From my new VDARE.com column:
The basic concept behind a long-term Sailer Strategy for Republicans: You want more of the kind of people likely to vote for your party in the country and not so many of the kind of people likely to vote for the other party.
This may sound a shocking thing for any Republican to say. But there’s a flagrant double standard here: the Democrats get to implement this logic quite unashamedly. They have long boasted that their policy of bringing in foreigners to vote for them will eventually give them a Chicago-like one-party hegemony over the United States.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
67 comments:
Here's another one: switch to the Amero. Being part of the same currency would eliminate the driving force for Hispanic immigration: making 10x as much money for the same work (because of the high value of USD/FRN compared to the peso).
Switching to the Amero would allow us to simultaneously "restructure" all national debt, instantaneously ending our on-going debt deflation depression.
Amero = dollar devaluation + debt repudiation + end of immigration attraction. WIN WIN WIN
decent article. some good stuff here.
Phil Gramm must be the most useless, destructive and counter-productive senator in US history.
Remember it was he who abolished Glass-Steagal (being paid a big retainer by big business in the process), and thus allowed big banking to gamble with depositers' money and thus being a main cause of the financial catstrophe.
It was he who pushed for the lunatioc policy of minority home ownership, with similiar disaterous results.
It's just a crying shame that this jerk's name is not cited more as being a very public and obvious villain and hate figure - most people don't even know who he is.
Anyway - Phil Gramm shows the extreme danger of combining a senior politician with an economist (especially a hard right-wing dogmatic one), a bigger recipe for disaster cannot be imagined.
Steve, I don't know if you are familiar with the book 'On Genetic Interests' by the Australian academic Frank Kemp, but it's filled with much suggestive treacle, very similar to the points you are making.
I'm not too sure about your point about recent Mexican immigrants supporting immigration control, Steve.
We have to remember the sociological concept of 'circles of relatdness or interest'.Basically their first loyalty is to tia Maria starving in a basement, and their last (basically they couldn't really give a damn), is to an abstract entity that prints a lot of forms (they are mostly illiterate), known as the US Government.
Glad you've picked up on the latest ruse by the US government with census statistics, Steve.
Basically, what they've done is 'as if by magic' bumped up the 'white' percentage of the uS population from somewhere around 60% (a level that was provoking anxiety and alarm and possibly a backlash)to around 70%, by the expedient of calling 'hispanics' 'white'.
Clever politics, and mostly likely the rubes won' notice the sleight of hand and carry on in their merry litle way, frog slowly boiled and all that.
Reminds me of the Justice Dept calling 'hispanic' victims 'hispanic' and 'hispanic' villians 'white'.
Good column. The point about the 1920s Italians can't be overstated--every time someone's stood against the ethnic set-asides there has always been a big hue & cry over losing several generations of political customers, etc. The truth is, Nobody Knows Anything; and if the worst case is that the current group of Central/So. Americans (some of whom are apparently busily ticking off the "white" box on the Census form!) get miffed or even briefly enraged about the loss of privilege, it's better to have erred on the side of NOT dissolving the general U.S. identity.
More like "Failer Strategy."
I think Alternative Right posted a video of some lefty upset when he went around a fair and asked Latinos what their race was and almost all said white.
If the GOP played it aggressively it would put the Dems in a tight spot. If Latinos consider themselves white, and white Americans via the GOP accept them as white, then what's the opposition got to say? No you're not white? No you can't assimilate? I can't speak to the mindset of the immigrants because I don't understand those countries enough, but from my limited knowledge, back home the whites are separatists. So for the GOP to welcome them as white would be going to their core identity.
This should be called the Sailer-Frum strategy, not the Sailer strategy. David Frum, too, says that Republicans' courting Hispanics is a losing strategy, that the Republicans can never out-Democrat the Democrats. He too calls explicitly for the Republicans to increase support among whites and to basically write off the Hispanics and (implicitly) the blacks.
The difference between the Frum and Sailer versions of the strategy has been that Frum wants to reclaim the Republicans' base of college-educated whites (now Democratic voters), while Sailer wanted to mobilize the MARs. But the MAR aspect is downplayed in this article. Sailer and Frum both explicitly agree on Sailer's elements one and three. For instance, both are calling for a moratorium on immigration. I don't remember Frum ever addressing element two, but I'd think he'd be all for it.
(I've also said that we should try to make the "whiter Hispanics" white, but I was surprised to see lots of opposition to that idea from even moderate pro-white commenters.)
Anyway, given the current article especially, this is the Sailer-Frum strategy, right down the line. What I'd like to see either of them address - neither has addressed it seriously so far - is the question of how you attract MARs without driving away college-educated whites, or vice versa.
I'm skeptical of the idea that the narrowing of the "fertility gap" in Israel has much to do with government efforts. Is there any evidence for that? I mean, compared to the usual culprits - urbanization, feminism (which I think is one of the most powerful weapons against the Arabs), education, etc.? My guess is that the government is most effective indirectly, for instance in its effect on housing costs for young couples. But even that effect seems relatively small.
Your proposals make complete sense.
