David Frum attempts to explain what's inside the head of the typical delegate at last week's GOP convention:
This whole thing about us not being "diverse" enough - can we cut the crap on that? You suddenly load up the country with millions of newcomers, put them on food stamps and unemployment insurance and Medicaid and what all, put them on the voting rolls without any ID - invite them to help themselves to everything that was earned before they showed up - and what do you expect the original Americans to do?
You think we're not diverse? This is what diversity looks like: the newcomers bunching up in one party, the old stock inhabitations bunching up in the other. It's the same in Britain and in France and in Germany, and just about everywhere. You don't like it? Maybe you should have thought of that before you invited half of Mexico to move here.
Nothing against Mexican people! Or black people! Or any kind of people! So long as they pull their weight. Maybe instead of asking us why all these so-called diverse people are not Republicans, maybe you should ask them why they don't support the party for the people who do the work and pay the bills. Maybe it's their problem, not ours, that they identify with a president who is tearing down everything I grew up with.
Whoever you blame, I don't see why I should change my beliefs just because somebody with a different color skin doesn't like them. I don't like Barack Obama's beliefs, but he won't change them on my account. Why is it that the guy with the white skin has to change his mind, not the guy with the other kind of skin? Or why can't we just respect the fact that some of us have one set of beliefs - others have different beliefs - and let us all compete on voting day and may the best team win? Why do you liberals always have to be dragging race into it? Makes me think that it's you guys, who are always blaming just one race for everything that's wrong with America, who are the real racists.
What you want is a country where everybody looks different, and everybody thinks the same. That's what you call diversity. No thanks. You work hard, you pay your way, you quit asking for handouts, and you're American enough for me - and you'll be up there on the podium with Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Herman Cain, and Nikki Haley as a leader of the one party in this country that isn't hung up on race.
Well said, but I think you can notice the areas of weakness in this mindset that will relentlessly be exploited.
Posts
135 comments:
"you're American enough for me"
The words of unconditional surrender and perpetual retreat.
Wow, that was so cool. Soaring, wondrous, beautiful.
Then he fumbles on the one yard line with the ritual groveling and need to display/pander to non-whites.
Actually, he already scored. Didn't need to say anything more, could have just left that last sentence off and ended things.
But he just couldn't, because, well he couldn't overcome the ritual expiation of evil whiteness.
Nonetheless, it is progress.
"Let's compete on voting day to see who wins..." (after we've patronized and bought the votes that are for sale).
Nothing like a Canadian lecturing Americans and non Americans on how to be American.
Yes, well said, but he can't help but adopt the angry tone that is typical of Leftists talking about such things.
Diversity is a just a code word for less White People. Nobody says an Asian country that is virtually 100% Asian needs more diversity. Nobody says an African country that is almost all Black needs more diversity. Anti-Whites claim “anti-racism” and demand diversity for White countries and ONLY White countries.
They demand diversity only for White schools, White cities, White churches and White sports. All such things need diversity (less White people), but a black or Asian community can be 100% homogeneous, and no one says anything. It's pretty obvious who is being targeted, isn't it?
Sorry, Mr. Frum, but the degeneration of American politics into a racially based neo-feudal system of awarding fiefdoms is here to stay - and stay for good.
It's no going away - deal with it.
Of course, the Reagan amnesty nor Georgie W. Bush Chicken McAmnesty never helped or even the jowl-hound's first foray at enforcing fiefdom's with Crown violence ('affirmative action' to you), the jowl-hound slipped that in between bouts of 'licking his nuts' (metaphorically speaking of course) and paranoidly taping every fart, whisper and belch that passed in the White House.
Sorry, Mr. Frum old buddy ever since the saintly, martyred JFK trounced the jowlhound on the old monochrome TV in 1960 ('vital triangle contraction' was the mad-men jargon of the day), and JFK got in by promising more goodies to 'oppressed minorities', that's the way it is.
In fact it's the only game in town and it ain't gonna change. Except the Repugnants have their beady, greedy little eyes off the ball and just as arch bum-boy Gringrich does, have a fetish and fascination for 'licking the nuts' of the 1% super-rich whilst muffling laughs at the porn and tax fodder 'disgusting white trash, flyover people, golf-buggied and oxygen tubed, 'tea partiers'.
Sorry old chum, call me a nasty bastard, but that's the way it is.
Weaknesses such as what? Slaves built the country?
Please...
Poor Republicans, bringing a knife to a gunfight. Or should I say, a pillow to a knife fight.
Maybe Frumster the Canuck had a falling out with the neocons and now he's searching for a new home?
The above is good stuff, but he has a long way to go to make up for his hatchet job on Buchanan, his Iraq Attaq cheerleading, his support for "gay marriage" whatever that is, and his..how shall I say it...Jewish style of debate: character assassination, shrill accusations of various thoughtcrimes, and name-calling.
Maybe he's smart enough to realize all this diversity isn't going to be good for jews in the long run so now he wants to be friends again?
Does Frum think that he's being snarky here?
'Cause it ain't coming across as snark to me - it sounds pretty dadgum straightforward to my ear.
I dunno - maybe the typical NYC Scots-Irishman thinks that that's what snark amounts to these days? Who knows?
And, quite frankly, who cares?
I know some delegates and they're as deluded on race as everyone else..hence the continued enthusiasm for condoleeza rice. White consciousness is still taboo in the rank and file.
The part about the approved form of "diversity" consisting of people who all look different but think alike is very good. However, he's still locked into this 'I'm not a racist" (INAR) mode of thought and thus just ends up focusing on secondary issues like welfare and such. Admit it, third world people = third world environment and nobody wants to live in the third world. I'd like to see people start to break through the invisible INAR barrier that's been imposed on their thinking.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/how-protestantism-lost-its-mind/
David Frum said that? The David Frum that was once slightly conservative and then became Andrew Sullivan in men's clothing?
Guessing it's these two:
Nothing against Mexican people! Or black people! Or any kind of people! So long as they pull their weight.
You work hard, you pay your way, you quit asking for handouts, and you're American enough for me - and you'll be up there on the podium with Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Herman Cain, and Nikki Haley as a leader of the one party in this country that isn't hung up on race.
By making yourself out to not "be hung up about race", you set yourself up to be affected by those who would call you racist.
There is also the implication that you can cross the border illegally so long as you pay taxes and don't use welfare. This is not the main issue, only a major irritant. If you allow your country to be swamped by third world immigrants, your country will start to become a third world country - with all the squalid living conditions, corruption and crime that goes along with that.
It's more than that too: freedom of association. Races differ, and we should be able to live apart from more criminally prone races without permanently paying the costs to repeatedly move to a nice neighbourhood only to be ethnically cleansed from it via crime.
Oh yes, it's also about maintaining our ability to have a majority vote in a democracy. Lose that, and the only way to prevent being shafted by mob rule is to rebel.
I have a problem with people even if they do pull their weight.
I don't enjoy being racially cleansed by low or high achievers.
re: weakness; what:
> Nothing against Mexican people! Or black people! Or any kind of people! So long as they pull their weight.
"But they are pulling their weight, construction is hard work!" or, "They just need help for a bit, they've come to the country to work after all! Immigrant vigor!"
?
Boring.
I wonder why Frum chose now to make this comment? He's a little late to the party. Is there even a party at this point?
Either way, I always get a kick out of the typical multicult claims that America has always been diverse, as if Mexicans, Muslims, Vietnamese and non-slave Africans have always been here in large numbers, but blame for America's sins always go in one direction.
Other than being exposed to the Left's charge that Republican racsism is the basis of the idea that immigrants are the problem, I can only identify the final paragraph as the source of any ideas whose weaknesses will be exploited: that the GOP status quo is the solution.
