites shouldn't vote in pursuit of their own interests. He's saying he wished whites were still a clear majority so we didn't have to worry about being outnumbered by other minority blocs.
Here's the relevant passage: "You’d prefer not to live in a country where whites vote like a minority bloc? Me too! But maybe we should have thought about that before putting whites on the long path to minority status through mass immigration." (Emphasis added.)
It's not clear exactly how Republicans are supposed to turn out more white voters. Whites are still a heterogeneous groups, maybe less so than in the past, but it's still true that something that attracts one white voter will repel another.
There's nothing like being surrounded by a large & growing mob of angry non-whites who blame you for every evil that has ever afflicted them since the dawn of time, and want to make you pay for it, to give whites something they can all agree upon.
People here seem to live in some alternate universe where Obama is some left-wing firebrand trying to ram through a socialist agenda, rather than just another centrist business-as-usual politician who unpleasantly surprised his supporters by turning out to be a conservative democrat.
You have this site pegged wrong. The disappointment with Obama on the left and right is similar. Obama is almost indistinguishable from BushII on nearly every big issue of the day:
* helping his Wall Street backers steal trillions of future tax dollars in broad daylight while brazenly setting up the next swindle
* bankrupting the country with deficit spending and unsustainable expansions in welfare and government
* pursing unnecessary, unaffordable and self-defeating wars and military expansions in god forsaken places like Africa and Afganistan
* dissolving America through non-enforcement of immigration and open boarders at the cost of citizens suffering a severe historic economic crises
* he appears to be suspiciously unaccomplished for his station, defining a new level of laziness and corruption for the White House, and disinterested in nearly most aspects of the POTUS job like budgets or foreign policy.
(continued...)
(continued...)
Obama is a self-imagined race man given that his entire youth was spent among elite whites far removed for the ethnic identity he much later adapted as an adult.
Race hustling under the moniker of Social Justice is the issue Obama cares about. The only issues that seem to raise Obama's pulse make sense only through the polarizing prism of race like socialized medicine, education, selective DOJ enforcement and Supreme Court appointments. Obama is as much a bomb throwing radical of the Chicago community activist sort possible without being entirely ineffective.
The measure of how radical Obama's racialist policies can be measured by this week's historic defeat. This in an era where prohibitively expensive campaigning, extensive gerrymandering and overwhelming MSM propagandizing were giving incumbents historically high re-election rates over 90%.
Obama would've never been allowed to rise by our MSM and elites if he wasn't already in the tank with the elites on these big issues. Yes my deluded Democan friend, Obama was as much Bush3 as McCain would've been only with Obama's radical domestic social injustice replacing McCain's radical foreign neocon warmongering.
"One size fits all health delivery system--one size fits all education delivery system. Now, what pol can we get to push this?"
None.
Pols are evil, not stupid.
"When did we add four more states?"
Some senators were never elected, rather appointed. So, they were up for election out of usual order.
"If the wedge between white men and women is ever removed and white women were to vote more like white men, the Democrats would be quite screwed, because in many races the 5-7% white gender gap equals or exceeds the margin of victory."
So, Whiskey is right after all.
Similarly, many not-so-affluent white conservatives are offended by bigger government message though it may be economically beneficial to them.
No, the message of conservatism is that bigger government is NOT economically beneficial in the long term for the not-so-affluent. So those not-so-affluent white conservatives are following what they believe (correctly, IMO) to be the best means to their economic ends.
Whiskey, Whiskey, Whiskey......
I need to tell you one thing. You need to get laid bro. Seriously. I am serious bro. YOU NEED TO GET LAID.
You have all these theories that have no basis in reality, and I can only assume you have them because you cannot get laid.
So quit these forums that you like visiting, and learn how to get a woman. You spend way too much time on the PC getting worked up on what other people say. In the scheme of things it doesn't matter. We are all dead in the long term. It doesnt matter who is in the majority or minority or who is the top dog in the long term.
So Please go outside and smell the fresh air.
Albertosaurus,
I disagree with you about why Whitman lost. I have found among my Dem friends that they began to grow skeptical about her during the primary season, when you literally couldn't turn on your tv or your radio w/out seeing/hearing a Whitman ad. She began with positive ads about herself and her business background and ended the primary season with negative ads against Poinzner when he created the illusion he might be gaining strength. However, the important thing is in how omnipresent those ads were, astounding really.
The Brown campaign was lying in wait while those ads ran over and over and over again, knowing people get sick of those things, knowing that all they had to do was run their simple ads: "Meg Whitman, a billionaire, is trying to buy this election."
In order to win CA, you need the votes of working class Americans and many of my friends in that demographic told me they figured the criticism of her "buying the election" (which implies arrogance) was true since Whitman had a history of being apathetic enough about politics and government to have not even voted most of her life.
I felt Whitman missed a key opportunity here when the press revealed her voting habits; in fact, in her media blitz before the primary, Whitman could have used that fact to her advantage by running an ad in which she looked in the camera and said, "You know, I never really took much of an interest in politics for most of my life because I figured there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between one party and another. In fact, I often didn't bother to vote. Now, however, in looking at the failing system we have here in CA...blah, blah, blah."
This tactic would have blunted the effects of the revelation made by the media and her oppponents, and it would have served to establish a connection between her and the voters, most of whom feel that way--that there really isn't much difference between politicians or parties in the end.
There was also the skepticism among Dems that a businessperson could save us; after all, that's the mantra Arnold sold us, and we all know how that turned out.
Fact is, even though I voted for her, I really don't know if Whitman has the savvy or enough of a knowledge about how Sacto works to be up to the job, or if she has the communication skills (ala a guy like Christie) that would be necessary to speak directly to the voters when the overwhelmingly Democrat legislature of CA bucked her. I think it takes a Chris Christie-like guy or a Maggie Thatcher-like woman, people whose verbal styles are combative/persuasive and who manage to bypass the legislature by speaking directly to the people in what are usually aggressive, combative media appearances.
I think people thought Arnold had that charisma, the missing intangible it would take to go directly to the people, but Arnold is really Mr. Shriver. He made a brief attempt, then decided he didn't like being unpopular with his Hollywood friends and his wife's East Coast liberal buddies. In the end, all Arnold really wanted was a continuation of his stardom, and when he discovered that he'd have to be unpopular for a while and remain steadfast if he wished to succeed, he folded--a real girlie man, it turns out.
I think this article provides as good an analysis as any. It certainly seems to say what my Dem friends were feeling about Whitman, and believe me, they were there for the taking.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinberg-whitman-20101104,0,2090320.story
The only reason whiskey is allowed to troll is because he donates money to Sailer. I cannot state for a fact, but I suspect strongly.
"Meg Whitman lost because she was never consistent on the issues."
No, she lost because there aren't enough white voters in California. Period.
The housing bubble made it very tempting for white seniors to sell their cottages for over a half mil and retire someplace out of state where the hospital nurses are competent, home invasions aren't an everyday occurrence, and local politicians are responsible stewards instead of greedy minority larcenists who vote a new tax measure every 6 months.
"I should add that here in my small, conservative town (pop. 17,000), I literally cannot go to WalMart without seeing the white woman/black man pairing and/or the white woman/biracial child pairing. If you went shopping with me one week, I bet you'd give Whiskey's beliefs a bit more credence. Yes, he's obsessed but frankly, I also think the problem's worse than many of you realize."
I can't go to mine w/out seeing black teens and their mothers (who are themselves quite young) walking around in jammies and fuzzy slippers. Of course, they have a ton of little ones with them.
It would be nice if they dressed up a bit, even for a visit to Walmart.
I agree that many people don't understand how bad things are. My cousin and I, both retired public school teachers, are on opposite coasts, she in suburban New Jersey, I in the East Bay of CA. She taught second grade; I taught high school.
In spite of all of her knowledge about what is wrong with teachers, schools, parents, kids, she was dumbfounded when I told her that children entering kindergarden in my school district often use the "f" word, along with other vulgarities, and that our primary teachers spend much of their time dealing with "language modification."
The point, anon, is to win. Look at Rand Paul, or Marco Rubio.
Both hard core conservatives. Both running in places that have elected Dems. Both big winners.
In a race where its personalized, i.e. Senate and Presidential, one candidate against another, that matters. Congressional races are pretty much party votes. No one really knows the candidates. But Senator, Governor, and President turn on the politics of key voting blocs.
Women are not changing. But we can change who we push for election. Pushing Conservative women flopped like Sarah Palin at a NOW Convention. So that's a failure. Same with older conservative men.
It's the Scott Brown model. Run a hunk, win the women's vote.
"I should add that here in my small, conservative town (pop. 17,000), I literally cannot go to WalMart without seeing the white woman/black man pairing and/or the white woman/biracial child pairing..."
I thought black people were supposed to assimilate to the norm.
Rand Paul is a handsome, young dynamic guy.
As much as we don't like it, that counts for a LOT in how women vote.
Nikki Haley struggled to win in SC. Where Republicans traditionally walk all over Dems. Yes, I typed in a hurry. Whitman and Fiorina are not lower class but lower class women did not like them any more than upper class women did.
Whitman was defined as "mean" to her illegal alien maid (despite paying her $23 an hour). Fiorina was defined by "scary" linking to Sarah Palin.
White, middle/working class women hate Sarah Palin. She's working class who "doesn't know her place" and yes fellow White working class women hate her too. Who do you think watches the View?
Yeah, Joy Behar matters. She's probably about 5-6% of the White women vote. Because Whites are declining ... they cannot AFFORD ANY MARGINAL LOSSES. If America was 80% White as in 1970, Behar does not matter. Since Whites are 65% of the population, yes that 5-6% of the White women's vote DOES MATTER.
Note to republicans: Please don't take advice from Whiskey. He has some serious issues and is not well.
Well, a non insignificant portion of key SWPL tastemakers DO in fact exhibit what Steve noted as "Nice White Ladies" status-mongering using NAMs as props.