The problem is that Republicans that aspire to political power are essentially liberals.
Eventually give them one party control? Who do you think actually governs the country? Congress? The President? As a DOJ attorney, my father sued local and state governments for a living on behalf of the Federal Government for almost 40 years and seven presidents. Whether his preferred policies were implemented was entirely up to federal judges. The cases he chose to pursue were at his discretion. The only power the president had over him was suggestion. Neither the president nor any of his appointments could hire, fire, promote, demote, reassign, reorganize anything relating to my dad's job.
Even if the republicans pass laws mandating border enforcement and ending legal migration, it will mean nothing because actual political power does not rest with congress or the people.
Oky. I agree with you. But, political realities being what they are, how do we convince/strong arm the GOP into actually representing the national interest?
Most Republicans and/or conservatives vote that way because it's the best of two god-awful mainstream choices, not because we hold the party in high regard. I won't stay home or go third party, because that's essentially a vote for Obama.
Considering the inherent cowardice, tribalism and wilful stupidity of the GOP "leadership", how would you recommend forcing the Party of Stoooooopid to actually do something useful?
It is a truism to say that the British political class sooner or later slavishly imitates anything that happens in American politics (you see our politicians are tiny-minded, awe-struck, shallow little beasts), but in terms of immigration politics the time-lag is 40 years rather than 10 or 20 years.
Put bluntly the 'great British public' (by which I meam indigenous pre-1945 descent Brits), absolutely hate, loathe and revile immigration.They hate it with a passion, nothing except for capital punishment and child abuse raises their anger more.Brits are even deeply suspicious of white continental Europeans.The French are only 20 miles away, but sre treated with greatest suspicion.
Anyone with a brain in British politics knows this - or should know this.However this didn't stop the Labour Party during the high-noon of Blairite bullshit and unassailability to secretly dismantle all immigration controls (note the 'secret' - even they would never have dared to openly announce their intentions).
Immigrants in Britain all vote for the Labour Party.In this way it resembles the US Democrat Party.
Britain still has a good 50 years left of vast majority white voting power, unlike the USA.Because of this we are not seeing a race to the bottom of immigrant pandering between the two main British political parties.
The Tories have staked out an explicit anti-immigration line as a counterpoint to Labour.Today, David Cameron is making an anti-immigration speech in which he will set out measures to stop ruses used by subcon Indians to circumvent immigration controls.That would be unthinkable under Labour.
David Camern is a pretty astute and intelligent politician.I can readily forsee the Labour Party being locked out of of power in Britain for a generation - like they were under Thatcher and Major.
"the Democrats get to implement this logic quite unashamedly": as did the Labour Party in Britain.
I suspect you have an element of more careful, long-term thinkers being disenfranchised by both parties. The current strategy is to stay in power by any means, at any cost which isn't so good when it comes to actual governance.
Also, importing NAMs doesn't seem to be a good idea either, if that's what you're suggesting. since they will assimilate to the intellectual culture of the academic elite.
The few Hispanics (~20-25%) who regularly vote Republican typically aren't doing so because of their strong support for affirmative action and mass immigration. More often, it is because (surprise) they are wealthier (and typically whiter) Hispanics who have more to gain from Republican economic policies than Democratic economic policies. So while the Republicans might lose a few of them (maybe reducing their share of the Hispanic vote to a mere 15-20%), by embracing broadly pro-white policies such as eliminating the Hispanic category for affirmative action and restriciting immigration, they probably won't lose most of their Hispanic support. In addition, if Republicans act soon (say, between 2012 and 2016) to eliminate the Hispanic category for ethnicity, my off-the-wall guess is that it would probably promote the assimilation of the whiter Hispanics (maybe a quarter of the Hispanic population?) into the overall white population, which would tend align their interests more with those of other whites, creating a long-term increase in the Republican base.
This may sound a shocking thing for any Republican to say.
Republicans are actually the liberals - they buy into the stupid notion that all people are basically interchangeable units, that Mohammad from Syria and Pedro from El Salvador are essentially identical to James from New England or Mike from Ohio.
There is race realism in American politics. Unfortunately the only party which practices it is the Democratic Party.
Sounds good to me. The GOP probably spends millions of dollars on consultants in the hopes of devising a winning strategy, but they couldn't do better than this, and for free. Steve, they should hire you. If they follow your advice, they can't lose.
It's a pretty sure bet that Democratic strategists, thought-leaders, and journalists will read Steve's article and understand its easy-to-follow logic. Even if they'd never be so jejeune as to link to such an it's-racist post.
Will the Sailer Strategy get a similarly comprehensive hearing from the leaders of the Stupid Party?
SS won't go anywhere unless the word gets out. Mass media are the filter through which all views, ideas, and proposals are approved and disseminated. So, unless the Right has that kind of media outlet--its own Oprah Winfrey Network--, it won't amount to much. Vdare is not a msm site, and my friends tell me that the site is even blocked and banned at many companies and government places as a 'hate group'.
One might say there's Fox News, but it's a neocon site that plays the Game.