I rank you as the best non-fiction (non-long form) writer in America overall and Frum as among the best in the mainstream media (writers who appear on CNN or get published on paper, etc.).
However, I waver on Frum's trustworthyness. He'll write indispensable columns on immigrations every once in awhile (b/c no one else on CNN or in the NYT makes those points) but then he has young henchmen on his blog writing articles with headlines like "Why McCain's warnings on immigration must be headed".
Frum has swung left, and this piece is his own entry in the "Republicans are racists" essay contest. To readers of iSteve he comes across as logical and hard-hitting but most Obama fans will take it as confirmation of what they've been thinking.
In an odd way, then, this essay will appeal to almost everyone.
Can you imagine if Mitt Romney gave this speech? Is there any question that he'd win big?
Sure, he'd lose some of the Mexican vote, but how much of that is he going to get in full pandering mode? 30%, maybe? How many actual votes, especially in battleground states?
But how many more demoralized Republicans and even Reagan Democrat types would be damn sure to show up on election day after a speech like that? The GOP doesn't have to seduce voters away from Obama, after all, or get new people to vote. Obama beat McCain by less than 10 million votes. There are 55 million registered Republicans, and only about half of them show up for a typical election. So all Romney has to do is get another quarter of them to bother to vote, and he wins easily.
There's no other issue on which he could as quickly and definitively stir up that kind of excitement among his base, next to having a road-to-Damascus conversion on immigration. The fact that he (or any other Republican anywhere near office) would never do such a thing, tells me that while they might like to win, there are two things they care about more: keeping the cheap labor coming, and not giving the media any chance to call them (more) racist.
Though increasing diversity of America is bad for the GOP, has it been used as something of a red herring by HBD community?
Suppose California had only whites. Wouldn't it still be Democratic since the majority of whites over there are Democratic? And look at Oregon and Washington. While rising diversity favors Democrats EVEN MORE, the fact is a lot of affluent states with lots of whites tend to be Democratic and liberal. Seattle and Portland are very white cities but among the most liberal.
And look at Iowa in 2008. A very white state, but it went for Obama by 60%. And Michigan, Illnois, Wisconsin, Minnesota are still solidly majority white but very much in the Democratic column.
So, to blame the fall of the GOP since the Reagan era on rising diversity is something of a red herring. The more relevant question is WHY DID THE GOP LOSE THE WHITE VOTE IN STATES OUTSIDE OF THE DEEP SOUTH?
Part of the answer can be found in the Deep South itself. As the GOP became more closely aligned with White Southerners--and their neo-Confederacy and Stars-and-Bars symbolism, Evangelicalism that espouses Creationism, anti-intellectualism, redneck beerbelly image, etc.--the Party of Lincoln became the party of Lincoln Rockwell in the eyes of many educated and moderate conservatives outside Southern states.
Sailer Strategy calls for appealing to whites, but whites are the most educated people in America, especially in the Northern and Western states. How can the GOP appeal to educated whites when it appeals so much to dummies in the South who wave the Confed flag, believe in Creationism, oppose stem cell research, and even oppose abortion for victims of rape?
So, it was only natural that the a lot of the moderate and intelligent conservatives who used to be with the GOP left the party and joined the Democrats or chose to be independent. It was one thing for the GOP to oppose stuff like BUSING but quite another to wrap itself with the Confederate flag.
Sailer Strategy is flawed in this sense: It thinks in terms of whites and non-whites. But in fact, society is really ruled by smart people, successful people, by the elites. Elites tend to be intelligent. So, the party that wins over more intelligent people wins in the long run. Intelligent people have more money and more influence. But the GOP did everything to drive out intelligent and creative people away.
Another problem. GOP thought it could appeal to smart/rich/powerful people by being pro-super-rich. So, GOP has been for tax cuts and more tax cuts for the rich. But as Jesus said, 'man doesn't live on bread alone.' Though money is nice, people wanna be liked and admired for their 'goodness' and 'intellectual awareness'. Rich people like Bill Gates are among the most vain in the world. They may want more money but they also want to be loved. Why should such people go with the GOP when GOP is only about tax cuts for the rich? If Gates sided with GOP, he would come across as greedy. There is the moral side of GOP in the Christian Right, but it is stuuuuuuupid! Sarah Palin holding up her Mongolism kid is hardly inspiring to people of any intelligence.
Knowing the importance of Jewish power, the GOP appealed to Zionist impulses among Jews, but this only goes so far. Though most Jews are Zionist and want US to support Israel, the matter of Zionism has always been sort of troubling for Jews. Jews want it but not too loudly because Zionism is ideologically rightwing and nationalist and what happened to Palestinians wasn't pretty. Jews want the support but discreetly not loudly. But GOP is for 'we must support Jews to kick Palestinian ass.' This isn't gonna win over Jews.
I think what Frum is conjuring up are the Tea Party attitudes, and that is not typical of the GOP types who actually become delegates. Even Ron Paul people haven't really been able to crack that nut.
No handouts? You mean how the Romneys were on welfare when George, Mitt's Father, immigrated here according to Romney's own mom:
http://youtu.be/_DgB3WASwXA
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. How blind can a person be? Isn't this person aware of the fact that plenty of Republican leaders are very enthusiastic about bringing in more immigrants? Reducing immigration is no where close to being a priority issue for Republicans at the national level, unlike say lowering taxes or banning abortion.
Either make immigration reduction a major issue or THE main issue for Republicans or find a third party that will. Republicans who favor reducing immigration are only fooling themselves if they believe Romney or those close to him are better than Obama or the Democrats when it comes to immigration. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney(considering how liberal or "moderate" he is), if elected, pushes for a general amnesty for ALL illegals and opened the borders further.
Granted, at the local level(like in Arizona and some other states), Republicans are far better when it comes to immmigration than Democrats, but virtually none of these politicians is ever a serious presidential contender.
The egregious Frum
David Frum nailed it.
You work hard, you pay your way, you quit asking for handouts, and you're American enough for me - and you'll be up there on the podium with Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Herman Cain, and Nikki Haley as a leader of the one party in this country that isn't hung up on race.
Interesting how Frum lumps blacks and indians together as examples of "the other kind of skin". But not hispanics...
Nice back-handed compliment, Steve. While I appreciate your pointing out Frum's observation, where's your contribution aside from a nebulous allusion to weaknesses that will be exploited? Yeah, he'll be accused of "overgeneralizing" by the race-baiters, which to their mind is tantamount to racism, but what exactly do you have in mind? Or are you content to be merely allusive?
I WISH the GOP attendants actually vocalized sentiments like that. While I agree that more people in the GOP have personal beliefs much closer to those of paleoconservatives, most are far too timid to express them publicly.
While this is startling, even amazing, coming from an establishmentarian like Frum, he just HAS to put in this:
Nothing against Mexican people! Or black people! Or any kind of people!
** sigh **
It's actually brilliant. I think he sympathetically explained where the confused non-racial average Republican's mind is.
"Well said, but I think you can notice the areas of weakness in this mindset that will relentlessly be exploited."
Not sure what you mean by that. Exploited by whom?
To me, the weakness in this theoretical Angry White Republican mindset is this:
"My son's married to a Chinese girl, and my grandkids will be half Chinese. Doesn't bother me. I just want us all to be Americans."
Who's gonna marry his daughter? Is she going to marry a Chinese guy? I don't think so. I think she's probably not going to get married. So that's ohfertwo in the white column. Multiply that by millions and you have a demographic disaster.
Hello 2042.
But that's not taking anything away from Frum, who illustrated the befuddled white Republican mindset very well. Good job.
If even Frum gets it, then perhaps the day is coming when the ferocious bigotry at the heart of modern liberalism will finally start to be acknowledged by "the elite".