I give you Curtis Sittenfeld of Salon (she's a she, despite the name, some romance author):
But when I see Obama on television, I'm unfailingly struck by his intelligence and charisma, by his easygoing humor, by the magnificence of his megawatt smile. He just makes me proud,
I like that he's married to—and seemingly still quite taken with—a strong, opinionated, gorgeous woman, and that he has two ridiculously cute daughters. I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family. I like that in a campaign interview in Glamour magazine, he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears. I thought that the beer summit of 2009 was delightful. I was even excited when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, not realizing until pundits explained otherwise that I was supposed to be aghast at its prematurity. And I wasn't a bit offended by Obama's alleged 2008 debate gaffe—a line the otherwise irreproachable Frank Rich mentioned yet again in a column as recently as September—in remarking to Hillary Clinton, "You're likable enough, Hillary." Oh, and did I mention that I actually voted for Hillary in Missouri's Democratic primary?
At this point, I love Obama so much that I recently thought if it were 1961, I'd probably display a bust of him in my living room. Then I realized I'm already displaying the 2010 equivalent: On my living room wall, I have a framed version of that famous November 2008 New Yorker cover of the O moon over the Lincoln Memorial. Meanwhile, on my desk, I keep a printed-out photo I first saw on the Huffington Post in May 2009, of Obama in the Oval Office, bending over so a little African-American boy could rub his head. The boy, it turns out, was the child of a White House staffer, and the reason Obama was bending was, according to the caption in the White House's Flickr account, "The youngster wanted to see if the President's haircut felt like his own."
And it's not just Sittenfeld. I see over, and over, and over again, in the media, the "Obama is my dream boyfriend." Meanwhile I'll see statements by women in various fora, and in print, that say, Adam Baldwin, though is mega-conservative, is enough to make them switch gears.
Frank Luntz's famous focus group right before the election, on Fox News, had a young woman expressing disdain for McCain for being "old" and "feeble" and Obama as "vigorous" and "exciting."
To me the path to victory is clear: avoid female candidates, avoid older men, pick a young, hunky guy, preferably one non-White, so women can get the thrill of what Sittenfeld noted as:
I don't care if it's good PR—the picture still practically brings tears to my eyes. It reminds me of the sense of excitement and possibility I felt in November 2008, as if in electing Obama, we Americans were acting as our best, smartest, least racist selves, as if there really was change we could believe in.
White women broke for Obama, and Single Women 70-29, because of what Sittenfeld wrote:
"I don't care if it's good PR—the picture still practically brings tears to my eyes. It reminds me of the sense of excitement and possibility I felt in November 2008, as if in electing Obama, we Americans were acting as our best, smartest, least racist selves, as if there really was change we could believe in."
Demonstrating "moral superiority" over "lower class Whites" is a key goal for a fairly important part of SWPL Women. Since economically they are secure.
I want to win. Angle gets 7% more of the SWPL vote in NV, she's Senator not Reid. Since SWPL are telling us they "need" to demonstrate status like Sandra Bullock in the Blind Side, I say give them that, in conservative form.
"Meg Whitman lost because she wasn't pretty enough. When she smiled she revealed too much gum line. "
How did extreme pulchritude work out for Christine O'Donnell? She is definitely one hot property with huge tracts of land but she was beaten by a guy who looks like Elmer Fudd after a holiday in Cambodia. Most Delaware voters are either retarded or gay.
The result out of Nevada that really interests me: Asians going 79-19 for Reid... I don’t know what the story is behind that.
Manny Pacquiao endorsed him.
And yes, I want Marco Rubio or someone like him. I have reservations about this. It is easy for Republicans to be corrupted by the enormous amount of money and power flowing around DC. In addition, Rubio and Col Allen West (Black Rep Congressman, former Iraq Vet) will come under enormous pressure we cannot even guess at to "vote your ethnicity" the way Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Michael Steele have.
But that is the only way I see to close the gap in key Electoral College States such as NV. And we have to admit, the demonization of Republican female candidates and older White guys was mostly effective. There is a reason for that.
Hillary Clinton held seances in the White House, and said she contacted the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. Barack Obama wrote his dead father's voice urged him on to do things. And O'Donnell is the "nutcase?" That to me is significant -- that in White America, class and the burning desire "not to be" part of lower White class America colors the actions of those most concerned with Status.
I love Tancredo. He's on my side. He's demonstrated that over, and over again. But I understand he can't win. I'd rather get some victories than overwhelmed by a demographic tidal wave.
I'm not concerned about who marries/dates who. SWPL middle class women mostly marry/date inside their own status and race.
But clearly, they demonstrate a desire as Steve has pointed out to be "Nice White Ladies." I sat with one in a meeting regarding an educational charity. One perfectly Nice White Lady noted she talked with middle school Latino boys and told them they would grow up to be engineers. It was clear what she got out of it was status as morally superior person.
In other words, a debased Calvinism with the form but not substance of predestined saved and damned, their status shown by their station in life.
So why not give SWPL women in a conservative form? If it gets about 6-7% more of the total female vote in key races, what's to lose?
Meg Whitman spent about $150 million, and still lost to under-funded Jerry Brown. Governor Moonbeam. If that is not a wakeup call to change tactics in key races, I don't know what is. [At the same time, "liberal" CA dumped Prop 19 the Pot legalization.]
Rand Paul is a handsome, young dynamic guy.
As much as we don't like it, that counts for a LOT in how women vote.
Is it possible for you to post even one frickin' comment without boring everyone to death with your hangups about women? I've seen some monomaniacal commenters in my time on the net but you are easily among the five worst.
Whiskey is right. If Repubs had ran young, Scott Brown types in Nevada and wherever it was O'Donnell was campaigning, they'd have walked it.
I disagree with you about why Whitman lost. I have found among my Dem friends that they began to grow skeptical about her during the primary season, when you literally couldn't turn on your tv or your radio w/out seeing/hearing a Whitman ad. She began with positive ads about herself and her business background and ended the primary season with negative ads against Poinzner when he created the illusion he might be gaining strength. However, the important thing is in how omnipresent those ads were, astounding really.
The Brown campaign was lying in wait while those ads ran over and over and over again, knowing people get sick of those things, knowing that all they had to do was run their simple ads: "Meg Whitman, a billionaire, is trying to buy this election."
Because if there's one thing working class Dems hate, it's when a billionaire trys to buy an election.
At least they feel they way as long as its not a Democrat billionaire trying to buy an election - Rockefeller, Corzine, Murray, Feinstein, etc.
Anonymous said..."The only reason whiskey is allowed to troll is because he donates money to Sailer. I cannot state for a fact, but I suspect strongly."
Off-hand, I'd say this is the ugliest comment I've seen posted here.
You owe Steve Sailer and the rest of us an apology but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
I don't know about this Obama fantasy boyfriend thing, Whiskey; my wife was born and bred in the People's Republic of Santa Monica and she thinks Obama is funny-looking. Different strokes.
"The only reason whiskey is allowed to troll is because he donates money to Sailer. I cannot state for a fact, but I suspect strongly."
Damn. Why didn't I ever think of that?
My understanding on education was that Dems had a bi-polar distribution. More no-college-degree and graduate-degree voters, while the Repubs had more college-graduates.
Is it possible for you to post even one frickin' comment without boring everyone to death with your hangups about women?
But the main issue remains.
Which division is more solvable politically, for white interests? The race gap or the sex gap?
At least Whiskey is offering some pragmatic advice, and advice I don't disagree with. Marco Rubio may very well be President one day, for the reasons Whiskey notes (i.e., he will be an, ahem, attractive candidate for women who even "normally" would vote libdem).
This is the 21st Century and we need to pay attention to voting patterns and what is achievable. Non-white "hot" men seem a much better bet, politically, to win white women votes than conservative white women or, least of all, conservative white men (basically the bogey-men of the US currently).
"One size fits all health delivery system--one size fits all education delivery system. Now, what pol can we get to push this?"
**********************************
None.
Pols are evil, not stupid.
***********************************
All we'd need is someone to keep pointing out the hypocrisy of the elite's positions. That someone could be a comedian type, someone on the tube a lot, someone whose routine would regularly juxtapose the elites' position on healthcare versus their position on school choice (these elites even fight the concept of vouchers).
IMO, the GOP regularly misses an opportunity to bash Obama and the libs with their position on school choice in DC versus their position on healthcare.
I'd love to see some activist in Berkeley begin the movement---NO MORE PRIVATE SCHOOLS in Berkeley or Alameda County. HA. Then they could argue for setting up school exchange zones.
steve lays it down. simple math for a nation in certain decline.
obama clearly thinks in these terms, hence his comment about "enemies".
In addition, Rubio and Col Allen West (Black Rep Congressman, former Iraq Vet) will come under enormous pressure we cannot even guess at to "vote your ethnicity" the way Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Michael Steele have.
Seriously ?!
Okay, Whiskey this comment was the proverbial straw for you. You are certified crazy now.
If you think that Colonel Allen West will feel one iota of pressure to "vote his ethnicity" then you are just plain stupid, or have never heard the man talk. It would be easier to get David Duke to endorse Affirmative Action than it would be to get Colonel West to abandon his principles... he's one of the most steadfast conservatives that you'll find anywhere.
IMO, the GOP regularly misses an opportunity to bash Obama and the libs with their position on school choice in DC versus their position on healthcare.
I'd love to see some activist in Berkeley begin the movement---NO MORE PRIVATE SCHOOLS in Berkeley or Alameda County. HA. Then they could argue for setting up school exchange zones.
Exactly. But the situation in Alameda County and DC is telling as to why Repubs don't make more of an issue of it. The elites in both parties send their kids to private school. That's been a long-running problem.
Whiskey said..."Well, a non insignificant portion of key SWPL tastemakers DO in fact exhibit what Steve noted as "Nice White Ladies" status-mongering using NAMs as props.
I give you Curtis Sittenfeld of Salon..."
No, thanks, you can keep her.