We need a mass media outlet, so Sailer should think of how the Right can secure at least one TV channel or using the net in a special way to create something bigger than a niche position site, one that can appeal to Vast Middle America and Independents.
One huge difference between the past and today is Wasps and white interest groups had control over much of the media, and so there was more of a balance between left and right, between old america and new america. Today, the media are mostly in control of liberal and neocon Jews--and their self-deprecating lackeys, such as Ken Burns. (Btw, Sailer should review PROHIBITION, a fascinating subject for a documentary, reasonably done by Burns and co... though, as usual, the general narrative theme is 'good immigrants who wanna drink' and 'prissy bigoted old wasp America and their puritanism' when NOTHING WAS THAT SIMPLE. Even so, the docu is interesting in ways that it didn't intend. Though made by libs to make a progressive point, the crusade against drink has many parallels in today's Polibition--political correctness--, crusade against fatty foods and cigarettes, and other utopian schemes... though to be sure, the Left seems to have learned the lesson that it's impossible to ban something that most people want and like. So, instead of outright prohibition, liberals today go for regulation and fees and etc. Even so, today's Tolerance Movement has the hallmarks of yesterday's Temperance Movement. Temperance turned Intemperate and Tolerance is now Intolerant in its cracking down of dissent. Anyway, many social, cultural, and political lessons to learn from the docu.... such as the moral element in any political discourse. The Prohibition people won for a time because they had the more passionate MORAL argument. And had it not been for the rise of organized crime, graft, and hypocrisy during Prohibition that gave the moral advantage to people calling for the repeal of Prohibition, it might have stood. I suppose the most successful Prohibiton was in the Muslim world, which has lasted over 1000 yrs. And China was successful in wiping out opium use. Lesson to learn: democracy/freedoms and moral prohibitions don't go together well.)
Anyway, Sailer has stated his strategy many times, so what it really needs is a wider audience, and that can only happen with some degree of media control. We cannot depend on the GOP since political discourse is determined by the media. When Buchahan gave a rousing speech at the 92 convention, the media universally slammed him so hard that GOP got the message: if you go against the more or less liberal narrative of 'tolerance', you're toast. Since Americans got all their views and news from MSM, the GOP convention of 92 went down as intolerance-fest.
So, we need alternative networks or even just one. Something like a counter-Oprah show, counter-MSNBC(Fox is crappy), counter-Telemundo, etc. But there is lack of talent on the Right. Ken Burns may not be much, but there's almost no one on the right who can make any kind of decent docu. We don't even have the Pennebakers, Maysles, or Kopples. (Even so, I always thought Buchanan should turn each of his books into a documentary. If moron Moore can do it, why not he?)
There is the money on the Right, but most rich conservatives are very nervous about whom they fund cuz there's no greater sin in America than being associated with 'hate groups'. So, if a billionaire Jew pours millions into radical leftist or anti-white group or organization, no problem. But if a superrich rightwing guy gives just $10,000 to vdare, he can be marked as a contributor to a 'hate group'.
So, Sailer needs to find a way to come up the right's own channel. Oprah has her own channel. We need to find a way to pull our resources together to buy up our own network too. Then, we can spread the ideas.
Ideas aren't enough. We need the means to spread them.
Nice thoughts, but it won't work, because a) Republicans and whites in general are too stupid/cowardly/brainwashed to do it, and
b) it's too late.
May as well cut to the chase and start talking about a peaceful-as-possible arrangement for partition/secession.
I hear these zany partition strategies that go along red state/blue state lines, but the reality of geopolitics in North America is that it rests on the control of major river systems. Look at it from that perspective, and then you can see how viable separate nations could be formed.
What I particularly like about this essay is that is spells out clearly that Democrats are aggressively pursuing demographic replacement and it's only rational for Republicans to work for their own interests. Liberals: If you don't want Republicans working for the interests of whites then don't actively work against the interests of whites.
It clarified for me that accusations of racism against the Tea Party stems from the fact that the Tea Party is advocating financial policies which undermine the Left's redistributionist racial policies, i.e., the Tea Party, for the Left, is racist for being race neutral.
The Republican nominee will inevitably be accused of racism in 2012. So, instead of avoiding those charges by pandering, embrace race neutral policies -- sending an unmistakable message that Republicans will no longer undermine whites in hiring, education, and immigration. We know from 1988 that hungry Republicans can engage in knife fights -- this may turn out to be another such year, if they want to win.
Hoping the Repubs become a party looking out for the interests of the majority of people may just be wishful thinking. They may have other ideas about what's good for themselves. Oh, maybe they'll diddle around till 2020 or so until something or other creates an acute crisis spurring a major realignment of the political balance in this country, with a different set of people coming into the parties. What that'll be can't be predicted; it could be unexpected in it's timing or cause.
It's all relative. Greeks are the Mexicans of Europe.
"First: the voters most likely to vote Republican are whites who are married with children. So you want your base to thrive.
You want affordable family formation: incomes high enough and housing and education cheap enough that responsible folks feel they can afford to marry and reproduce."
Housing and education costs are most directly impacted by local government decisions. The Liberals are obsessed with the federal/transnational level of government right now, but how many people are paying serious attention to school board, county zoning commission, etc?