It's not like this bigotry has ever bothered to hide itself. From Sontag's "The white race is the cancer of human history" to Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" to Yglesias and "The Unbearable Whiteness of Apple's Executive Team", liberalism has always been about as subtle in its biases as the Nazi Party. No dog whistles here - they tell you flat out in very explicit language who the Bad Guys are.
To which Frum then added,
"Just don't question the necessity, or even the logic, of the military and monetary aid commitments of the United States to Israel, as this putative political truth--belonging to the Party of Lincoln, rather than to that of Barry Soetoro--is beyond discussion, let alone overt criticism.
You wouldn't want to be labelled as "unpatriotic," would you? (Because I could go there, have before.)
And, really, who could feel anything but unalloyed love for a government--a nation and its ruling elite being as one, you see--who seeks, at home, the demographic dispossession of its traditional population, while pursuing abroad a foreign policy which inspires only scorn and hatred towards America, a nation which resembles less and less that for which the Republican party's ever-dwindling white base still maintains a nostalgic patriotism."
Seems as though a significant percentage of the commenters missed the fact that this was meant as satire. It's not good satire, mind you, and those praising the genius of Frum need to adjust their opinions accordingly.
Can't anybody read? This "one imaginative guess" is written in a populist Republican voice, which Frum tries to empathize with but obviously does not identify with. He's trying to understand how that typical delegate thinks and feels. When was the last time a columnist on the resentful right really tried to understand people who didn't think like him?
I think Frum is one the absolutely best political pundits out there, one of the very few who really thinks.
"Though most Jews are Zionist and want US to support Israel, the matter of Zionism has always been sort of troubling for Jews. Jews want it but not too loudly because Zionism is ideologically rightwing and nationalist and what happened to Palestinians wasn't pretty. Jews want the support but discreetly not loudly. But GOP is for 'we must support Jews to kick Palestinian ass.' This isn't gonna win over Jews."
That's well worth keeping in mind. The Republicans talk to Sheldon Adelson, but he represents maybe 20% of Jewish voters, while Haim Saban represents at least 60%, and say Noam Chomsky the other 20%, but they'll never vote Republican. Saban wants to have a say in who will be secretary of state, to influence things discreetly, to run Jewish-only charitable events where a little discreet ass-kickery can be boasted about, but basically keep things nice and quiet. He's happy with the Dems, so that leaves the GOP permanently stuck at about 20% with Jews.
Yes I thought what Frum said was excellent, a good articulation at the heart of the frustration of wh**e people. If it wasn't for the moral goodness of the Democrats and their mainly Black centered constituency, these frustrations might be heard. Unfortunately Blacks were oppressed for so long and thus gained such ineffable wisdom and goodness that they cannot be gainsayed. Frum's comments will fade from the consciousness of whites who know, in their hearts that the Black Party(Democrats) has climbed Mt. Moralhiground and that is all there is to it.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/sailer-strategy-supplement-rebrand-democrats-as-the-black-party
Of course it's meant as satire. Doesn't mean it's wrong to take it seriously. "The Shortest Way With The Dissenters" was intended as a kind of satire, ffs.
Suppose California had only whites. Wouldn't it still be Democratic since the majority of whites over there are Democratic?
No. It was not Democratic when it voted for Reagan twice for Governor, and then twice for President. It has become much more Democratic over time, but only as a result of demographic changes which Reagan (ironically enough) did much to bring about.
2008 was perhaps the worst year for the GOP in a Presidential election since the time of FDR. Still, McCain beat Obama among both white men and white women. Overall McCain beat Obama by 55% to 43% ... among whites. That's a big margin!
But whites were only 74% of the voters, and among the non-white 26% Obama won by enormous margins.
Diversity, as it is practiced, is legalized discrimination against white men.
We never hear, "there are too few male nurses and teachers, so we must to create special training programs and lower the standards for men".
It's always a version of, "there are too few women and minorities in STEM. It must be discrimination. We need to create and fund special training programs and pretend to not lower standards".
Read The Diversity Machine and Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, both by Claremont McKenna professor Frederick Lynch
"Jewish style of debate: character assassination, shrill accusations of various thought crimes, and name-calling."
ROTFLMAO
Classic ... that's good ... really good... and so true.
So, to blame the fall of the GOP since the Reagan era on rising diversity is something of a red herring. The more relevant question is WHY DID THE GOP LOSE THE WHITE VOTE IN STATES OUTSIDE OF THE DEEP SOUTH?
I've wondered about this myself. The simplest possible explanation might just be that uncritical support of vibrancy is only possible in the absence of vibrancy. So mostly white Vermont is very much to the left, while much less white Louisiana is very conservative - despite its non-whites voting solidly left. The white voting bloc is very solid and makes up for the large minority population.
Now if only someone came up with some kind of... strategy... to replicate this outside of the south...
We know it's satire. But it shouldn't be because they're reasonable sentiments. If only the GOP delegates would really express them.
WHY DID THE GOP LOSE THE WHITE VOTE IN STATES OUTSIDE OF THE DEEP SOUTH?
I don't think they did.
In 2008, in a very bad year for Republicans, in the very liberal state of New Jersey, the majority of whites voted for McCain.
The GOP's share of the white vote has not been dropping.
The weakness is that his sympathetic republican sees this as a proposition nation. The proposition being: If you work hard, you're one of us. Hard work should be expected from everyone in the nation whether or not the value of that work is more than or less than the burden you put on society.
The idea is exploited when immigration is justified because the newcomers work hard, but that hard work doesn't have nearly enough value to cover their burden on the state.
Natives should be judged on the content of their character, but potential immigrants should also be judged on the content of their crainium.
"The weakness is that his sympathetic republican sees this as a proposition nation. The proposition being: If you work hard, you're one of us."
Right. There are a lot of hard-working people in this world, but that shouldn't allow them to declare themselves Americans.
This, by the way, is probably the most unexpressed sentiment in American public life. It's one of those ideas that is so fundamentally obvious that it's treated as complete extremist crimethink.
I guess you could call it satire, but it's more than that. It's a weird mixture of satire and empathy: empathic satire, if that's not a contradiction in terms. Maybe that's why it's not good satire, as Anonymous said. I'm trying to think of other "satire" written in this tone, maybe some canonical example, but I'm drawing a blank.
No mention of crime.
Suppose California had only whites. Wouldn't it still be Democratic since the majority of whites over there are Democratic?
Obama only won 52-46 among California whites. California whites went something like 58-42 Bush+Perot over Clinton in 1992.
Nothing against Mexican people! Or black people! Or any kind of people! So long as they pull their weight.
You work hard, you pay your way, you quit asking for handouts, and you're American enough for me - and you'll be up there on the podium with Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Herman Cain, and Nikki Haley as a leader of the one party in this country that isn't hung up on race.
I think the problem, er, "some people" have with this sentiment is that while it's often sincere, it's not the result of any deep thinking. It's mostly unconscious, the result of seeking the path of least resistance; or in academic speak I've seen it's not an "achieved" attitude. That means it could change very, very quickly and that, in the eyes of the anti-white power structure, is highly problematic. Under this regime, if you're white you can basically get away with thinking whatever you want -- they might not like it, but however grudgingly, they'll let you think it -- so long as you do not think that your race matters. When you get down to it, it's not really about very much more than this, is it?
Steve Sailer writes: There are a lot of hard-working people in this world, but that shouldn't allow them to declare themselves Americans.
Of course David Frum agrees with you there, but for different reasons. As I'm sure you know, he's called for a complete moratorium on immigration.
In context, Frum's character (not Frum) is saying, "If you work hard (and if you're a US citizen), then you're one of us.
Tom Wolfe books are full of empathic satire. It's an excellent genre. You imagine yourself in the shoes of somebody else, but maintain a certain logical reserve and don't go all mushy about feelings.