You may overstate your case in some particulars but I agree with you that left-leaning females are a big problem for American traditionalists--certainly a bigger problem than most here seem to realize. (They're a big problem in Europe, for that matter, but screw Europe. It's too far to the left for me to give a damn about it anymore.)
I don't know if the commenters here don't read the same things we read or do read them but dismiss the implications of what they read.
I know you get a bit carried away but I do wish more commenters here would at least consider the possibility that, just as you overstate your case, they underestimate the problem.
All else being equal, an attractive, masculine looking male candidate has an advantage over an uglier one. (And an attractive female candidate has an edge over an uglier one)
Other good traits - the ability to think quickly while fending questions from reporters, a good speaking voice, and a modicum of intelligence.
I assume that none of this is startling news to anybody here. So lets stop pretending that Whiskey is delivering some valuable insights.
What could get the whites who vote back?
More environmentally friendly candidates?
More abortion friendly candidates?
More goo-goo candidates? Politicians who (re)build their cities?
In short, a modern Pete Wilson. Remember, back in the blackout/swelter summer of 2000 (or was it 2001) they brought him out in PSA's telling us to conserve energy. I think among most whites he is still well-respected. There is even a statue of him in front of Horton Plaza in San Diego (quite accessible to would be vandals, btw, but it still stands, untagged)
Whiskey,
Divide and rule - gender, class, IQ, region, ethnic subgroup etc. Same old same old.
The gender gap is caused by female government jobs and the state replacing a husband as the second parent.
The latter factor is why there is a gender gap in the other ethnic groups also.
Meg Whitman spent about $150 million, and still lost to under-funded Jerry Brown. Governor Moonbeam.
Yeah, but unfortunately for the Whiskey Grand Unified Theory of Everything, she won the white womens vote.
As anybody who bothers to look at the exit polling data knows, and I encourage you all to look at it, the left/Democratic Party in America exists almost entirely due to the vote of non-whites.
If you believed Whiskey you would erroneously be under the impression that it is white women who are responsible.
But please, don't take my word for it. Look for yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/main.results/#val=S
Here's my theory about why Sharon Angle lost: foreclosures are running at a rate of as many as six thousand a month since the end of housing boom. There could be as many as 100,000 adults in Nevada living rent free in foreclosed properties. Who are they going to vote for: the candidate of fiscal responsibility? Better to vote for the Mr. Goodbar candidate who promises to bail them out.
I agree generally with Anonymous above about women's looks, though I have heard the opposite stated as well. People have posted pics of Debbie Stabenow from Michigan and other homely female politicians side by side with young attractive Eastern and Southern European female politicians and say "Why America"? So America is not all superficial, I guess.
That said though, looks do matter for female politicians. In Meg Whitman's case, it's not that she's not attractive (or inoffensive/plain), which is OK. It's that she's downright ugly. I mean, she is really ugly. She was able to move up in the corporate word due to her large size, dwarfing even the majority of men while wearing heels. Height matters a lot for moving up in the corporate world. But for politics, for television, you need to look good. And she's hideous. She might get elected in North Dakota or something, but this is the nation's most looks obsessed state. California won't give Meg Whitman a pass.
"Rand Paul is a handsome, young dynamic guy."
I'm 100% not gay. But the other guy in the race was much better looking (face, build, height, hair, you name it) than Rand Paul. Rand Paul has an odd perm, weak build, lack of masculinity, and generally looks weird.
"How did extreme pulchritude work out for Christine O'Donnell? She is definitely one hot property with huge tracts of land but she was beaten by a guy who looks like Elmer Fudd after a holiday in Cambodia. Most Delaware voters are either retarded or gay."
I'm as conservative as you can get. If I was in Delaware, I would've voted for the other guy too. Christine O'Donnell is a dimwit, an attention seeker, and just a flat out embarrassment to conservatives.
Also, even if you find her attractive, I fail to see how you pulling the lever for her at the ballot box increases your chances of scoring with her.
Which division is more solvable politically, for white interests? The race gap or the sex gap?
I don't think that question is very important. What matters is the relevant political impact of the two gaps. Right now, they are roughly comparable in impact. The race gap is a lot larger, but there are a lot more white women.
But 10, 20, 40 years down the road, the importance of the race gap dwarfs the gender gap in importance.
There was always a gender gap, even in the 90% white America of the not-so distant past. But what's slowing turning the US into a cross between Latin America and the Soviet Union is the presence of ever increasing numbers of non-white voters. Solve that problem and the white gender gap goes back to being a statistical oddity.
Normal people will always make weird anti-social people uncomfortable. Functional people don't need dysfunctional people even if the reverse is true.
Wow - we keep getting POTY material every few days now - could someone frame this for me so that I could hang it on a wall?
Maybe Dahlia could crochet it or something?
PS: If you've had the good fortune in life to never have been thrown in a boat with the dysfunctional types, then you'll just have to trust me that this really is POTY material.
I think it's safer to say that the Republican party is (or, in the case of your post, "should be") the party of dull white people--those who are not clever enough to become intellectuals, those who (to quote Matt Taibi) pay attention to the emotional tone and not the specific details of their cultural leaders, those not creative enough to become artists of any sort, those who generally reject science. Since this blog is all into HBD, one trait I have noticed among stalwart conservatives is a lack of emotional intelligence. Do you mind looking into this Steve? That's why you find so few conservative artists, musicians, and creative types--lack of emotional perception and sensitivity.
Whiskey,
It's kind of late, but I'm sorry I lost my temper with you.
Dahlia—
@Whiskey--There is scant evidence for what you say about white women wanting non-whites.
One of the other things you do endlessly is tell us about SWPL women. All SWPL women, all the time.
When you're not trying to tell the men here that their women don't want them, you're letting women like me and others here know you think we're nobodies. Do you realize you do this? That you're insulting us? You do not obsess at all about what white small-town conservative women want or about their proclivities. SWPL women are only a fraction of all white women, but very out-sized in your mind.
You’re right of course. Whiskey projects his own lack of success with girls as something nearly all white guys face, not only in the hot bar pickup scene, but generally for girlfriends – and then turns that into whacked political and social theory. He deduces tons of stuff from little evidence, and often stuff just made up by himself because it seems right. He does this on many blogs. I’m thoroughly fed up with him.
He deserves ridicule.
I agree with Half Sigma that the Tea Party should, in the future, nominate candidates with more gravitas. A lot of the Tea Party candidates fared poorly because they weren't seen as credible. This was especially the case with a lot of the women (O'Donell, McMahon, Angle). As the Tea Party matures, I'd bet they pick fewer O'Donells and more Ron Johnsons. Which will be good for us.
You would think with our level of unemployment, we'd do the common sense thing and at least put curbs on immigration. Yet not only do we continue to bring in 1.1 million immigrants per year, but we're thinking of a massive 10-12 million man amnesty! Amazing.....
If Whiskey likes Tancredo, as he claims, I can't hate on the guy. If only we could get a guy like Tancredo into a leadership position in the House/Senate/party establishment, we'd be golden.
Dan Maes sucks.
Whiskey—
But this is how White Women vote.
Wrong, as usual.
On Tuesday, white men voted Republican 63-35—and white women voter Republican too, 58-40.
http://vdare.com/sailer/101104_election.htm
Whiskey said...In other words, a debased Calvinism with the form but not substance of predestined saved and damned, their status shown by their station in life.
A lot of readers probably tuned Whiskey out before they read this point. That's unfortunate because it's one of his better observations.
From its inception, the ranks of Progressive movement were filled with women who were either Calvinists or lapsed Calvinists, e.g. the head of the Atlantic City Temperance Society in the HBO series Boardwalk Empire who attempts to turn the young Irish immigrant named Margaret into a Nice White Lady. Margaret's two male suitors, however, desire her because she's a fertile Irish maiden. The Nice White Lady's response to Margaret's fertility is to hand her a copy of Margaret Sanger's "Family Limitations."
There are some talented people behind that show, so maybe Whiskey's not completely out there with his "Nice White Ladies will be the doom of us all" rants.
As a VDare piece by Peter Brimlow (which Steve links to in his VDare piece excerpted here) suggests, I really do wonder if Reid and his son didn't steal Nevada through a large turnout of illegal alien voters. They of course aren't entitled to vote.
steve: "Moral: If a Republican candidate can’t win a majority of whites, he or she can’t win the election."
But the opposing candidate is not the only obstacle to election. And not even the most formidable obstacle to election. This goes for all candidate.
The major obstacle that candidates must avoid is the obstacle named Capital. If GOP candidates were to nakedly and openly pander to the desires of the largest bloc in america, the white working class, the rich and powerful investors that control the media would attack that candidate. Rich and powerful investors would attack such candidates via political action committees. This is the real Daddy in electoral politics. The Scary Daddy with the belt that keeps candidates in line. Pandering too much to the desires of the true majority, the white working class, would subject such a candidate to unprecedented attacks in the media. The media is funded by advertisers who are the core of Capital.
Pandering to the true majority is called democracy. True leftism.
And Capital aint tolerating that.
Where did you learn yer politics, son?
-cryofan
Whiskey,
For the record, I don't think most American women would think of Rand Paul as anything other than an average-looking guy, neither bad-looking nor handsome. His voice seems a bit high, and his build is rather slight--all in all, he's pretty average on all accounts when it comes to physical attributes. I can see that when he was much younger, he might have been what women call "cute," with that curly hair and sometimes smile.
On the other hand, most American women would think Marco Rubio to be handsome...as long as he keeps his hair. It looks to me as if he might have a problem with that in 5-10 years, but we'll see. He presents a handsome presence, at least on tv, which is, after all, what counts.
In any case, my point is that you should leave it up to women to decide which men are physically appealing and which aren't. Yes, no two women view a man in the same way, but I think I am quite safe in my assessments of how most females view Rand Paul's and Marco Rubio's attraction quotients.