White families with children are probably paying attention to those things, though.
I think a corollary to the sailer strategy should be to start at home. The impact of one dedicated person in local/state politics is millions of times what you could get done with the feds.
Start small. Learn about who the local/state politicians are, what the issues are, and when you're talking in real life, instead of bitching about obama and worldwide anti-white-ism, for a day, talk about something local or state level.
You need a point 4--how to make this sound somewhat respectable.
0svaldo m.
The fly in the ointment is that the Republicans have two constituencies: the suckers who vote for them and the fatcats who bankroll them. The suckers would be all for the Sailer Strategy, the fatcats would howl about the loss of their cheap labor. Another pesky fly is the fact that the prosperity necessary for widespread white family formation can never happen with our current trade policy, which also works against the suckers and for the fatcats. A banknote in the hand is worth two votes in the bush!
All aspects of this would be hard sells.
The way to make family formation affordable is to scrap zoning laws, allow reasonably uncontrolled development and let the price of housing fall to $80 a square foot. People in blue states who have spent $300 a square foot on housing would be unenthusiastic about this.
The MSM, liberal whites and most minorities would brand the second two proposals hugely racist in trying to reduce the inflow of brown people and due them out of their quotas. And logic doesn't seem to work in this battle. The biggest single beneficiaries to lower immigration would be the immigrants who got in just before the door closed. But they're the least likely to support restrictions.
How would you sell this?
Steve and James Webb have both gone over #2, and VDARE has been covering #3 for years.
#1 needs more discussion. What can be done.
Immigration moratorium, obviously, to bring down unemployment, raise wages and lower housing costs.
Prevent a recurrance of the housing bubble by preventing a return of excess leverage and lax lending standards, thus keeping down house prices for first time buyers.
Strict discipline in the classroom. If urban schools become orderly places where a White student can receive a quality public education, White parents won't have to choose between an expensive commute from the suburbs or expensive private school for the kids.
In addition to all this, however, I think tax policy needs to be taken into consideration. Under Eisenhower, the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91%. Now it is 35%. The income tax rates for the lowest brackets have not declined proportionately. If there are going to be any more tax cuts to stimulate the economy, I think they should proceed on the basis of "tax cuts from the bottom up".
One party or only two parties are better for the countries. More than that are just wasting time.
"The point about the 1920s Italians can't be overstated--every time someone's stood against the ethnic set-asides there has always been a big hue & cry over losing several generations of political customers, etc."
One difference. Back then, Americans were proud of being American, most Italian-Americans wanted to become full-fledged Americans, and American culture/education was geared toward Americanization of immigrant groups. That is no longer the case.
The media, government, and education are all geared toward 'diversity' and anti-white-ism.
Also, the arms of both moral crusade--political correctness--and sensual overdrive--pop cultural excess--(which are very influential in shaping the minds of young people)are controlled by the Left.
This should be called the Sailer-Frum strategy, not the Sailer strategy.
No it shouldn't.
Sailer originated it before Frum.
Why do you want to give credit to Frum when he didn't invent it?
So, if a billionaire Jew pours millions into radical leftist or anti-white group or organization, no problem. But if a superrich rightwing guy gives just $10,000 to vdare, he can be marked as a contributor to a 'hate group'.
aye maybe that's why most rich white guys pour millions, if not billions into college football programs.
If anyone reading this site hasn't fathered and raised at least 3 children than consider yourselves part of the problem.
Of course you have to get past the public school indoctrination of your children in order to consider yourselves successful in HBD terms.
"If the GOP played it aggressively it would put the Dems in a tight spot. If Latinos consider themselves white, and white Americans via the GOP accept them as white, then what's the opposition got to say?"
The issue isn't to make all Hispanics/Latins to declare themselves as white. Some will call themselves white, others will not.
Besides, even minus affirmative action, there is a moral incentive to identify oneself as a 'person of color' in the US. And even among whites, there are oppressor-whites and victim-whites. Jews count as whites, but what people bitch and whine about their victim status more than Jews? SPLC and ADL would think US is on the verge of KKK/Nazi take-over and that Palestinians are about to invade Israel like Germans invaded Poland.
So, even if Hispanics do identify as white, they'll carry on with the victim identity narrative of 'nosotros blancos Latinos estamos victimos de blancos yanquis'. It just makes them feel good.
Same crap happens in Europe. Greeks and Italians, though identifying as white, never let Germans forget how the former had been brutalized by the latter in WWII(and despite the fact that Italy had been an ally of the Germans. And Poles and Lithuanians love it to stick it to Russians. And there has long been bad blood between Brits and Irish.) One of the problem with the European political scene and economy is that the Germans, the most hardworking and productive people, cannot criticize other Europeans for being lazy and deceitful. Germans have every moral and political right to do so, but the legacy of WWII forbids Germans from being judgmental cuz it could be interpreted as 'Aryans are superior over mongrelized Southern Europeans'. Just like Americans cannot honestly discuss the problems of black laziness and crime and Hispanic illegalism and pathologies--such would be 'racist' stereotyping, a terrible sin given the American history of slavery and Jimmy Crow--, Germans cannot honest discuss European issues lest they come across as unrepentent Nazis. And so, Europeans have the problem with corrupt Greece, lazy Southern Italy, and fiesta-crazy Spaniards.