@Aaron, no I don't think people here read. The article was an imaginative foray into the mind of modern Republicanus Americanus, not a laundry list of paleo-con and beta-con grievances. As such, it was excellent. Modern Republicans are as assiduously non-racial as any liberal Democrat, and they are sincerely outraged at being called racist - at this juncture. 25 years from now....after being accused of racism for the weather, and when the demographic chickens have come to roost, this may change.
But for now, this is fact. Sailer readers, who include a fair amount of crude Jew baiters and haters, can't stand this, and lash out when someone sympathetically describes their plight.
He did a good job exploring their mindset. Reminds me of what Safire used to do occasionally.
The only one I've read (or ever will read) is Bonfire, but I think you're right. Wolfe didn't really stick the knife in. Maybe that's what I meant more than empathy. Compassionate satire? Frum doesn't really stick the knife into his Republican delegate here, or into his Tea Party characters in Patriots either. (No, I didn't read it; he posted an excerpt on his blog.)
Waugh empathizes and sympathizes with Tony Last in A Handful of Dust, but he still sticks the knife in. Yeah, I think I mean compassionate satire.
Frum has his heart in the right place; but:
1. One shouldn't expect to lecture and/or patronize people who take handouts in to not supporting the party that votes for handouts.
2. He focuses too much on changing minds that are difficult to change (see above), rather than using the Sailer Strategy, which, for the time being, should still work out mathematically.
Risto
Mittens and PX Ryan have each personally taken handouts.
I like "empathic satire." Wolfe's short book combining two long articles, Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, is a prime example. The first is written in a high society tone, the second in a ghetto tone. You really get a sense of how these various people think and a certain amount of sympathy for them. Wolfe simply doesn't censor out all the parts that would diminish sympathy the way most journalists would. Everybody has a lot to say for themselves: what empathetic satire does is it says it all, including the stuff that a PR flack would want to leave out.
Mittens and PX Ryan have each personally taken handouts.
But remember, everyone! Troot is an undecided centrist who has never voted Democratic in his life!
Frum distanced himself by satire, then came very close to defining us as a culture, but then left himself an out by stating, in several places, we're a proposition.
Omit lines like this: "You work hard, you pay your way, you quit asking for handouts, and you're American enough for me" and you might be getting paid via Vdare instead of Newsweek.
Sailer readers, who include a fair amount of crude Jew baiters and haters ..
In the Jewish mind, while it is of course theoretically possible to offer serious criticism of Jews, 99% of all actual criticism of Jews comes from "crude Jew baiters and haters". How very convenient.
I will always, and I rarely say this, HATE David Frum. He believes Israel is the 51st state because it works on propositions similar to the U.S.'s. A "we're a lot like the U.S., so Americans should look after our interests." attitude. When more patriotic men didn't defer to this idea, he crushed them.
That's well worth keeping in mind. The Republicans talk to Sheldon Adelson, but he represents maybe 20% of Jewish voters, while Haim Saban represents at least 60%, and say Noam Chomsky the other 20%, but they'll never vote Republican. Saban wants to have a say in who will be secretary of state, to influence things discreetly, to run Jewish-only charitable events where a little discreet ass-kickery can be boasted about, but basically keep things nice and quiet. He's happy with the Dems, so that leaves the GOP permanently stuck at about 20% with Jews.
Some of the formerly Democrat Jews who end up going Republican seem to be seriously unhinged. For example, this writer regularly takes liberal positions on immigration, social issues, etc., and appears to have only become a Republican because he fears the Democrats are going to inflict another Holocaust:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/09/06/jerusalem-debacle-at-the-dnc/
"I was both elated and scared when I heard the “nays” and “boos” emanating from the Democratic National Convention floor Wednesday as a pathetic Antonio Villaraigosa desperately tried to take votes amending the Democratic platform on “God” and “Jerusalem” — elated because I was watching a bogus public dumb show come apart, at least temporarily, at the seams, but scared because I was staring, again at least temporarily, into the gaping yaw of the 1930s.
For those fleeting seconds, I realized that, yes, it could also happen here, because, make no mistake about it, those copious boos were not for “God” (except, perhaps, for a few scattered nitwits), but for Israel. A sizable and serious claque on the Democratic National Convention floor was shouting and applauding against the Jews.
Back when I was a kid, when I used to see the Auschwitz numbers on the arms of the nurses in my doctor father’s office, I would wonder how something that horrible could happen. It was beyond my childhood imagination. No longer, unfortunately."
Steve,
Is the GOP interested in votes, or cash? For raising money, it may be that the only Jews available to hit up for donations (the ones who are willing to ditch the Democrats) are the hard-line Likud types.
This is what diversity looks like: the newcomers bunching up in one party, the old stock inhabitations bunching up in the other.
1. Blacks are older stock in America than most Republicans.
2. Most of the recent newcomers were brought in by Republicans. Remember the Reagan Amnesty?
satire
Well, that's my point - if it's supposed to be snark, or satire, or whatever, then it sure doesn't read that way.
Snark is supposed to be funny or ironic or at least witty.
Or maybe he's gonna try to re-write history and declare that the real snark was all that nonsense about "the crease in [Obama's] pants"?
Who knows?
And, again, who cares?
For example, that Monty Python clip I link to a lot called "The Protestant View" about population control is an excellent example. I wouldn't be surprised if that's more or less what Graham Chapman believes, but there's no censorship, self or otherwise, to make it more palatably dull. The whole logic is worked out at length. So, it's both funny but also kind of thrilling.
Relevant campaign button at DNC:
"One you vote black you never go back."
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/convention-goer-stands-convention-floor-first-day-democratic-photo-230750114.html
"It's actually brilliant. I think he sympathetically explained where the confused non-racial average Republican's mind is."
Exactly. I live among these people, and he nails their beliefs perfectly, which is pretty impressive for a beltway guy.
They really do not care what color you are. They really do think it's the "content of your character" and your willingness to work hard that determine your level of achievement (all of it, not just part of it). They're completely unaware of the race-IQ gap, and would repeat what they've been told about IQ being unreal anyway. They're vaguely aware of the race-crime and race-success gaps, but they think those must be caused by poverty and/or the lowered expectations caused by affirmative action and other handouts (or that they're simply lies). They even sympathize with illegal aliens enough that they don't like the idea of kicking them out; they just don't want to give them special favors like in-state tuition prices.
In other words, they really do believe in a proposition nation, in which people of any heritage could thrive contentedly as long as the laws were fair. They're just upset that the rules are getting so stacked against them, and that when they complain about this, they're called racist, when that's the last thing they would ever be.
1. Blacks are older stock in America than most Republicans.
Hmmm, possibly true, in the sense of 'being in America'.
2. Most of the recent newcomers were brought in by Republicans. Remember the Reagan Amnesty?
False. Legal immigration is larger than illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy gave us the big 1965 opening of the flood gates (not that Republicans resisted).
"Jewish style of debate: character assassination, shrill accusations of various thought crimes, and name-calling."
It worked for the Iraq War.
I suspect that Frum's essay may seem "brilliant" to Jewish readers who are sympathetic to conservatives, because it contains the revelation (to Jews) that most Whites aren't racist just because they are conservative.
However, I am confident that most Whites (either liberal or conservative) who grew up around other Whites are already aware that most Whites (95% or higher I think) are simply not racist. Frum's essay is old news.
Whites are on average highly individualistic non-tribal and have a strong predisposition to accept and embrace universal principles (that's why Christianity appealed to them).
I mean can you think of another group who actually had a war to free another group from slavery (which by the way is still being practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East OVER A HUNDRED YEARS later)?
By far the most bigoted behavior I have ever encountered or witnessed was from Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics ... so it is not surprising to me that the Democratic party now seems racist and Anti-White to many Whites.