Whiskey, that said, sometimes I actually enjoy your comments even though you understand very little about women. Of course, sometimes I read your first couple of sentences and then just skip the rest of your post.
Rand Paul=average
Marco Rubio=hot
'A country with a morally depraved white elites ruling a mob of semi educated laborers'
There's as straighforward an explanation of Latin America as you'll ever get.
"Reward our friends".
Steve, don't you read your own comments? The anti-immigration crowd are no friends of Republicans.
In terms of immigration policy and/or racial spoils, the Republican Party has been just as bad if not worse than the Democrats.
A simple point but one that needs repeating.
"... has been ..."? Okay, maybe a while ago. But for the 2007 to 2010 period, Republicans have been notably more restrictionist than Democrats.
I could do the math on the previous ten years or so, but what's the point? There are some new folks in town. They're not exactly Karl Rove.
As to racial spoils, you could be more specific. Almost everyone who Riggs Amendment was a Republican. Is that worth anything?
Let's not keep playing the Republicans = Bush game. I'm not a huge fan of the GOP either, but let's be a little fair.
Novaseeker,
Marco Rubio is white.
"Marco Rubio may very well be President one day, for the reasons Whiskey notes..."
Marco Rubio, although I haven't seen his grandma, could pass muster with Reichsfuhrer
Himmler's genealogists. I know well the complexities of Cuban phenotypes, but he looks white to me, boss. Who's your second choice to win white females? Randy Moss?
"Whiskey....I need to tell you one thing. You need to get laid bro. Seriously. I am serious bro. YOU NEED TO GET LAID."
Seconded. Friends, just to plumb the depths here briefly, Whiskey is a "made man" in the pick-up artist (PUA) movement. THE PUA MOVEMENT! He is a contributor to their group blog, the Spearhead.
Why don't you pick somebody the hell up instead of running your obsessive rant at every friggin Web site? You have hijacked the thread, as usual; it started out to be about politics, not about your goddamn Mandingo obsession.
Take it from an old-timer: there have always been white women who preferred blacks. Who the hell cares? Are they more numerous now given media propaganda, MTV videos etc? Maybe, so what? Look, there are important issues at stake here in what's left of the U.S. If the only way to win elections is to get the likes of Kim Kardashian's vote then screw it. The other side has real black men by the metric ton, they don't need a minstrel show. If that's what white women want, we'll have to muddle through without them.
Whiskey, the idea that white women hate white men is the dumbest thing you've said in this forum. I'm dating in the DC area. The most sought-after white women are interested in white men almost exclusively. While you will occasionally see a very sought-after white man with a stunning Asian or Latina these men also generally prefer white women. Of course if you are overweight and uneducated, like most of the white women I see at Walmart with half-black kids, you'll have to take what you can get but when they can pick and choose most white people prefer other whites as long term partners and spouses.
Steve -
off topic. Has Apple ever contacted you about buying the isteve domain name
I enjoy Whiskey's comments, I think they're as perceptive as anything out there. Yes he has an angle - good for him.
I've been watching Weeds seasons 4 and 5. "Esteban", who the fully SWPL main character Nancy falls in love with, is everything Whiskey just described for the ideal politician. Handsome. Non white - although largely of European descent. Fluent with a slight accent. European manners. Wealthy upbringing. Violent behind the scenes. It's like Whiskey wrote the character.
Get a guy like with a hispanic surname running for office and you give SWPL women implicit permission to vote for him. They can feel "guilt free" about their non-white choice while they secretly long for a lover with those qualities. Once you have those things, as long as the guy's not evangelical or rabidly anti-abortion (the other SWPL turn offs) he's a shoe-in.
Adam Baldwin would make an attractive candidate, tho he seems to be an ex-liberal, and a big part of that group is neocon.
Gender gap: Divide and rule.
Pick a divisive meme and keep repeating it endlessly knowing some of it will stick with some people.
If {
Republican problem = gender gap + race gap}
then {
solution = increase the race gap}
Look how dumb they think we are.
"Here's my theory about why Sharon Angle lost:"
65% of the votes were cast early when Reid was ahead.
"The anti-immigration crowd are no friends of Republicans."
Duh. And why would that be? The corporate wing of the Republicans are as much the enemy of white people as the marxist left. If the Tea Party can push out the corporate wing then the anti-immigration crowd will come round.
Kylie - what part of the country are you in? A real "conservative" area of the country would shame and disown every white woman who appeared in public with a ghetto thug.
As far as Whiskey's theories, I believe he is mostly wrong but as usual has a grain of truth. I have no doubt Rubio's looks help him and will help him someday be on a national ticket. But this year I believe the difference in who won and who lost was the liberalism of the state and the quality of the candidates. California and New York are completely hopeless for Republicans statewide. Delaware isn't much better - and O'Donnell has many issues that cast doubt on her ability to be Senator. It's pretty amazing she even got 40%.
Every Republican who won for Senate was white. So obviously white men can still win some fucking elections. Yes, I count Rubio as white - he's a white "Hispanic". And it's not just "hunky" white men who won. Pat Toomey in PA is a technocrat dork type. Mark Kirk was older and less hunky than his opponent, in liberal Illinois! he won. And Whiskey is probably the only person who has described Rand Paul as a young hunk. Sure, he's not a terrible looking man, but he has a kind of high voice and his Dem opponent was the young hunk in the race. Also consider Kelly Ayotte, a young conservative woman who won NH by 23%. Difference between her and Angle? Angle was a completely unimpressive candidate.
How much do looks matter for Republican male candidates? Probably somewhat, but someone should take the Scott Brown and Marco Rubio races and see if there was a smaller gender gap than in these other races to find out.
B lode,
What about the Reagan amnesty?, can you weasel your way out of that one?
Josh said...
Quinn was being roundly rejected as a typical Dem,until he started talking about abortion."If I am raped," thought the white women of Illiois,"Bill Brady will force me to keep and raise the baby!! If I go the Mel Gibson route,at least I will have a nice mixed race baby to gain the esteem of my friends,and i'll be like Sandra Bullock...but what if I am raped by a white man--as TV says most rapists ARE white;of course most white rapists are the preppie sons of super rich goy business guys,but what ifI am raped by a low IQ creepy white guy? Oh hell no,Bill Brady you are not going to make me raise the rapists baby,who will grow up to look lke Randy Quaid or something!! I am voting for Pat Quinn!" And so he won. A tribute to the stupidity of women. Also the greed,as Dems always propose koo-koo laws with names like The Equal Pay Act. "What? He is against the Equal Pay Act? He shant get MY vote!
Hilarious.
Wandrin said...
Gender gap: Divide and rule.
Pick a divisive meme and keep repeating it endlessly knowing some of it will stick with some people.Look how dumb they think we are.
Who is this 'they' you keep referring to?
The corporate wing of the Republicans are as much the enemy of white people as the marxist left. If the Tea Party can push out the corporate wing
Good luck with that.
"Who is this 'they' you keep referring to?"
The marxist left who dominate the Democrats and the corporate right who dominate the Republicans obviously.
With the neocons as their war and blood crazed bastard child.
"Good luck with that."
Sure. I didn't say it was very likely just that was what would be needed to make the anti-immigration crowd pro-Republican.
According to Whiskey:
White women vote 45% Democrat, therefore they're the enemy.
Jews vote 80% Democrat, they're the truest Americans of all who collectively have no negative impact on society.
What surprises me about Steve is how blind he seems to be to the North-south split in this country. When you come down to it we white Northeners feel no racial solidarity with Southerners whatsoever. Personally I feel no connection with Southerners at all - I have far more in common culturally with educated Germans or Brits, or even Chinese, than with your typical Southerner. And to a large extent "leftist" racial policy can be seen as a policy of using immigrants and blacks to try to weaken Southern whites.
"I agree with Half Sigma that the Tea Party should, in the future, nominate candidates with more gravitas. A lot of the Tea Party candidates fared poorly because they weren't seen as credible."
True, but how much of that is the media filter? Were they really that incredible, or were they painted with the usual Republican stereotypes of stupid or evil? How would they have fared had they been Democrats?
After all, look at the other side. How credible are people like Joe Biden, Phil Hare, Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama? The Dems have plenty of idiots putting their feet in their mouths, but they don't get defined by those things. Make them Republicans, and Pelosi's "we need to pass the bill to see what's in it" would have been repeated more than Dan Quayle's "potatoe" (another good example, by the way). Obama would have been portrayed as the inexperienced, race-obsessed middle-manager he was, instead of a genius, post-racial healer.
Yes, it would be great if all conservative candidates were brilliant and smooth and couldn't be made to look like fools. But as long as they're human, they're going to misspeak or have an odd opinion or two, and the press is going to turn that molehill into a mountain. That's just how it is. They have to be able to win despite that.
"That's why you find so few conservative artists, musicians, and creative types--lack of emotional perception and sensitivity."
I'd say there are indeed more liberal artists and creative types, overall, but among the very best ones, the split is probably more even then you think, with the left half correlating fairly strongly with the answer to the question,"Who's a Jew?"
My experience among goyim classical musicians and composers: conservatives have a slight edge, many of them hailing from the heartland, not the coasts.
What about the Reagan amnesty?, can you weasel your way out of that one?
Someone wrote:
"In terms of immigration policy and/or racial spoils, the Republican Party has been just as bad if not worse than the Democrats.
A simple point but one that needs repeating."
I replied:
"... has been ..."? Okay, maybe a while ago. But for the 2007 to 2010 period, Republicans have been notably more restrictionist than Democrats.
So naw, I'm thoroughly pre-weaseled on this one. You think Congress is in favor of Star Wars and Contra aid? The Tea Party aren't Reaganauts any more than they are neocons.
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Obama has done an excellent job thus far.
Democrats got beaten because of racism and because good liberals sacrificed themselves to do the right thing.
Steve I'd be much more inclined to vote for the white party if they weren't so easily led around by Israel. I'm sure all the yellows and browns and blacks have their special foreign pets too, but they are less damaging to America than sucking up to Israel is.