I wonder how things might have been different if WWI or WWII could have been avoided. Had it not been for the vanity of aristocratic honor, WWI may have been avoided, which means no Russian Revolution and Nazi Revolution either. And even if WWI had happened, if UK and France had been tougher on Hitler before Germany re-armed, WWII could have been avoided too. Well, that's all water under the bridge.
Anyway, more than Latinos identifying as white, we need to end the business of grouping all Hispanics together. We need to play a little divide-and-rule among Hispanics. If white Hispanics elites wanna play the game of evil white gringos vs brown Hispanics, we should play the game of white Hispanics vs brown Hispanics vs black Hispanics.
Another thing about affirmative action. Before we set about trying to get rid of it, we need to change the national debate as to what it is really about. It's not about redressing past wrongs though it may have been devised as such in the beginning. Affirmative action is about giving qualification-credits to groups who perform less well regardless of their past history. Chinese-Americans suffered enough working on the railroad, but we don't have AA for Chinese-Americans at Berkeley and UCLA cuz the Chinese students are overrepresented.
But we have affirmative action for Hispanics(even white ones) cuz they're underrepresented.
For some reason, ALL Hispanics qualify for AA though certain Hispanics are very well off. Because Mexicans and Puertos lag behind, even white Cubans benefit from AA.
#1. We need to argue AA is NOT about redressing past wrongs but addressing present imbalances.
#2. We need to argue that much of the present imbalances are due to natural or biological differences among certain groups. The evidence is in sports. Why do blacks dominate? Cuz they're naturally better. There was a lot of white hostility, oppression, discriminatin, etc against blacks in sports too, yet why did blacks eventually take over? Cuz they're simply better at the biological level. But why are blacks less good in other areas? Cuz they're mentally not up to par with some other races. If past injustice traumatized blacks so much emotionally that they cannot succeed in education, how could they succeed in sports?
So, regardless of whether AA is here to stay or not, let us argue it hasn't been about redressing past wrongs for some time. That is just an excuse--especially when rich blacks and African immigrants are beneficiaries over poor whites and poor Vietnamese immigrants.
The system goes on because honest people know that blacks will NEVER attain the academic or intellectual levels of whites, Jews, and Asians... just like most whites, Jews, and Asians(and Mexers)will never reach the level of athleticism of blacks in NBA and NFL.
Finally, as I've said it before, we need to stick it to the main powers-that-be, who are the Jews. Jews, the elites of America, will be less supportive of AA if we demand that Jews be considered a seperate ethnic group that is way overrepresented in prestige positions. And so, in the spirit of AA, we should address current imbalances by limiting the number of Jews in power positions so that non-Jewish whites can have a 'fair shake', especially poor whites.
"This should be called the Sailer-Frum strategy, not the Sailer strategy."
Maybe the 'Frum Sailer strategy'. It could be Frum got it from Sailer.
Let's assume that it's impossible to eliminate the "Hispanic" category.
What if instead we open up the census categories to all forms of ethnicity, whites included?
It'd make it more obvious that, say, disputes over Fire Department hiring practices are blacks vs. Irish and Italians. We could revive ethnic interest groups within the Democratic Party. These might provide braking action on excessive favoritism towards certain other groups.
I still say the best way is to get rid of GOP altogether. That way, GOP whites will naturally find alliances with Democrat whites on many issues.
Also, if the GOP were to vanish, the Democratic alliance would fall apart. Just look at the people in the Dems: Elite Jews, gays and lesbians, blue collar whites, white trash, black elites, black trash, Mexicans, Puertos, illegal aliens, Asian geeks, Arab-Americans, etc. What is the ONLY thing that's holing this coalition together? 'Evil white racist GOP'. It's like Nazi Germany held US and USSR together. It's like Imperialist Japan held the Chinese commies and KMT together.
Some in the alt right community call for white identity, but the only way such can be effective, paradoxical as it might sound, is if we get rid of an explicitly white power party.
It's like the rise of white Russian nationalism came AFTER the fall of Nazi Germany. When Nazis were invading Russia, Russians felt as one with all the other non-Russians in the USSR in a grand coaltion. But with the Germans no longer as a threat, USSR began to split along ethnic lines.
I'm not saying the GOP is like the Nazis morally or anything like that. But politically, GOP has a similar effect on many white people. Many whites who do care about white interests personally don't wanna declare it politically cuz it's politically incorrect. GOP is tagged as a white interest/power party. But if we get rid of the GOP, there is simply white interests as white interests in action without it being symbolized and scapegoated as the Great White Evil--the GOP-- that all decent people must unite against.
I don't see the Democratic coalition holding together without the GOP as the bogeyman rallying point. Instead, it's better to have a one party system with liberal Dems vs conservative Dems. Without a clear demarcation between the two sides, we will see REAL divisions along racial and ethnic lines as such exist in NY and Chicago.