Ted Kennedy gave us the big 1965 opening of the flood gates (not that Republicans resisted).
How many times is this falsehood going to be repeated? Though Senator Kennedy vigorously supported this bill in the Senate, he did not write the legislation, and he could not and did not introduce it into the House of Representatives, nor did he sign it into law.
The ringleaders to blame are:
1) Representative Emanuel Celler who wrote this terrible legislation and introduced it into the House. He spent most of his House career fighting for more lax immigration. He is the guy who should be getting the attention that has been directed at Kennedy. But for some reason, no one knows who this guy is. What a great bit of deception here. You write the most heinous piece of legislation in American history and a drunken Irishman takes the blame.
2) Senator Philip Hart who cosponsored this legislation in the Senate.
3) President Johnson who signed it into law. This guy might be the worst president in US history.
I am no fan of kennedy, but let's give credit where credit is due when it come to the 1965 Immigration Act.
[semi-spoilers follow for the novels Bonfire of the Vanities and A Handful of Dust]
"The only one I've read (or ever will read) is Bonfire, but I think you're right. Wolfe didn't really stick the knife in.
[...]
Waugh empathizes and sympathizes with Tony Last in A Handful of Dust, but he still sticks the knife in."
I'm not sure how big the difference is here. When you consider the protagonists in both books, it's hard to think of a worse fate than Tony Last's, but Sherman's life is pretty much ruined at the end of Bonfire, though he earns a certain measure of dignity along the way, and his lawyer is kind enough to note that he would have been vindicated if tried in foro conscientiae (though the lawyer isn't kind enough to continue representing Sherman when the money runs out). So it seems like Wolfe's sticking the knife in there.
"Sorry, Mr. Frum, but the degeneration of American politics into a racially based neo-feudal system of awarding fiefdoms is here to stay - and stay for good.
It's no going away - deal with it."
Conservatives need accept that "colorblindness" will never be a reality and act accordingly.
"I like "empathic satire." Wolfe's short book combining two long articles, Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, is a prime example. The first is written in a high society tone, the second in a ghetto tone. You really get a sense of how these various people think and a certain amount of sympathy for them. Wolfe simply doesn't censor out all the parts that would diminish sympathy the way most journalists would. Everybody has a lot to say for themselves: what empathetic satire does is it says it all, including the stuff that a PR flack would want to leave out. "
That's why the best satire is unintentional self-satire.
"Though most Jews are Zionist and want US to support Israel, the matter of Zionism has always been sort of troubling for Jews. Jews want it but not too loudly because Zionism is ideologically rightwing and nationalist and what happened to Palestinians wasn't pretty. Jews want the support but discreetly not loudly. But GOP is for 'we must support Jews to kick Palestinian ass.' This isn't gonna win over Jews."
I would go further and state that most American Jews are to some extent sincere liberals who genuinely do not approve of current Israeli policies. They may have a double standard about Israeli nationalism vs. nationalism in Western countries, but that doesn't mean they support further ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank.
Brain dead fundamentalist conservatives keep banging their heads up against this wall I think in part because most of them don't know any Jews in real life.
Jews are also turned off by the naked sycophancy of these people and their perky, earnest, naive demeanor. It's the exact opposite of typical Jewish attitudes and behavior.
@Aaron,
"Exactly. I live among these people, and he nails their beliefs perfectly, which is pretty impressive for a beltway guy."
And I don't think that this was satire, as you and Steve Sailer seem to be saying. I think Frum is actually trying to explain in a sympathetic (or empathic, I can never tell the diff between the two) way, the mentality of these people to Daily Beast readers.
Now, in that, I think the man is utterly deluded, because Daily Beast readers are monstrous a-moral creeps. But that's his business.
"They're completely unaware of the race-IQ gap...."
Yes, exactly.
"They even sympathize with illegal aliens enough"
Actually, the biggest supporters of illegal aliens that I know are Texas Republicans. It is not unfair to say that the illegal alien problem was BORN in this state, under Republican leadership. For at least 20 years, they have been employing illegals in their homes and facilitating the invasion. I know this personally.
Obviously, the illegal invasion is a bigger problem than that, but Texas Repubs deserve a huge share of the blame.
But...it's always easier to blame Jews. End of discussion.
"In other words, they really do believe in a proposition nation, in which people of any heritage could thrive contentedly"
I thought the bit about the Chinese daughter-in-law was especially on-target.
What about his daughter? She gonna find a husband in the New America? Maybe a Chinese engineer, or a Mexican drywaller will marry her.
Like I said, in 25 years, when the demographic disaster is upon us, this naive fool will be singing a different tune, but by then, it will be too late. Until then, he will be screaming, "I'm not a racist!" at the top of his lungs.
Hey, just out of curiosity n' all, I'll grant you that a plurality of Jews are of slightly different disposition to a plurality of white American gentiles but - an' Im jussa askin' here - aren't they, as in *we* - the most astoundingly impressive race ever to walk the face of the Earth?
Yes, there are downsides to their racial averages, both to themselves and others and - heck - I won't even enter into any sort of moral calculation about what "good" they've brought to you, your neighbor or your neighbor's ass but simply as a *species* does any other species come close?
On a per capita basis, next to the Jews, it's almost impossible to distinguish the chinaman from the negro. Seriously. This perpetually tiny people is - and FOREVER has been - more full of awe-inspiring hominids than any people twenty times its size.
Ain't y'all ashamed to come from such inferior stock compared to us juden?
The prolific, ubiquitous, and schizophrenic commenter "Anonymous" makes an interesting point about the southern dullards with their anti-intellectual, redneck, beerbellies. I have noticed the exact same thing. Every time I see white southerners on that magic box in my living room they're acting the same damn way. And in movies too. Comedy, drama, horror, you name it--dumb belching, beerbellies. How gauche! I'd never have believed it if not for seeing with my own eyes. I'm glad we've got the guys in Hollywood to put cameras on the truth...who are those fellows anyway? No matter.
The important thing to know is that there are differences in intelligence between northern and southern whites. Observable differences. One group understands race and its impact on society while the other wouldn't know HBD until the first two letters had entered their descending colon. This obtuseness is really quite off-putting and I think will ultimately lead to the smarter group seeking to unshackle itself from the dumber one. And since the latter knows it would flounder in the fracture it will cling desperately to the union. This could all result in a goddamned civil war.
I would go further and state that most American Jews are to some extent sincere liberals who genuinely do not approve of current Israeli policies.
They certainly have an odd way of expressing that sincere disapproval of current Israel policies. As a rule, when Jews favor A and oppose B, they go to great pains to make sure that everybody knows about it. They go to great pains to drag the rest of the world around to whatever "A" is. Look at Jews and "gay marriage" for an example.
If most American Jews really opposed current Israeli policy, then Israel would not and could not have such a policy. If most American Jews really opposed current Israeli policy, then the two American political parties would not compete with each other in the stridency of their support for keeping Israel an intact and specifically Jewish state.
"Most of the recent newcomers were brought in by Republicans. Remember the Reagan Amnesty?"
False. Legal immigration is larger than illegal immigration.
The Reagan Amnesty was legal immigration. Or it least it legalized immigration which had been illegal prior to the amnesty.
Ted Kennedy gave us the big 1965 opening of the flood gates
No matter how often people say this it remains untrue. What opened the floodgates was not the 1965 Immigration Reform bill, but the combination of that plus the policy of de fact open borders which developed in the 1980's and after.
Millions of illegal aliens enter the country. The federal government goes to great pains to not get rid of them. After a period of time the federal government decides that the only "fair" thing to do is to grant US citizenship to X million illegals. None of this is the fault of the 1965 immigration bill.