"What about the Reagan amnesty?, can you weasel your way out of that one?"
Reagan got bad advice and had a child like faith in humanity. I believe he never really had a good sense of the Mexican underclass, despite being a California governor. He saw them laboring at cleaning toilets and digging ditches and simply noted their superior work ethic with respect to blacks. He probably thought inside every Mexican is an honest Irish laborer trying to get out and take night school classes.
>There's nothing like being surrounded by a large & growing mob of angry non-whites who blame you for every evil that has ever afflicted them since the dawn of time, and want to make you pay for it, to give whites something they can all agree upon.<
Hear, hear!
This is how the issue should be framed. Pat Buchanan, despite his flaws, is doing this in his books.
Rights don't guarantee themselves. You need a majority of people and guns to guarantee your right to exist. Always.
Always vote for your survival.
It's more important than any other issue...if you want to live, that is.
Jack said..."Kylie - what part of the country are you in?" A real 'conservative' area of the country would shame and disown every white woman who appeared in public with a ghetto thug."
I'm in flyover country. I agree with you in theory and in principle but the fact is the liberal rot has gone so deep that true conservatism is pretty rare. I occasionally travel through sparsely populated rural areas and while the tiny villages all have their American Legion Halls, they have their "family service" offices, too. In effect, as you know, the government subsidizes this behavior by supporting these women and their children. That's the real problem. They're beyond the reach of social censure, thanks to the policies of our elites.
P.S., And both groups advance and support a zeitgeist in which their ethnocentrisms (and ethnostates!) are fine, even praiseworthy, while our ethnocentrism is unadulterated evil.
P.P.S., How is categorically ruling out Jewish conspiracies against Europeans okay, when it obviously isn't okay to do the reverse? Read up on "theories of anti-Semitism," they give "Jewish conspiracy theory" a whole new meaning.
Housing has yet to enter the age of the Model T
I found this odd for years, before I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
On April 15th last year the Tea Party was born. I promptly went out and bought a gun. This summer Glen Beck held his big rally. I went out and bought a box of hollow points.
Mass movements of people - even people I largely support - make me nervous. I was afraid that the next generation would start calling that Grant versus Lee affair in the nineteenth century - The First Civil War.
But it seems that our democratic institutions are sound. We should all be happy. We stepped back from the brink.
We aren't out of the woods yet. There remains a very real danger that a Muslim terrorist will assassinate Obama. Just as his most vicious opposition comes not from the right but from the left, his most likely assailants don't come from rural survivalists but from Islamic terror cells.
Kennedy was shot by a Communist, yet somehow the press and media blamed the CIA. Similarly Malcolm X was killed by Black Muslims but many still believe that the white man was behind it. This sort of thing makes it likely that any attack on Obama will be blamed inevitably on George Bush.
I support Obama taking all those ships and troops with him to India. The worst thing Obama can do now is to get his fool ass killed.
We need to preserve the orderly democratic succession of power. We made a good start last Tuesday and that was a hopeful sign.
Albertosaurus
It would be nice if they dressed up a bit, even for a visit to Walmart.
It would be nice if black kids dressed up for Halloween. What's with black parents following their non-costumed kids around knocking on doors for Halloween candy? Did they miss the memo? I can understand unaccompanied black kids freeloading, but sheesh, this is something altogether different.
Can't even grab a freakin' mask first?
What's with black parents following their non-costumed kids around
Sorry, that should be, what's with black parents in their cars following their non-costumed kids around.
Do you mind looking into this Steve? That's why you find so few conservative artists, musicians, and creative types--lack of emotional perception and sensitivity.
I'm an artist, well used to be. I went to art school, anyway. Didn't like the whole "ridden like a rented mule" part of the gig, though. But I'm not conservative, more like radical reactionary ethnopatriot, so maybe you have a point.
Yeah, one data point, but if we're throwing out our anecdotal experiences at Wal-Mart, why not?
I note that people point to the money gap between Republican funders and Republican voters with a fatalistic attitude.
Short-term that may make sense, but long-term?
I dunno. A million people willing to put 1k a year into politics would buy the whole political system. At the very least, that would up the ante considerably.
It's all about how pissed people get. People talk about the Tea Party as the apogee of white middle American rage. I think they're delusional; the TP is nascent white middle American rage.
B lode,
What about the Reagan amnesty?, can you weasel your way out of that one?
Did I miss something? Or are you just an idiot? He made a point of referring to recent history.
I am disappointed to see so many resort to the "can't get laid" accusation regarding Whiskey.
He, perhaps, exaggerates elements of culture that do exist and may focus on them to the exclusion of all else, but the "can't get laid" rebuttal is just as stale.
I see the difference between men and women as how they dealt with holding unpopular views. Men may hold their tongue to fit in (e.g., no HBD lectures at work), where women will actually change their views to fit in. Men realize that expressing oppositional views is not always to his advantage. He will not change his views, merely leave them (publicly) unexpressed.
For a woman actually holding contrary views will be uncomfortable. She so badly needs the approval of the group that to even think (feel?) differently causes discomfort. A man will withhold his views as a tactical way to fit in (to avoid unneeded conflict within the group); a women has an emotional need to be "at one" with the group. Merely holding her tongue would not be enough, because, in her eyes, disagreement does not mean you made a bad decision; it means you are a bad person.
Whiskey said..."In other words, a debased Calvinism with the form but not substance of predestined saved and damned, their status shown by their station in life."
A lot of readers probably tuned Whiskey out before they read this point. That's unfortunate because it's one of his better observations.
It's now a trite and banal observation, one which people on the right have been making about people on the left for generations.
But hey, if people want to be Whiskey groupies, that's fine with me. It's a free country. I just wish his groupies would hang out at his blog rather than here.
I'm as conservative as you can get. If I was in Delaware, I would've voted for the other guy too. Christine O'Donnell is a dimwit, an attention seeker, and just a flat out embarrassment to conservatives.
So you are "as conservative as you can get" but you'd vote for somebody who is a pretty open Marxist over a "dimwit"?
The quality of the Anonymous commenters here, never very high, has been trending even further downwards of late.
josh said...
Re white women: I had been innocently watching TV a few weeks ago,when up comes a political ad: It is for Pat Quinn,in his race against Bill Brady for governor. What was odd about the near hysterical ad was the content:A warning that Brady was gonna...stop abortion! I thought,have I been thru a time warp and landed in the 80's?Nope. Illinois is grossly mismanagaed and deeply in debt. Quinn was being roundly rejected as a typical Dem,until he started talking about abortion."If I am raped," thought the white women of Illiois,"Bill Brady will force me to keep and raise the baby!!"
Your active fantasy life notwithstanding, Bill Brady won the white womens vote in Illinois by 59% to 35%. That is, by twenty-four percentage points.
But a characteristic of both Whiskey and his followers is that they never allow mere reality to interfere with their cherished beliefs.
Winners:
1) Conservatives.
2) The Sailer Strategy - Republicans targetting white voters concerned with affordable family formation.
3) Immigration enforcement.
4) Big corporations - unfortunately.
Losers:
1) The GOP establishment - conservatives would rather lose with Buck or O'Donnell than win with establishment preferred RINOs. Establishment hissy fits by Castle, Bennett, Crist, et al did not help their reps any.
2) The "Hispanics are natural Republicans" rubbish. Name one election cycle in the last 40 years that Republicans have won majority of the Hispanic vote?
3) Sarah Palin - despite #1, losing with those candidates hurt her chances at the White House. Voters will analogize her to O'Donnell.
4) Barack Obama.
5) The myth of liberal civility, if it still existed. I get tired of people - friends, even - claiming that the GOP won because of "fear, anger, racism and greed." F--- 'em.
How much do looks matter for Republican male candidates? Probably somewhat, but someone should take the Scott Brown and Marco Rubio races and see if there was a smaller gender gap than in these other races to find out.
There's nothing stopping you looking, is there?
But all right, I looked. And I can tell you the following.
Bill Brady won the white womens vote by 59% to 35%, but lost.
Rand Paul won the white womens vote by a lot less, just 54% to 46%, but won his race.
Why the different results in spite of the greater support for Brady among white women? Kentucky voters are 90% white, but Illinois voters are only 70% white.
If you all bothered to look at the actual data instead of swallowing the snake-oil Whiskey is peddling, it would quickly become clear to you that the white gender gap is not remotely as big a problem for the right as is the combination of the race gap and massive non-white immigration.
""The anti-immigration crowd are no friends of Republicans."
Duh. And why would that be?"
Because a good number of this crowd are socialists who simply don't like immigration. The talk about the "corporate wing" gives the game away.
socialists who simply don't like immigration.
Socialists adore immigration. You seem to be another one of these people who prefers not to let what happens in real life impinge on his cosy imaginary view of the world.
Rand Paul is on our side, when it comes to spending and immigration. Rand Paul and Lou Barletta are the two best politicians that have emerged from the Republican sweep. However, Tancredo's and Angle's losses deeply upset me. Oh well, 2/4 aint too bad.
Michelle Bachman is hot. Let's see how she does.
No I will NOT let this one pass.
The Reagan amnesty (together with the 1965 Teddy Kennedy Immigration Act), were the 'Rubicon moments', the pivotal points, if you will that ensured that America went along the path of non-white dominance.If the Reagan amnesty never happened, it is likely that non-white majority America would never have happened.
I cannot stand selective amnesia or people who try to re-write history.Reagan was a disaster for the cause of white America - I'm only speaking objectively here, ignore any warm fuzzy feelings you might have for the old ham.
I repaet, his actions sealed the fate of white America, ignore me, insult me if you will, but what I wrote cannot be contested by the unbiased and unprejudiced, why do you let him off the hook? - Just because he was a 'loveable' old avuncular Republican? - That's just not good enough, he was a guilty man.
Anyhow 1986 IS in historiacl terms very recent.It's the day before yesterday.