Another thing the Right needs to do is to call for Section 8 housing to be built in the richest white and Jewish communities. I mean fair is fair. Why should working class and middle class whites who just escaped from black crime be saddled with the same problems? Let the rich and privileged bear the burden since they are so much better off.
It should be obvious by now that Wall Street and rich urban whites/Jews/Asians are NOT our friends. They love to lord over us morally and stick it to us. We should stick to them. I say section 8 housing all over Lincoln Park. I say every high rise condo should henceforth include 20% underclass blacks.
Steve, good point, and a base appeal to Mexican interests would be that continued Welfare spending requires no lower than 65% White, and continued Affirmative Action hereditary privileges and power requires no lower than 65% White, otherwise the temptation is to simply play turnabout is fair play.
I'm sure you saw the Post story on Obama being depressed, isolated, talking only to Valerie Jarrett and Axelrod. Like a depressive Nixon.
Josh, you mentioned government lawyers and judges forcing us into ridiculousness with "Disparate impact", Title IX and other crap that we pay for and we never voted for. Well, what we need is a Republican who will fire almost all the government attorneys and replace them with pro-American ones.
Justin
Bad idea on the Amero. Loss of sovereignty is a bad thing. Dollar devaluation is very bad. Enforcing the border, like most countries, is a good thing. Why should we suffer dollar devaluation and the accompanying loss of power when it is simple to enforce a border?
Clearly, to promote republican votes, need to promote marriage. Nothing else matters as much, even whiteness.
To promote marriage, have to reduce the very great risk that man with assets takes if he gets married.
What Steve proposes would be a fine strategy, if the Republican party were an organization for representing and looking out for the long term interest of the traditional white majority of this country.
They are not.
The mission of the Republican party is to secure and hold political power for the purpose of representing certain business interests - the defence industry, oil industry, software, and to a lesser extent finance and gambling (well, same thing, really) - certain wealthy individuals, and certain other countries (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Israel, etc.)
This distinguishes them from the Democrats - which is an organization whose mission is to secure and hold political power for the purpose of......representing certain business interests (finance, hollywood, and to a lesser extent defence, oil, and software), certain wealthy individuals, and certain other countries (Israel, Mexico, Israel, etc.)
Conservatives need to stop viewing the Republican party as a salvageable entity and a potential ally. They are our political enemy, no less so than is the democratic party.
Mr. Sailer,
I largely agree with your article, except for one of your strategies:
"since the GOP is inevitably the white party, you want marginally white people from places like Latin America and South Asia to identify as white."
This has many problems, not least of which is the fact that most of the Hispanics coming to the US are not white.
As various bloggers recently pointed out:
"According to the CIA World Fact Book, Mexico is:
60% mestizo
30% Amerindian
Less than 10% European (mostly Spaniard)
Examining genetic ancestral markers, Rubén Lisker has found lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be:
59% Amerindian
34% European [mostly Spaniard]
and 6% black
These people clearly are not white."
Since these people clearly aren't white (i.e. Diaspora Europeans), I don't see what advantage can be gained by lying. In Mexico they don't lie about this -- they call them mestizos, which may make them try to be white even more (e.g. bleaching their skin). But by telling them they're white, why should they even try? And by pretending they're white, it will only cheapen what it means to be white in the US (i.e. a Diaspora European). You don't make a commodity more valuable by cheapening it.
I still think we need a candidate who comes out and campaigns for repealing the Hart-Celler 1965 Immigration Act by explaining how it's destroyed our culture.
BTW, one of the main reasons we need so many regulations in this country is because the post-1965 Immigrants don't have the Western Values the pre-1965 immigrants had.
What happens to SS if Herman Cain wins the GOP nomination?
"Anyway - Phil Gramm shows the extreme danger of combining a senior politician with an economist (especially a hard right-wing dogmatic one), a bigger recipe for disaster cannot be imagined."
Didn't this guy graduate from A&M and/or teach there?
"All aspects of this would be hard sells."
Maybe. But what happens to be a hardsell can become an easy sell. Watching PROHIBITION, lots of things came to mind. For example, nothing happens in a vacuum. There was a real problem with alcoholism in 19th century America with the rise of distilled liquor, which did for drunkeness what the cotton gin did for slavery. Prior to distilled liquor, most folks drank low alcohol cider. It's like there's a difference between chewing on coca leaves(not good) and snorting cocaine(terrible, and smoke crack, horrible). Civil War dampened Prohibition for awhile, but the victory of the abolitionists led to the spirit of moral triumphalism, and do-gooders sought out another great crusade(just like Civil Rights people now latch onto 'gay marriage' and 'slut walks' and like Cold Warriors found new struggles in the Middle East). People who defeated slavery needed a new big moral struggle. Also, the rise of the women's movement dovetailed with the call for temprance since many women were victimized by drunken men and since women needed some big issue to organize around. Immigration issue also entered the fray, pitting Wasps against Catholic newcomers--and also whites vs blacks in the South. Urban and rural divide also fed fuel to the fire. WWI also played a part, what with anti-Germanism making beer culturally incorrect. Also, German-American companies like Anheuseur Busch lost influence. Then the income tax made the government less dependent on tax on alcohol, which made prohibition more doable. Once prohibition happened, its eventual repeal was the product of rise in organized crime, the great depression and need for jobs, reformulation of what women should/could be(good Christian women to 'liberated' women drinking with men), etc.