Now, after those X million illegals are granted US citizenship they have the right under the 196 act to bring their family members here to live with them. Still, a lot of "legal immigration" is a direct consequence of illegal immigration. And the 1965 Act did not lead to illegal immigration.
Lastly, claims that Ted Kennedy "gave us" the 1965 immigration bill are absurd.
Speaking of older stock vs newer stock: Italians, Slavs, non-northwest euros in general and most jews were allowed to immigrate to America starting only a century ago. Asians were only allowed in half a century ago. These are all newer stock Americans. And they have made huge contributions to the power and prosperity of America.
Btw, I don't see any love among the Republicans for the native americans, the oldest stock in America.
No handouts? You mean how the Romneys were on welfare when George, Mitt's Father, immigrated here according to Romney's own mom
Slavery is bad? You mean how the blacks did all the roping and selling? How can they complain when their own ancestors were doing the enslaving?
Italians, Slavs, non-northwest euros in general and most jews were allowed to immigrate to America starting only a century ago. Asians were only allowed in half a century ago. These are all newer stock Americans. And they have made huge contributions to the power and prosperity of America.
Neo-cons love this argument. In fact they consider it decisive. The "power and prosperity of America" is the North Star which we're all supposed to be guided by.
I have to admit, I don't give a rats ass about the "power and prosperity of America". If America had the power and prosperity of Canada I would not see it as a bad thing. In some ways we'd be better off.
Slavery is bad? You mean how the blacks did all the roping and selling? How can they complain when their own ancestors were doing the enslaving?
How do 2 wrongs make it right? Europeans were selling their own people to the Romans, the Arabs, the Mongols, the Turks. Did those enslaved Europeans forfeit their right to complain just because it was their fellow Europeans selling them to foreigners?
If you think about it
"1. Blacks are older stock in America than most Republicans."
Not true, but we hear it anyway quite often. In fact the dems represent more of the wave of 'recent whites' such as Irish, Italians, Jews, etc.
"Truth said...
Mittens and PX Ryan have each personally taken handouts"
- For once, I agree with Ruth that its major news when a white man gets a handout since it is so rare compared to everyone else...
""My son's married to a Chinese girl, and my grandkids will be half Chinese. Doesn't bother me. I just want us all to be Americans."
Who's gonna marry his daughter? Is she going to marry a Chinese guy? I don't think so. I think she's probably not going to get married. So that's ohfertwo in the white column. Multiply that by millions and you have a demographic disaster."
- Actually, a disproportionate number of men the world over are aroused by mixed Asian/white women. They are vastly over-represented in the porn industry, increasingly represented (and probably becoming overrepresented) in the mainstream modeling industry in the US and are disproportionately overrrepresented in the modeling industries across Asia. Someone writing about this a while back found that it seems that whites find them to represent a certain exoticism, looking Asian while having more pleasing features in some of the areas that they are less pleased about with full blooded women. And Asian guys ironically view them in a similar vein but as appearing Caucasian but more appealing. Guys are usually willing to 'jump race' if the girl is attractive enough to interest him. So actually, I doubt many have a problem finding a guy- either Asian or white (or other)....
" As the GOP became more closely aligned with White Southerners--and their neo-Confederacy and Stars-and-Bars symbolism, Evangelicalism that espouses Creationism, anti-intellectualism, redneck beerbelly image, etc."
I have to laugh when I read these depictions of White Southerners- its clear these people have never spent a nanosecond in the South.
What propositions is Israel based on?
"There is no Constitution of Israel." - Wikipedia
Good way to avoid letting foreigners use your propositions against you.
Diversity is a just a code word for less White People. Nobody says an Asian country that is virtually 100% Asian needs more diversity
The UN, and English language media, do often tell Japan it should begin accepting many more foreigners into the country, although this is usually couched in terms of fighting population decrease or helping refugees rather than increasing diversity for its own sake.
Good column on that hypocrite Frum and the dumbness of the typical Republican. Yes, who cares if they're black or brown or green or Muslim or atheist or believe in the Sun God, as long as they "pull their own weight".
Yep, who cares if they're going to vote 95% Democrat or work to destroy Christianity, or turn us into China east or Mexico North, hey.. as long as they don't cost me MONEY (in the short term) - its OK.
Serious note: Old White America will not survive because Old White America is stupid and worships only the dollar.
Diversity, as it is practiced, is legalized discrimination against white men.
We never hear, "there are too few male nurses and teachers, so we must to create special training programs and lower the standards for men".
Probably because gender pay gap in nursing and teaching actually favors men, despite more women being hired.
"My son's married to a Chinese girl, and my grandkids will be half Chinese. Doesn't bother me. I just want us all to be Americans."
Who's gonna marry his daughter? Is she going to marry a Chinese guy? I don't think so. "
A white guy, duh.
They will have intelligent, exotic, quadroon babies destined for the Ivy leagues and a stint in modelling.
"Millions of illegal aliens enter the country. The federal government goes to great pains to not get rid of them...None of this is the fault of the 1965 immigration bill."
Several years ago there was a big immigration raid at a business in a town not far from me. They arrested the HR guy who recruited all the illegals. He was a legal Mexican immigrant and a naturalized US citizen.
Repeat that a million times over. Legal immigrants are often incredibly willing to help people come here illegally.
i guess i don't quite get the mention of the ethnicity of the GOP speakers. if they put up boring white guys, Frum'd be dissing them for that. if they put up (mostly qualified i might add, not Michael Steele types) minorities they're just tapering over their racial anxiety. i think that was his point? maybe i read it wrong. so which way do we win exactly? oh right, by shifting our policies to become Frumpublicans, AKA Democratic-lite.
at least Douthat acknowledges that racial anxieties over immigration don't automatically make you a raving, grumpy old white man like The Enlightened Frum does here.
Of the quartet he mentioned at the end, 2 are typical meritocratic hacks, a 3rd (Allen West) is generally opportunistic and demagogic, and I'd suspect the last one, Herman Cain, of holding fairly condescending views about public service, possibly well-founded but not appropriate for a party conservator. Without the existence of a non-Maryland/Virginia black middle class the small pool of self-starter libertarian burghers with political skill who are also black is absent, so you're forced to recruit them from the military caste, i.e. government work. Or you write "Draft Charles Barkley" articles (because nothing else made sense anyway)
"Frum on what typical GOP delegate thought"
DYork on what David Frum typically thinks:
IS IT GOOD FOR THE JEWS?
Look, the most important thing about the Frum exercise was that it proves that certain dangerous ideas, formerly restricted to Vdare and this blog, are now being discussed openly in elite Republican circles. Immigration, race, whiteness...the lot. People take baby steps towards enlightenment, but once you start seeing things, stuff happens.
That is my takeaway from this piece. The pundits have noticed that the natives are restless, and justifiably so. GREAT. Who knows, maybe they are beginning to see the light themselves. So they tell the truth, but in drag.
*****
It doesn't make me like Frum, or trust him. He is one smarmy neocon SOB. But his finger-to-the-wind is telling him which way it's blowin, and that is good enough for me.
"They are vastly over-represented in the porn industry, increasingly represented (and probably becoming overrepresented) in the mainstream modeling industry in the US and are disproportionately overrrepresented in the modeling industries across Asia."
This is off-topic but still. I don't look at porn so I defer to your wisdom here, but I do know something of the mainstream modeling industry having worked in the industry years ago, and I cannot name one successful Asian model, or one mixed Asian-white model.
Can you please name one successful Asian, or mixed Asian/White model in the mainstream industry? I am interested to know this.
The overwhelming majority of top models are white girls. A large percentage are from E. Europe/Russia, but not a majority. Modeling is actually pretty conservative in terms of who gets the job: American and W. European girls.