Reagan was a disaster for the cause of white America - I'm only speaking objectively here, ignore any warm fuzzy feelings you might have for the old ham.
I repaet, his actions sealed the fate of white America, ignore me, insult me if you will, but what I wrote cannot be contested by the unbiased and unprejudiced
The 1986 amnesty covered only three million people. There are currently roughly four times that number of illegals in the US. So what you write is factually garbage.
No I will NOT let this one pass.
No one is asking you to let it pass, but most of the restrictionists around here expressing cautious optimism in the Tea-flavored Republicans of 2007-2010 and beyond are going to have trouble figuring out why you're so sure we love Reagan.
I don't; I never loved him. I don't consider him the devil incarnate or Stalin Mark II, but I never condoned his foreign military interventions, his profligacy, his pro-immigration policies, his pro-Iran policies, or any of that. He obviously wasn't a rightist but he was the closest thing to one in the White House since Coolidge, so a lot of people have a soft for him ... and you apparently think that is a big deal.
When you come down to it we white Northeners feel no racial solidarity with Southerners whatsoever... I have far more in common culturally with educated Germans or Brits.
What's with this "we stuff", pale face? Do the Winklevi of the world really not get it?
"The 1986 amnesty covered only three million people. There are currently roughly four times that number of illegals in the US. So what you write is factually garbage."
No. Here's why: For illegal immigration to occur in vast numbers, there has to be, first, a foundation of LEGAL coethnics already in the country to provide aid and comfort to the illegals early on, in order to start the chain migration.
As the process begins, because illegals cannot gain lawful employment since they have no SS #, they are dependent on their sympathetic legal-resident cousins to provide them housing, to hide them from INS, and assist them in securing under-the-table work.
As the masses of illegals grow and the indigenous citizens find themselves overwhelmed, the scofflaws find the going ever easier.
The illegals, now comfy, then provide succor to the NEXT wave, and so on.
But without that first set of LEGAL-immigrant sympathetic coethnics, the illegal immigration chain can't get started.
The 1965 change in immigration laws allowed the FIRST wave of LEGAL immigration from Mexico, which then enabled the first wave of illegals, which Reagan amnestied.
Those amnestied then enabled the next wave. And now we've got 20-30 million of them.
If Reagan had said nuh-uh, our current immense illegal alien problem would be much smaller.
"Socialists adore immigration."
Not all of them. Just those who are Democrats.
"You seem to be another one of these people who prefers not to let what happens in real life impinge on his cosy imaginary view of the world."
At least I recognize socialist rhetorics when I see it.
The elite white press went soft in the head over Obama because of the one thing that you aren’t supposed to think about intelligently: race. They liked him because He’s black! (But, he’s not, you know, black …)
Kinda like, "Rubio is white!" (But he's not, you know, White...)," in some ways wrt to Sailer Strategy. (In the long run, though, it has to graduate "Silver Strategy" -- total freedom of association, allowing various races to go their own way (and sort themselves out in the process) based on the premise that any non-black group would seize on the opportunity to legally put space between itself and blacks and the desire of blacks to put space between themselves and their biggest rivals, hispanics.)
Reagan was fundamentally a New Deal Democrat who allowed conservatives to deceive themselves about his true political orientation (not a bad performance for a B movie actor).
"Because a good number of this crowd are socialists who simply don't like immigration. The talk about the "corporate wing" gives the game away."
WTF? Instead of simply judging opponents of illegal immigration by their talk of the "corporate wing," why not look to see where they stand on other issues to determine whether they are or aren't socialists.
I am no socialist, and believe that business-friendly policies are, in general, a good thing. However, that doesn't mean that business interests don't sometimes simply push policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the American people. So, yes, I will sometimes speak of the "corporate wing" in perjorative terms.
Ronald Reagan meant the resurrection of the "American exceptionalism" garbage - the belief that America has some unique destiny to shape and control the world. Part of that encourages the belief that life sucks for you unless you can live in the US; that the mere act of moving from foreign soil to American soil somehow changes the person you are inside.
This inane, naive attitude is the beginning of the pro-immigration mindset.
6.7 billion people on this planet manage to live, work and raise their families somewhere other than the US. Believe it or not, most of them do so quite happily. I love my country not because it's exceptional, but because it's mine.
"Because a good number of this crowd are socialists who simply don't like immigration. The talk about the "corporate wing" gives the game away."
The essence of the political problem regarding immigration is that both main parties have factions which support unlimited mass immigration.
The overwhelmingly dominant multicult wing of the Democrats support it.
The corporate, globalist wing of the Republicans support it.
Now hopefully the more Tea Party wing of the Republicans will be able to push the corporate wing back long enough to do some good on immigration control.
Time will tell.
In very simplistic terms...
International socialism is a threat to the survival of all the western nations through their belief in unlimited mass immigration.
International capitalism is a threat to the survival of all the western nations through their belief in unlimited mass immigration.
National socialism has a PR problem.
That leaves National Capitalism a la someone like Buchanan.
"He obviously wasn't a rightist but he was the closest thing to one in the White House since Coolidge, so a lot of people have a soft for him "
Anyone who wants to control immigration should prefer Ike over Reagan. When people idolize Reagan instead of Ike that means they don't make immigration restriction a priority.
though, it has to graduate "Silver Strategy" -- total freedom of association, allowing various races to go their own way (and sort themselves out in the process)
I'm pretty sure that's the "Jared Taylor Strategy".
Has to be said:
You seem to be using the word "socialist" to mean something like "anti-large-corporation." (As opposed to the folks who call Obama a socialist, who seem to have even less of a coherent meaning.)
Paleoconservatives are generally pretty skeptical about the claimed benefits of free trade and large-scale immigration. This is definitely a deviation from a pure neoclassical economic worldview, but it has nothing at all to do with socialism.
Similarly, anyone with eyes can see that in the last few years, a lot of politically connected large companies have gotten remarkably favorable treatment from the federal government, especially in the financial industry. As best I can tell, the folks at the top of US society have no desire to strictly enforce immigration law, because it would raise the cost of labor inside the US. The people who benefit from those low labor costs are, unsurprisingly, companies that employ a lot of relatively low-wage, low-skill labor--the kind of stuff you can pay a Guatemalan campesino half an American's wage to do, and still get a good job done. Those companies have friends in Washington and their state capitols, and they use them.
Similarly, the huge bailout of financial companies (a multi-stage, multi-faceted thing) amounted to providing a US taxpayer guarantee to a whole bunch of enormous financial companies, as well as giving them money that we couldn't know we'd ever get back. Those companies, remarkably, were and are incestuously linked in with the federal government. They donate vast sums of money to candidates, spend vast sums on lobbyists, take part in the huge revolving door game between those big companies and regulatory agency jobs/political appointments. Unsurprisingly, it appears that the bailouts were as much to keep the industry intact in more-or-less its previous form, as to save the planet from a global economic meltdown.
Observing those and related things (private prison companies lobbying for three-strikes laws, military contractors funding candidates that propose endless wars) has nothing to do with socialism, it's simply observing stuff that's visibly happening.
We were following the Sewanee Tim Wise story here. What happened to the comments? Why deleted?
Obama says reason is that he did not fully explain himself to be people and that is why the elections went the way they did. Says he will have to work harder bringing his message to the people.
For illegal immigration to occur in vast numbers, there has to be, first, a foundation of LEGAL coethnics already in the country to provide aid and comfort to the illegals early on, in order to start the chain migration.
Ah. So that's what explains the massive population of Swedish illegals in America! It just goes to show that we should never have let in those first Swedes way back when.
Corporate interests, by definition, look out for the best interests of corporations. As such they are not necessarily always fiscally conservative, nor do they always act in the best interests of America or the American people.
That doesn't make them inherently evil, it makes them entities which are dedicated to following their self-interest to the exclusion of all else, and thereby sometimes acting in a manner detrimental to this country.
When they act in such a fashion, they should be condemned for it. Conservatism demands no less.
The result out of Nevada that really interests me: Asians going 79-19 for Reid... I don’t know what the story is behind that.
Angle, when speaking to an audience of (mestizo) Hispanics told them, in a remarkably clumsy effort to be PC, "you look Asian to me." This offended the Asians more than the Hispanics.
Since the commentators on Steve's blogsite and the others in the HBD-circuit often seem to focus on immigration more than almost anything else, and regard the 1965 Immigration Act as the greatest blow to American survival since the Redcoats, I really should bring a few simple factual matters to their attention...
What most immigration-activists floating around the Internet don't seem to realize is that the 1965 Act didn't OPEN the border to large-scale Third World immigration, it actually CLOSED the border. Prior to 1965, America did indeed have very restrictive immigration quotas against Europe (and Asia) but pretty much a de jure "Open Border" policy with regard to Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Basically, until 1965 any Mexican who wanted to legally immigrate to the U.S. just had to pay a small fee (I vaguely recall it was something like $50) and wait a day or two for processing. Then he could come legally. There were no quotas, no restrictions on numbers, nothing! In fact, some of the conservative critics opposing the 1965 Act argued that America had no need to relax immigration controls since we already had an open border with Mexico, and businesses could obtain all the cheap labor they needed from there.
The ironic thing is that the first-time-ever restrictions against Latin American immigration which became part of the 1965 Act were actually added by the pro-immigration side as a very minor sop to the anti-immigrationists, though neither side really cared about Latin American immigration one way or the other. The entire ideological battle was being fought about European immigration, and to a lesser extent Asian immigration. If any of you doubt these claims about the legislative history of the 1965 Act, you need only read the relevant sections of Kevin MacDonald's CoC book, which discusses the history in detail. They're also available in lots of other standard sources.