Anyway, the point is the immigration issue is likewise connected with and functions within the context of other issues. It can thus become moralized or vilified, defended as American as apple pie or as the worm rotting the American fruit, etc. The main moral theme of PROHIBITION was a very Jewish one: immigrants are good and wasps are bad. And of course, it features KKK and the like as anti-immigration forces when, in fact, many on the left(like Samuel Gompers) also opposed immigration. Also, the idea of morally priggish wasps vs more easy going urban Catholics is rather silly given that Catholics were often at the forefront of cultural puritanism in America. Also, the wasps in the West were known for their harddrinking and shooting tooting ways. Cowboy culture revolved around drinking. Just look at the Wild Bunch.
Anyway, Steve Jobs said connect the dots and be creative. Similarly, we need to connect the dots of the immigration issue with all the other issues that are directly or indirectly connected to immigration.
Think of the connections between prohibtion and slavery/WWI/income tax/graft/jazz age/changing role of women/etc. Some of the connections were unforeseen and unlikely but crucial.
Also, people seem most drawn to two kinds of things: moral righteousness and a good time. The issue of prohibition pitted two sides of Americanism: moral reformism vs pursuit of happiness. Teetotalers felt good to be righteous and drinkers felt good to drink. It was do good vs feel good. For a time, do good won over feel good, but there was an eventual compromise. Prohibition was ended but penalties for drunkenness increased. Today, drunken driving is a serious offense, and movies have often depicted drunkards as losers or weaklings, as in Lost Weekend.
It seems like the formula for much of TV shows is a blend of do-good and feel-good. Talk shows and judge shows do just that. They offer a rousing time with lots of laughs, but we are supposed to be sooooooo outraged by such shameful display of louts and cretins. This is why shows like Judge Judy is impure. It peddles what it ostensibly denounces. Same with stuff like Live Aid: come and party and feel good but know you're doing good by saving poor Africans.
I don't know if anti-immigration issue can be similarly made into a do-good issue and feel-good issue. But with economic fears and uncertainties, this is the time to look for creative solutions.
Steve, I don't know if you are familiar with the book 'On Genetic Interests' by the Australian academic Frank Kemp, but it's filled with much suggestive treacle, very similar to the points you are making.
That's Frank Kemp Salter. And Salter is absolutely right about immigration and ethnic genetic interests (EGI).
The difference between the Frum and Sailer versions of the strategy has been that Frum wants to reclaim the Republicans' base of college-educated whites (now Democratic voters), while Sailer wanted to mobilize the MARs.
What the hell is a MAR?
And the Republicans already get the votes of more than 80% of college-educated Whites in the South. You're talking about Northern Whites, not college-educated Whites.
"since the GOP is inevitably the white party, you want marginally white people from places like Latin America and South Asia to identify as white."
This has many problems, not least of which is the fact that most of the Hispanics coming to the US are not white.
Nobody said that "most" Hispanics coming to the US are white, only that it's smart to break up the "Hispanic" coalition by using the fact that it is actually composed of people of several different races.
A very powerful tool in reversing illegal immigration would be to clamp down on the remittance racket. Hispanic neighborhoods all have several wire service remittance locations. It's no secret that a great deal of all the money made by both legals and illegals is transmitted back to Mexico, Guatemala etc. The US government actually encouraged this, idiotically seeing it as a means of economic development and international relations, all at the expense of the American population.
Illegals can purchase cards in our county that for a small fee allow them to transmit funds to matching card numbers honored by the Mexican National Bank and other entities. One such electronic card scheme was actually pioneered by an academic from Princeton (Poni Card).
Most Americans would be incensed to learn that the money paid to illegals is actually sent abroad.
You really must explore and expose this activity.
...Chinese-Americans suffered enough working on the railroad, but we don't have AA for Chinese-Americans at Berkeley and UCLA...
Yeah, but they CHOSE to come over and take jobs on the railroad, Sport.
"#2. We need to argue that much of the present imbalances are due to natural or biological differences among certain groups. The evidence is in sports. Why do blacks dominate? Cuz they're naturally better. There was a lot of white hostility, oppression, discriminatin, etc against blacks in sports too, yet why did blacks eventually take over? Cuz they're simply better at the biological level."
Jody, wake up buddy. This is the part were you educate this "drunk white fan" about how Jacob Hester would be a better rb than Emmit Smith "if he only had a chance"!
Most studies of Mexicans show higher European components than 34% and lower African components than 6%. It varies from region to region, but this paper found a nationwide average of about 42% European, 2% black.
"Yeah, but they CHOSE to come over and take jobs on the railroad, Sport."