There hasn't even been a top black model since Naomi Campbell, Iman or Liya Kebede, who are all over the hill. There was a mini-vogue for Ethiopians for a while, because they have straight hair and Euro features.
Regarding their use in Asia, that doesn't really count. You would think they'd use Asians or mixed race girls in Asia, wouldn't you?
Europeans and Americans like white models. End of story.
"Suppose California had only whites. Wouldn't it still be Democratic since the majority of whites over there are Democratic?"
Anon, are you really this naive?
Prior to the early 90s, CA was a solidly red state, voted for Reagan and Pete Wilson for gov.
Prop 187 "Save our State," to stop giving illegal aliens welfare, passed in 1994 by a wide majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187
With the striking down of Prop 187 by the Supreme Court, the White conservative majority, having given up, started their exodus to the Whitopias in the heartland.
Now CA is populated by 2 groups: the hordes of mestizo imminvaders, who vote Democrat, and rich Whites, who (because they are rich can insulate themselves from the hordes of mestizos) also
vote Democrat.
Had Prop 187, the last gasp of White conservative majority in CA, not been struck down by the Supreme Court, those CA White conservatives would still be there, making lots of little White CA conservatives, and CA would still be voting Republican.
"Jewish style of debate: character assassination, shrill accusations of various thoughtcrimes, and name-calling."
You mean like calling your opponents traitors loyal to a foreign government?
As a Briton, I think to myself "What an appalling choice American voters have in their elections".
The long and short of it is this - one party in the pocket of 'minorities' and run exclusively in their self-interest.
The other party in the pocket of the 1% and run exclusively in their self interest.
Like that wag from the Front Nationale said "It's like a choice between bubonic plague and cholera."
At least in Britain, although partially corrupted by American counter-culture 'minority' ass-sucking, bollocks the Labour party is still at its core a 'workerist' party, and the Tories are still motivated above all else by a sense of patriotism and duty to the nation.
All you seem to have is horrible wankers on both sides of the political fence.
Our lot are wankers all right, but not horrible wankers.
"and a stint in modelling."
There's that nerdy fantasy cropping up again.
Half white/Asians are usually v. cute as little kids, but I've been less than impressed with the more nubile. In general, they're ok, but reports of gorgeousness are greatly exaggerated.
Oh, and btw, "quadroon" refers to 1/4 black, not yellow. I've never even heard of that term used that way.
"diana said...
But for now, this is fact. Sailer readers, who include a fair amount of crude Jew baiters and haters, can't stand this, and lash out when someone sympathetically describes their plight."
No, they lash out at Frum because: 1.) he was a Republican party propagandist, 2.) he was a speech writer for George W. Bush, and 3.) he presumed to write paleocons out of the conservative movement. He turned on people like us for being insufficiently slavish supporters of the Bush / Neocon agenda - so, yeah - I don't exactly trust him.
@ Anonymous 10:59 PM
How does the "pay gap in nursing actually favor men"?
Nurses are paid an hourly wage. By "pay gap" do you mean men are paid a higher wage, or men's total annual earnings are more than women's?
If men earn more, is it because:
1) male nurses work more evening and overnight shifts and earn shift differentials?
2) male nurses work more hours per week, month, year - as is true for nearly every other profession?
Check the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Or watch YouTube videos of Warren Farrell "Why Men Earn More" posted by ArgusEyes.
--=-=-=-=-=
This is my original post:
Diversity, as it is practiced, is legalized discrimination against white men.
We never hear, "there are too few male nurses and teachers, so we must to create special training programs and lower the standards for men".
-==-=-=-
This was your response:
Probably because gender pay gap in nursing and teaching actually favors men, despite more women being hired.
""Millions of illegal aliens enter the country. The federal government goes to great pains to not get rid of them...None of this is the fault of the 1965 immigration bill."
Several years ago there was a big immigration raid at a business in a town not far from me. They arrested the HR guy who recruited all the illegals. He was a legal Mexican immigrant and a naturalized US citizen.
Repeat that a million times over. Legal immigrants are often incredibly willing to help people come here illegally." - I agree, mass legal immigration has clearly laid down the social networks that made mass illegal immigration possible.
" As the GOP became more closely aligned with White Southerners--and their neo-Confederacy and Stars-and-Bars symbolism, Evangelicalism that espouses Creationism, anti-intellectualism, redneck beerbelly image, etc."
I have to laugh when I read these depictions of White Southerners- its clear these people have never spent a nanosecond in the South."
Agreed. There is always a lot of weird disdain of the South on the isteve comment sections. They never realize that perhaps one of the reasons that white southerners are obsessed with being difficult in certain aspects is due to the fact that we've been the designated national enemy for over a century. Being told by the media/history books from an early age that your ancestors were basically evvvviiillll tends to have an effect on the collective southern mindset.
What propositions is Israel based on?
"There is no Constitution of Israel." - Wikipedia
What propositions are there in the US Constitution?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That's the full extent of the "propositions" in the US Constitution. There's nothing there which necessitates open borders, and plenty which suggests that they should not be allowed.
"WHY DID THE GOP LOSE THE WHITE VOTE IN STATES OUTSIDE OF THE DEEP SOUTH?"
IT DIDN'T.
"At least in Britain, although partially corrupted by American counter-culture 'minority' ass-sucking, bollocks the Labour party is still at its core a 'workerist' party, and the Tories are still motivated above all else by a sense of patriotism and duty to the nation."
Hahaha, have you been in a coma since 1997?
Several years ago there was a big immigration raid at a business in a town not far from me. They arrested the HR guy who recruited all the illegals. He was a legal Mexican immigrant and a naturalized US citizen
Of course his being a "legal Mexican immigrant and a naturalized US citizen" might very well mean that he came here illegally and was awarded US citizenship by one of the many amnesties the feds have granted.
Actually 187 didn't really do too much about employers hiring illegal immigrants, just getting rid of welfare along doesn't work by itself since in the past decade a lot of illegal immigrants went to the South which has lower welfare than let say California or New York. Prop 187 was weak on employer sanctions. It did have a check on fraud id's though.
There is no textual basis for the proposition that the US is a "proposition nation".
Claims to the contrary rest on taking a single sentence fragment from the Declaration of Independence .."all men are created equal"..) and interpreting it in a fashion its writers never intended.
The demographics of 1980 would have made California a purple state. Obama barely won Riverside if it was still white he would have lost.
Well, Texas Republicans actually think alot like those in Orange County and San Diego county Republicans. They have some that are terrible which explains why illegal immigration built up under Perry in the 2000's and illegal immigration built up in San Diego and Orange County after Reagan's big amnesty in 1986 SD and OC mayors and council people were mainly Republican. The Left Behind Series was written by a social conservative pastor that lived for sometime in San Diego. So all so calif and some of the Tea Party folks that are left is similar to southern Republicans. In fact in the past decade Texas had been flooded with Republicans like ex-assembly man Chuck Devore and other people wanting less taxes and bigger houses that left the OC, San Diego and some parts of La which were not Mexican.
Portland has low income for whites and a high poverty rate around 13 percent. A lot of whites in Texas, the Houston metro area poverty is 7 percent. Anaheim the Hispanic town in the hills area where whites live once was a low as 4 percent. Portland is the underachiever might have college but is still poor compared to Republican areas in the US like Suburban Houston and even Anaheim Hills in Orange County.
@Mr. Anon, I don't like or trust Frum either, but criticizing this piece (very shrilly, may I say?) simply because Frum is a Jew is just plain Jew-hating. Virtually all of the criticisms come down to that. They don't even care that Frum was simply imagining what goes through the mind of the average Republican.
At the risk of being repetitive, he did a good enough job of that. He didn't attempt to express the mind of the average reader of THIS BLOG. Is that so hard to understand?
That is all I am saying here, not that people don't have legit grievances against the ADL. OK?