The reason that Mexican immigration skyrocketed in the decades after 1965 was because the Mexican population skyrocketed during that same period. In earlier years, Mexico was relatively underpopulated, hence there was little economic pressure to go North. If the 1965 Act hadn't passed, and any Mexican or other Latin American who paid $50 or whatever could move to the U.S., legal immigration from South of the border would probably have reached many millions per year, and couldn't have been curtailed without Congressional legislation, quite difficult since (as you all know) the cheap-labor business interests tend to dominate Congress. So if Teddy Kennedy were indeed a major force behind the 1965 Act, he should presumably be hailed as one of the greatest Restrictionist heroes in American history, and VDare.com should rechristen itself the Teddy Kennedy Memorial website in his honor.
Now admittedly, Asian and European immigration would still be minimal, but I'd think that most anti-immigrationists are probably more concerned with coping with 5 million Latin Americans per year rather than 500,000 Asians and Europeans.
I've actually corrected this Internet "urban legend" about the 1965 Immigration Act on quite a number of occasions over the years, but since there are already 100,000 web columns out there ferociously denouncing Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act for all millions of Mexican immigrants since then, I suspect it's just completely hopeless to get people unconfused about the facts.
Still, there really is a slight difference between "open" and "closed", and it always annoys me when people get the two completely reversed. Hence my current posting...
Svigor,
I'm pretty sure that's the "Jared Taylor Strategy".
In a nutshell, yes. But there are some important differences.
Taylor, for the life of him, simply cannot move -- even slightly, pragmatically -- out of the "Whites deserve to live because we're better" frame of mind.
Take his "ahm insuhlted!" response to some Mexican claiming he likes the variety of human types in America. What the hell? That's no different to some Zangwill character a hundred years ago claiming the presence of the various euro types improves "America" (ie, New York). So many people of the day would have agreed it hardly seems controversial. But Taylor just can't get beyond "you're only here because my predecessors built a country your predecessors couldn't" angle.
It's the same with all the rest of his endless "stream of attack" writings about race. Great for preaching to the choir, not so good for anyone else. What can he really say to someone who says, "Okay, so mexicans are dumber; so what, I like 'em anyway"? Well, he's a smart guy so he can probably come up with something, but it's not anything that jumps out at you from reading him. Ultimately, it's something that only appeals to whites, anyway.
In my view, you want to maximize the number of people separatism can appeal to, so while occasionally that means pointing out the negatives of one group, it might also occasionally warrant pointing out that same group's positives, all with a view to establishing that people will live better by living around more people like themselves. Think about it svigor: miscegenation is going to create a substantial block of quasi-whites in coming years, a block to whom (real/true/whiter) whites who do like, or feel some need to try to like, or to pretend to like, diversity will most naturally cleave to -- not because they're "diverse" but because they're only slightly different. Similar enough to find it fairly easy to get along with; not similar enough to squeeze under the umbrella term "white." An ideologue like you will spurn this group for no better reason than crying over spilt milk. That's worse than a crime; it's a mistake.
RKU,
Then how do you explain the (hatefully named) 'Operation Wetback' in which the Eisenhower administration literally rounded-up - in a way reminiscent of what 3rd world dictatorships do to their illegals today - hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and dumped them back over the border?
RKU
Legal immigration
Illegal immigration
The 1965 act opened the gates to the first not the second.
"Basically, until 1965 any Mexican who wanted to legally immigrate to the U.S. just had to pay a small fee (I vaguely recall it was something like $50) and wait a day or two for processing. Then he could come legally. There were no quotas, no restrictions on numbers, nothing!"
If what you're saying is true, RKU, then why would Eisenhower feel the need to conduct Operation Wetback back in '54?
"Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, focusing on Mexican nationals[1]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Are Mexican Nationals so stupid that they didn't realize in the '50s they could have A Better Life (tm) for a mere $50 and some paperwork?
Or are you taking ol' Timmy's cue and inventing facts as needed?
As far as open borders goes, we have an "open border" with Canada, too. But my repatriated, born-in-Canada-of-American-citizen-parents father could have told you in 1950, 1960 and 1970 that INS certainly controlled immigration, or they'd not have hassled him coming back anytime he visited his mom in Alberta, such that he eventually went and got a passport.
"An ideologue like you will spurn this group for no better reason than crying over spilt milk. That's worse than a crime; it's a mistake."
Why? Why is it a "mistake"?
What benefit is it to me, a 100% White woman with 100% White children, to spurn non-quite-Whites? What can they provided me that all-Whites cannot?
Then how do you explain the (hatefully named) 'Operation Wetback' in which the Eisenhower administration literally rounded-up - in a way reminiscent of what 3rd world dictatorships do to their illegals today - hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and dumped them back over the border?
* * *
Are Mexican Nationals so stupid that they didn't realize in the '50s they could have A Better Life (tm) for a mere $50 and some paperwork?
Well, just because legal immigration from Mexico was cheap and easy until the 1965 Act doesn't mean that illegal immigration wasn't even cheaper and easier. Basically, lots of Mexicans were very poor and impatient, and didn't want to pay $50 and wait a couple of days for official processing, so they just walked (or swam) across the border which anyway wasn't guarded at all, and came north to work for a few months or a year before going back home again with their earnings. Remember, if you're a poor peasant, $50 (or whatever) was pretty serious money back then, and since almost no one cared or checked legal immigration status at all for workers, why pay $50?
Sometimes the Mexican illegals ended up staying around for years, and therefore during hard ecnomic times they were vulnerable to being rounded up and deported by the government, as in the Great Depression or that Eisenhower crackdown. During those periods, the business lobby didn't really object, since there were lots of unemployed Americans and wages were already low.
(Incidentally, I think this same "Open Borders" issue came into play during the 1920s with Canada. There was a huge population boom among French Canadians, and huge numbers of them started moving into northern New England, swamping the local Americans, who complained bitterly about the influx. But since any Canadian who wanted to legally immigrate could do so very easily, there wasn't anything the voters could do about it politically. And since business interests were happy about driving down wages, the likelihood of getting Congress to pass new legislation closing the border with Canada was zero.)
The central point is that since Mexico and Latin America had a huge population boom after 1965 and also became much richer, paying $50 would have been a much smaller entry-barrier in 1990 than it was in 1950. So we wouldn't have had much illegal immigration from Mexico, but a HELL of a lot more legal immigration...
Like I said, I've pointed this out over the years to some of the major anti-immigrationist websites, and they've checked, found I was right, and said "Oops!". But they obviously can't take down the 1,000 articles they'd already published denouncing Teddy Kennedy and the 1965 Act for all the Mexicans in America, so people still read those on the Internet, and get confused...
it might also occasionally warrant pointing out that same group's positives, all with a view to establishing that people will live better by living around more people like themselves.
That's one of Taylor's mantras, that people generally prefer to live around people like themselves, and get along better with their neighbors when their neighbors aren't forced on them.
An ideologue like you will spurn this group for no better reason than crying over spilt milk. That's worse than a crime; it's a mistake.
Don't put words in my mouth. And don't conflate my preferences with my political positions. It doesn't matter if I prefer people who wear upside-down hats, or want to create a community of people born with crooked teeth, or if the next guy, with whom I categorically do not wish to create a community, has some other equally seemingly arbitrary or "wrong-headed" preference; I support everyone's right to form communities and societies as they wish. The next guy does not get to judge. Freedom of association and the right to self-determination are not complicated, or up for debate AFAIC.
Our right to spurn anyone we want - one another very much included - is what this is all about.
Basically, until 1965 any Mexican who wanted to legally immigrate to the U.S. just had to pay a small fee (I vaguely recall it was something like $50) and wait a day or two for processing. Then he could come legally. There were no quotas, no restrictions on numbers, nothing!
I've never heard that, and I've heard a lot about immigration. Got any cites or links?
Then how do you explain the (hatefully named) 'Operation Wetback' in which the Eisenhower administration literally rounded-up - in a way reminiscent of what 3rd world dictatorships do to their illegals today - hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and dumped them back over the border?
* * *
Are Mexican Nationals so stupid that they didn't realize in the '50s they could have A Better Life (tm) for a mere $50 and some paperwork?
Well, just because legal immigration from Mexico was cheap and easy until the 1965 Act doesn't mean that illegal immigration wasn't even cheaper and easier. Basically, lots of Mexicans were very poor and impatient, and didn't want to pay $50 and wait a couple of days for official processing, so they just walked (or swam) across the border which anyway wasn't guarded at all, and came north to work for a few months or a year before going back home again with their earnings. Remember, if you're a poor peasant, $50 (or whatever) was pretty serious money back then, and since almost no one cared or checked legal immigration status at all for workers, why pay $50?
Sometimes the Mexican illegals ended up staying around for years, and therefore during hard economic times they were vulnerable to being rounded up and deported by the government, as in the Great Depression or that Eisenhower crackdown. During those periods, the business lobby didn't really object, since there were lots of unemployed Americans and wages were already low.
(Incidentally, I think this same "Open Borders" issue came into play during the 1920s with Canada. There was a huge population boom among French Canadians, and huge numbers of them started moving into northern New England, swamping the local Americans, who complained bitterly about the influx. But since any Canadian who wanted to legally immigrate could do so very easily, there wasn't anything the voters could do about it politically. And since business interests were happy about driving down wages, the likelihood of getting Congress to pass new legislation closing the border with Canada was zero.)
The central point is that since Mexico and Latin America had a huge population boom after 1965 and also became much richer, paying $50 would have been a much smaller entry-barrier in 1990 than it was in 1950. So we wouldn't have had much illegal immigration from Mexico, but a HELL of a lot more legal immigration...
Like I said, I've pointed this out over the years to some of the major anti-immigrationist websites, and they've checked, found I was right, and said "Oops!". But they obviously can't take down the 1,000 articles they'd already published denouncing Teddy Kennedy and the 1965 Act for all the Mexicans in America, so people still read those on the Internet, and get confused...
I've never heard that, and I've heard a lot about immigration. Got any cites or links?
Severn:
That's a very fair request. Unfortunately, as I've said, if you hunt around the Internet regarding the 1965 Act, 99.99% of everything you find will be ignorant denunciations that it opened the door to millions of Mexicans, and my Google skills aren't strong enough to easily find the quality needle in the haystack. Back a few years ago, when I decided to clear up the puzzle, it took me quite some time to locate an academic research report describing the factual details of American 20th immigration policy, and unfortunately I can't remember the title or author.