True, but like Eastern Europeans who had toil long hours in factories, they got a raw deal. They were promised good work and good pay but were pretty much exploited. And let's not forget the Irish who, fresh off the boat, were conscripted to fight in the Civil War. They too got a raw deal. Even if all those people chose to come here, they didn't choose to be treated like animals. In fact, many were treated worse than black slaves who, as private property and investment, had to be reasonably well fed and taken care of. 'Free laborers', in contrast, could be just exploited and disposed of.
Some say the original sin of America was slavery, but I disagree. (For one thing, wasn't near-genocide of Indians worse than slavery? But, you see, people don't point to that as the original sin. Why not?) The original sin was not slavery but bringing a lot of blacks to this country. Even if 300,000 blacks had been brought to this country as free laborers on a voluntary basis, I believe we would be having the same problems, or even more problems since black craziness and aggression had been under control until the 1960s through all sorts of discriminatory measures. Imagine if blacks had been acting like they've been doing since the 1960s in the early 1800s.
The real problem isn't slavery but blacks, free or as slaves. If Americans had enslaved 300,000 Turks or Cambodians, we wouldn't have the level of problems we do with blacks since Turks or Cambodians are not biologically as powerful and nutty as blacks are. After the end of slavery, Turks or Cambodians would have assimilated better, and there would have been less white fear of Turks or Cams.
Consider that the Middle East and North Africa imported countless Slavic slaves from Europe--often through Jewish intermediaries--, but do we hear of problems resulting from history of white slavery in the Middle East? Do we hear of descendants of white slaves looting and rioting in the Middle East or North Africa? Why not? Because whites don't cause the problems that blacks do.
Just look at blacks in France who arrived freely and were provided with free this/that. They are acting just like American blacks.
So, the great sin was not slavery but bringing blacks to this country. Lincoln understood this. He knew the slavery was bad and had to be ended, but he dearly wished he could give blacks their own country and separate them from whites. He knew that the bigger problem than slavery was blacks themselves.
Politics is like a game of chess.
Suppose Obama is like the King. Important piece but essentially symbolic and powerless. The real power is concentrated in the queen. The queen would be the liberal Jewish elite. Blacks would be like knights, hip-hopping around; one knight would be black music stars, the other would be black athletics and charismatics. One bishop would be SWPL and other would be gays, both very creative. One rook would be Ivory tower intellectauls and other would be blue collar whites. Pawns would be Mexicans--rising in number but lacking in star power; but, if one makes it all the way to the other side of the board, it would signal demographic victory, in which case it can spawn an extra queen, in which case its side will be near invincible. Notice the diversity of the pieces on this side. If used improperly, they can get in each other's way and cause a lot of havoc. But there is a mastermind behind it all--mostly liberal Jews--, and the blue collar, hispanic, black, gay, and intellectual pieces are all brilliantly used in tandem. There is something for everyone. Blacks and Hispanics get something from whitey by sticking with Democrats. Blue collar whites get more benefits and union power. SWPL oddly gain greater privilege & wealth by denouncing white power--just like the communist elites gained greater privilege and power by denouncing inequality(aka more equal than others).
The other side is less diverse. There is the King(the great white man)but no queen. There's are two rooks: Christian Right and upper middle class whites. But no bishops and no knights. All in all, there's the King, two rooks, and 13 white pawns--a real dearth of talent.
Who's gonna win this game?
"True, but like Eastern Europeans who had toil long hours in factories, they got a raw deal."
Sure, they got a raw deal, but the Eastern Europeans WERE FREE TO LEAVE THAT RAW DEAL WHENEVER THEY WANTED. That is the ultimate point.
And yes, the Irish were exploited, but there was never lifetime slavery for the Irish. The were 4-7 year indentured servants who upon separation often got a piece of land, and their children were NOT BORN INTO A LIFE OF SLAVERY.
"In fact, many were treated worse than black slaves who, as private property and investment, had to be reasonably well fed and taken care of."
This is a stormfront myth that I see repeated many, many times over. Indentured servants were "owned property" as slaves were, and were bought and sold. The difference was their period of ownership expired in a short time.
If you'll do your research you will find that many slave owners considered the Irish N-s at the beginning, and in fact brought over Irish women to marry them to African males just to take advantage of a law that said that "anyone who married a slave became one."
The Irish and Africans started revolting side by side, and in order to quell this, slaveowners established two distinct classes of "servant" and "slave" and the white "servants" were given much better accommodations. I didn't make it up, Sport.
MAR = Middle American Radical (a term popularized by the late Sam Francis).
I'd like south asians to be counted as black for political purpsoes
They already are, for all practical purposes. They are already considered a protected minority by the US government. No need to give them any additional government preferences on top of those they currently receive.
Here's another one: switch to the Amero. Being part of the same currency would eliminate the driving force for Hispanic immigration
Yeah, once we form the North American Union (and that's what the "Amero" means) there will be less Hispanic "immigration". Because it's not immigration when you're moving around inside the one country.
"Sure, they got a raw deal, but the Eastern Europeans WERE FREE TO LEAVE THAT RAW DEAL WHENEVER THEY WANTED. That is the ultimate point."
Legally yes. Practically not really.
Post a Comment