And again, because some simple truths need repetition in order to sink through, I think it's remarkable that the glimmerings of white grievances are beginning to shine through to the Beltway insiders, such as Frum. Perhaps even they have noticed, and are sick and tired of, the outright screaming anti-white racist double standards of the media, and of organized political punditocracy. Maybe some of their own kids have been shafted. When your own kids get shafted, you start waking up. Not you - your kids.
You write the most heinous piece of legislation in American history and a drunken Irishman takes the blame.
Wasn´t Philip Hart an Irishman too? Sober or not.
'@Mr. Anon, I don't like or trust Frum either, but criticizing this piece (very shrilly, may I say?) simply because Frum is a Jew is just plain Jew-hating.'
Exactly, Anon, why must you be an anti-semite player hater?
" I don't like or trust Frum either, but criticizing this piece (very shrilly, may I say?) simply because Frum is a Jew is just plain Jew-hating.'"
Why is Frum trying to explain to the ruling class what white people think? Why isn't someone like Pat Buchanan doing it?
Oh yeah.
"I first met the patriotic Mr. Frum 20 years ago, when I still worked for National Review. (At that time and long afterward, I must say, I always found him personally genial.) His first contribution to the magazine was an article warning that a Reagan arms sale to Saudi Arabia, by endangering Israel, would drive many people away from the conservative movement.
At the time I was too naïve to have suspicions of Frum. But two things about his article troubled me.
First, the question for Americans should have been not whether the arms sale was good for Israel, but whether it was good for America. But this obvious consideration didn’t seem to occur to Frum, who now challenges the patriotism of Americans. (Nor did Canadian interests seem to concern him, but never mind.) "
A little taste of Joe Sobran's response to Frum. Sobran was already marginalized when this was written, by people like Frum, Frum probably never read the response, but Joe never wrote to be popular - you get the feeling he would have still been a writer if he knew his audience would never exceed a handful.
Obviously, the illegal invasion is a bigger problem than that, but Texas Repubs deserve a huge share of the blame.
But...it's always easier to blame Jews.
Utter bullshit. These Texas Republicans passed the law that Plyler v. Doe invalidated, but now they play the hand they're dealt.
Claims to the contrary rest on taking a single sentence fragment from the Declaration of Independence .."all men are created equal"..) and interpreting it in a fashion its writers never intended.
What did Calhoun say? Only Adam and Eve were created, and they weren't equal?
Here it is:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=944
If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition (that "all men are born free and equal") differently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That asserts that "all men are created equal." The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous. All men are not created. According to the Bible, only two, a man and a woman, ever were, and of these one was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have come into the world by being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, either free or equal.
"Anonymous diana said...
@Mr. Anon, I don't like or trust Frum either, but criticizing this piece (very shrilly, may I say?) simply because Frum is a Jew is just plain Jew-hating. Virtually all of the criticisms come down to that. They don't even care that Frum was simply imagining what goes through the mind of the average Republican."
The only one being shrill here is you, dear lady. I didn't say I disagreed with Frum's article. In fact, I often agree with him. I also don't trust him, for the very reasons I cited above.
Well, that was true that Texas they didn't want to educate the children of illegals that were illegal anymore than Calif did in 187. But Texas was known particularly in South Texas for hiring a lot of illegals as far back as the 1950's. Eisenhower deported Mexicans there last. Rick Perry hired Chuck Devore from Orange County California who also was soft on illegal Hispanic immigration and only voiced opposition to illegal Asian groups while he lived in Orange County.
All you seem to have is horrible wankers on both sides of the political fence. Our lot are wankers all right, but not horrible wankers.
So how did London become the new Babylon? From the footage of the London bombings to the riots to the Olympics, it's obvious what's going on to the rest of the world, why not to you? Your major parties are wankers, and horrible too.
Hahaha, have you been in a coma since 1997?
Exactly
Matt said...
So, to blame the fall of the GOP since the Reagan era on rising diversity is something of a red herring. The more relevant question is WHY DID THE GOP LOSE THE WHITE VOTE IN STATES OUTSIDE OF THE DEEP SOUTH?
I've wondered about this myself. The simplest possible explanation might just be that uncritical support of vibrancy is only possible in the absence of vibrancy. So mostly white Vermont is very much to the left, while much less white Louisiana is very conservative - despite its non-whites voting solidly left. The white voting bloc is very solid and makes up for the large minority population.
Now if only someone came up with some kind of... strategy... to replicate this outside of the south...
------------------------
Yes, I think that explains a good bit of it.
To whites in states like Vermont, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, black people and immigrants are an abstraction, their image formed by the media or that nice grad student family down the street. They haven't experienced increased crime or lost jobs, so what's the problem?
In the opinion of such people, those white people in states like Louisiana, Texas and Arizona with direct experience with these populations must just be bigots, and we can assert moral superiority over them by voting Democratic.
As far as strategy goes, the Democrats are doing their damnedest to bring this real life experience to every corner of the USA.
Pat Buchanan is pretty old fashion and some of the Tea Party the patriots are. They complain that the Democratic took God out and then put him back.. Well, there some agnostic Conservatives and some left wing Democratic like Jim Wallis that has pushed for the legalization of Hispanics and so forth. I asked them what do you prefer a left-wing Evangelical like Jim Wallis who believes in God or an agnostic conservative. Granted, there are more non-believers among the Democratic but there is about 10 percent of the Republican Party doesn't have much belief either. Just because you believe in God doesn't make you a conservative there are plenty of liberal protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that are Democratics.
"Utter bullshit. These Texas Republicans passed the law that Plyler v. Doe invalidated, but now they play the hand they're dealt."
Are YOU in a coma? Illegals have been streaming into Texas for at least 40 to work as gardeners for white (Republican) Texans. A common topic of conversation in Texas for as long as I can remember is: "How much do you pay them?"
Everyone knew that a disaster was brewing but no one wanted to pay a white guy a decent wage. It was much easier to screw a wetback.
It seems that good old Pat and those decent Christians are just playing the odds. Kind of like how HBDers play the odds on race.
Well, I lived In Arizona and Texas Republicans are like Rick Perry arrogant and think that they can pumped illegal immirgants into the job market hence their guest worker program. Only Smith and Poe are the only good guys in Texas. Maricopia unemployment is dropping and white people from California will skipped Texas which doesn't really want to do anything on illegal immigrant and moved to Maricopia which even has higher income than most of the large Texas counties read the US Census.
New York whites moved to Vermont like gangbusters. New York whites tend to be more liberal from the city since they were ethnic Italian, Jews and so forth. Howard Dean was from New York.
"To whites in states like Vermont, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, black people and immigrants are an abstraction..."
To many whites who live across town these people are an abstraction.
"Utter bullshit. These Texas Republicans passed the law that Plyler v. Doe invalidated, but now they play the hand they're dealt."
The law invalidated by Plyer v. Doe was passed by the Texas legislature in 1975, when the Texas Senate and House were controlled by Democrats 28-3 and 132-18, respectively. The governor in said year was Dolph Briscoe, a Democrat.
I confess to being no legal expert, but the ruling in Plyler v. Doe has to be one of the most half-assed, jerry-rigged rulings in Supreme Court history, yet today it's treated as solid gold, inviolable. The ruling was 5-4. There were three concurring opinions, indicating the whole five of them couldn't wrap their extremist heads around a single valid justification for ruling how they did. It was passed by five of the most radical judges ever to grace the SCOTUS bench (and not one of the 9 justices at the time was Jewish).
But going back to the legislature that passed the law: it's telling how ideologically extreme the Left has gotten that where once an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature could pass a common sense law to help secure the border, today you'd be lucky to get one Democrat in ten - in any state - to do vote for such a thing.
Post a Comment