But since so many of the commentators here are WNs, just look towards the end of MacDonald's CoC chapter 7, in which he mentions that the 1965 Act for the first time extended immigration restriction to Western Hemisphere countries (p. 292 in my edition).
The basic facts are pretty simple. Prior to the 1924 Act, America allowed more or less unlimited immigration from everywhere in the world (except Asia). The 1924 Act shut the door to European immigration, but deliberately excluded restrictions on the Western Hemisphere (presumably because Southwestern business interests wanted to keep open the supply of cheap labor). So until 1965, the pre-1924 immigration policy---which most people characterize as free and unlimited immigration---continued to be in full force for Mexico and Latin America.
The whole confusion is just an honest mistake. Anti-immigration activists know that the 1965 Act drastically loosened immigration policy (true) and they know that soon afterward, there was a dramatic rise in Mexican immigration (also true). So they naturally assume a casual link, even though it doesn't exist.
As for our confused friend, "Just Shoot Me," her citations simply indicate that the pre-1924 immigration policy remained in force for Mexicans until 1965, which was my exact point. Since around 93% of Mexicans today are literate, something like 100M could legally immigrate tomorrow under the law she cites---ha, ha, ha!
My impression is that the unique aspect of the Bracero program was that the U.S. government actively recruited Mexican workers, and also waived the usual $50 fee, which was the primary deterrent to large-scale immigration during that era.
RKU, it doesn't seem like you're making note at all of the McCarran–Walter Act of 1952. If I'm not mistaken, that provided for a total immigration limit of about a quarter of a million per year from all countries, not including refugees and people with special skills.
The Hart Act of 1965 may have been more restrictive upon Meso-American immigration than the 1924 law, but on the face of it it seems less restrictive than the 1952 law, which, in addition to the quotas, specifies:
"Before applying, an alien must be at least 18 years old and must have been lawfully admitted to live permanently in the United States.... He must be of good moral character and "attached to the principles of the Constitution". The law states that an alien is not of good moral character if he is a drunkard, has committed adultery, has more than one wife, makes his living by gambling, has lied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has been in jail more than 180 days for any reason during his five years in the United States, or is a convicted murderer."
Seems like a goodly law.
It doesn't seem like you're making note at all of the McCarran–Walter Act of 1952. If I'm not mistaken, that provided for a total immigration limit of about a quarter of a million per year from all countries, not including refugees and people with special skills.
That's a very fair point---I'd been thinking of the major 1924 and 1965 Acts, and hadn't considered the 1952 changes, which I'd always vaguely associated more with anti-Communism restrictions than with numbers. I certainly don't claim to be an immigration law specialist.
But looking at the Wikipedia article on the McCarran-Walter Act, it seemed to allow for unlimited immigration of relatives of US Citizens, individuals with special skills, and refugees, plus an additional 270,000 per year of all other immigrants. Even assuming it did indeed apply to all Western Hemisphere countries, I would assume that the sizable existing Hispanic population plus the chain-migration effect could have easily boosted the number of Latin American legal immigrants to well over 1M per year, or much higher than actually occurred, once Mexico's growing population provided the pressure beginning in the late 1970s. A key factor was that the continuing tight national quotas on Europe and the rest of the world would have naturally redirected the legal immigrant flow towards the Latin American direction.
a mere $50
Do the math. $50 in the 1950s is after inflation over $1,000 today. It was several years' salary for the typical Mexican wage worker and completely out of reach for the then far more common Mexican peasant. The fee basically restricted legal immigration from Mexico to the upper class (whites) and denied it to lower class (mestizos). Akin to the poll tax in the Old South with voting. Very IW.
"As for our confused friend, "Just Shoot Me," her citations simply indicate that the pre-1924 immigration policy remained in force for Mexicans until 1965, which was my exact point. Since around 93% of Mexicans today are literate, something like 100M could legally immigrate tomorrow under the law she cites---ha, ha, ha!"
Not confused at all.
As I said, the mestizos we're being inundated with ARE illiterate. As reflected by LA County having a 50% illiteracy rate.
The literate of Mexico, the doctors, lawyers, shopkeepers, gov't workers, are NOT the ones immigrating. They LIKE living in Mexico.
WE'RE getting the illiterate underclass.
Not to mention, the "no alcoholics" clause of 1913. Which, literate or not, excludes a tremendous portion of Mexico.
So, where, in all I cited, is ANY indication of YOUR argument that Mexicans could immigrate for $50 and paperwork? Hmmmmmm? Lessee yer link.
Our ancestors in 1917 weren't stupid. They knew what "undesirables" meant, and they knew that mestizos would be included in the definition, so excluding "undesirables" covered it.
Ha, ha, ha, back atcha.
RKU needs to fold actual demographic change into his argument, somewhere.
Duh.
"Like I said, I've pointed this out over the years to some of the major anti-immigrationist websites, and they've checked, found I was right, and said "Oops!".
Nah. Lessee yer link. Assertions don't cut it for convincing anyone here. Conveniently "forgetting" the name of the paper, or the author, for something you made a "diligent search" for and are now claiming as your basis to upend all arguments about the basis of this immivasion, makes you look a wee bit "not credible."
*I* did not use any anti-immigrant sources. I used wiki and a pro-immigration law firm. I simply quoted what they said, and drew eminently reasonable conclusions from their own statements.
But, anyway, just for the saaaaaake of argument, let's assume that you're telling the truth and $50 was the price of immigration for a mestizo in 1950.
If you're also truthful that the $50 was "pretty serious money" (which, before, you called it a "small fee," so which is it?) for them in 1950, then THAT supports MY assertion that free-and-easy immigration was NEVER made available to Mexicans, as you originally claimed.
The lawmakers of 1917, by your argument of it being "serious money," set the price high enough to prohibit the mestizos from coming. Raising the price from $50 to $500, then to $5000, $50,000 to continue to keep them out would have been a simple regulatory matter, hardly requiring an Act of Congress.
the sizable existing Hispanic population
America did not have a sizable existing Hispanic population until very recently - say, the last twenty years.
If you want to locate the cause of their post seventies increase, you're better off ignoring what our legislative bodies have done and paying attention to the courts, which have issued a string of rulings which all boil down to "You must treat illegal aliens just like citizens".
Take away their court-issued "rights" to free education, health-care, and welfare benefits and we'd have much less of a problem.
The basic facts are pretty simple. Prior to the 1924 Act, America allowed more or less unlimited immigration from everywhere in the world (except Asia). The 1924 Act shut the door to European immigration, but deliberately excluded restrictions on the Western Hemisphere (presumably because Southwestern business interests wanted to keep open the supply of cheap labor). So until 1965, the pre-1924 immigration policy---which most people characterize as free and unlimited immigration---continued to be in full force for Mexico and Latin America.
If those basic facts are correct then it's something of a mystery why, as late as 1970, Hispanics made up no more than a couple of percent of the US population. Not so very long ago this was a country made up of roughly ten percent blacks, 87% whites, and a small sprinkling of "other". So I think your facts are wrong.
If those basic facts are correct then it's something of a mystery why, as late as 1970, Hispanics made up no more than a couple of percent of the US population. Not so very long ago this was a country made up of roughly ten percent blacks, 87% whites, and a small sprinkling of "other". So I think your facts are wrong.
There's no real mystery---the issue was demographics, not any legal barrier to Latin American immigration.
For example, if you look on Wikipedia, you'll see that the total population of Mexico was only around 15M in 1920, and was still below 40M in 1960. By contrast, Mexico today has a population of over 110M, plus another 30M+ people of Mexican origin living in the U.S. So the Mexican population has grown nearly ten-fold since 1920, with the bulk of the increase during the last few decades. That's the real factor behind so much recent immigration, rather than the 1965 Act.
Also, the Mexican economy apparently had very good growth rates between 1920 and 1980, but once that stalled, there was much more immigration pressure.
And I can't remember the immigration fee which Mexicans needed to pay before 1965, as described in that academic paper I located a few years ago---maybe it was $50 or now that I think a bit more about it, maybe it was really just $23. In any event, the amount of money was absolutely trivial, just a few hundred dollars in today's currency. From what I read in the paper, most of today's illegal immigrants currently pay 10x or 20x times as much to be smuggled across the border, with some danger and no certainly of success. So if they could just pay $500 or whatever to come legally after just waiting a few days for processing, I'd think they'd choose that option.
The historical bottom-line is simple: the 1924 Immigration cut-off did not apply to the Western Hemisphere. So our pre-1924 "open immigration policy" continued to apply to Latin America for decades afterward.
"$50 or now that I think a bit more about it, maybe it was really just $23. In any event, the amount of money was absolutely trivial, just a few hundred dollars in today's currency"
So, which IS it? A "substantial sum" for poor peasants, or trivial, the equivalent of a few hundred bucks in today's currency?
This is tiresome. If you've no link, to prove something NO ONE ELSE here believes for one second, then just stop.
The 1917 law which barred undesirables, among them drunks and illiterates, would be entirely adequate TODAY, even, if that law were still in effect, to bar mass Mexican mestizo immigration -- which is THE PROBLEM. Not the educated, well-to-do. The mestizo, "drunken Indian," illiterate peasants.
Just shoot me: The 1917 law which barred undesirables, among them drunks and illiterates... [t]he mestizo, "drunken Indian," illiterate peasants...
Hate fact.
HATE FACT!
HATE FACT!!!
if you look on Wikipedia, you'll see that the total population of Mexico was only around 15M in 1920, and was still below 40M in 1960
I don't find that very persuasive. The population of Ireland never exceeded eight million, and has been below four million for the past hundred years. Yet people of Irish descent are the biggest single group in the US. So fifteen millions Mexicans in 1920 were more than enough to make the US majority Mexican today.
Post a Comment