|
|
|
Analysis of Secession Talk Gets It All Wrong The punditry are convinced that secession talk in the US is driven by angry reaction to Obama’s reelection. They have the analysis wrong. Here’s why: The reaction of the Republican elite (as well as Rand Paul—the only hope for a Republican revitalization) to their loss to Obama is to try to not just double down on the 1986 Reagan amnesty. To see why merely doubling down won’t do that job one need only look at the following sequence: Year vs Republican Presidential Candidate’s % Hispanic Vote 1980 35 What happened to cause the precipitous drop between 1984 and 1988? Reagan’s 1986 amnesty, that’s what. So obviously, just doing an amnesty again isn’t sufficient. All you’ll do is get unprecedentedly low Hispanic votes for the Republican candidate*. You have to do more for the Hispanic voters than merely offer their coethnics amnesty again. How much more? Well, it appears the more Republicans Hispander, the less of the Hispanic vote the Republicans will get. Therefore, the arithmetic dictates that Republicans will have to offer everything and more to Hispanics in order to get their votes! With this kind of logic inside the Beltway, its obvious that the floodgates are now open as wide as humanly possible to race replacement in the US—replacement by races that are far more ethnically cohesive as a voting bloc than are (non-Hispanic) whites and as a voting bloc are single minded in support of the Democratic party’s open borders policy that creates an ever greater and more solidified constituency dependent on the central government for protection and provision. HEY PUNDITS, If you want to understand the real reason people are looking at secession in response to Obama’s victory, don’t look at it as an angry response to Obama’s victory. Look at it as an angry response to the Republican elite’s response to the Obama victory. *Understand that this not only ignores the fact that border enforcement was promised and not delivered as a result of the 1986 amnesty, as well as the fact that the Republican candidate in 1988 had Hispanic grandchildren, but that this is merely the expectation for the next election. For the longer term of what happens, look at California today to see the future Republican prospects there as a result of Hispandering. Of course, this assumes that all we’re concerned about is whether a state votes Republican and that the fiscal, social and economic well-being of the state can be sacrificed, as clearly they were in California. Comments:2
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:37 | # In response to my proposal that immigrants might be usefully characterized as “union buster scabs”, Graham had recommended this link on a previous thread. It is clear enough that capitalists (read, Republican strategists, in this case) would seek out and even import immigrants as a reserve army of labor - a number of unemployed so that they can drive salaries down. I do not believe the generation of wealth and a certain amount of employment that it might facilitate is necessarily so fixed to this consequence (the rigid Hegelian logic, that Marx adhered to). However, there are these criticisms of capitalist proclivities which are valid and obvious enough – there is no reason to ignore this simply because it may have been over drawn by Marxist theory. According to the theory, a niche excess of capital would correspond with the creation of an excess labor; in turn, that would also create a situation where it was possible for a large percentage of people to live on the dole. Thus, “the working class”, might be placated for a time (and unlearn their independent trades, I imagine). If it is true, however, that there is an inherent incentive for the greedy capitalist to continually narrow the ranks of the employed and increase the ranks of unemployed, what prevents the international capitalist from seeing the social and environmental consequences of burdening the carrying capacity of a nation, such as The U.S. or The U.K., with massive excess labor and population? Evidently, there would be three causes for the greedy capitalist to ignore the causes (this is not aimed at proposing special insight but focus): 1) One is that he is a hostile/or indifferent non-native or a hostile/or indifferent native who has no vested interest in the native land and intends to flee to live elsewhere, at least eventually. 2) He believes that he can make due in his gated community or estate * and that the adjacent world, crazy Jews, and other sorts will not intrude upon him. 3) Perhaps most theoretically interesting is the character who, in adherence to objective principle, ignores his own subjective and relative/relational interests in connection with the social consequences for Whites that might otherwise be observed all around.
....“The jury was told how Harrison and his wife Olivia fought with Michael Abrams” 3
Posted by torgrim on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:33 | # “The Republican Party is operating beyond its operational date.” California is now, in all three branches of government, Democrats. It is over. Those that create, produce extra wealth. for the tax base, are leaving in the millions, with whatever they can take with them before the taxes become even more confiscatory. The last holdout of the self directed Yeoman, ie., small business, will be unable to survive the demands of the masses of unemployed and their dependents. The Amnesty under Reagan’s regime, along with a certain,unnamed, Federal Judge,(that denied the will of the majority vote), is now working through the wealth of a once very good place to live. The point here is, California has always been the"experimental State”, in social engineering and hence, the quote; “what happens to California, likely happens to the rest of the US.” 4
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:08 | # The Republican response ignores that hispanic immigrants don’t share the same socio-economic profile as white voters - they’re for the most part the surplus unskilled labor of South America - so to get an accurate idea of their maximum likely percentage of hispanic voters they should look at what their white vote would be if it had the same profile as hispanics. For example, disregarding race as a factor, if you picked three socio-economic divisions A, B and C and white people were 1/3 in each category and the proportion voting Republican was 30% of category C, 60% of category B and 90% of category C then the average would be 60%. However even if hispanics voted in exactly the same proportions by socio-economic category but their socio-economic profile was 60% in category C, 30% in category B and 10% in category A then the average would be 45%. This is even more so in the case of illegal workers. On the face of it the Republican pundits at least at the national level are either insane or stupid but they’re neither - they’re owned by their major donors and their donors have been getting richer and richer since 1965 thanks to the unlimited cheap labor. I think we’re coming to the end of the line where the benefit to their donors outweighs the costs - California will be the poster child for that - but the donors won’t change until some time after it’s become obvious and the pundits and politicians won’t change until some time after that - so they’re pointless and irrelevant in the long-term. The interesting thing is what the state level Republicans are saying. 5
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 15:18 | # ‘You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= “The Remnant has always existed, since the beginning of man and it survives today. It is not possessed with extraordinary intelligence, wealth or power. Those that comprise it are just ordinary human beings, average by—and—large and you will never recognize them for what they are when you meet them, see them or hear them. They are the builders, re—builders and redeemers of humanity. They are the ones who sustain and regenerate society — and above all else — they persevere. You can guess who they are or might have been but you will never know with any certainty. They are friends of liberty though, that much I know.” Read more>> 6
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:30 | #
I think you’re right. That’s certainly the way I see it. 7
Posted by Zale on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 23:58 | # If the crowd at OD are representative then the motivation for separation is the failure of ‘Yankees’ to ‘denig’. In other words in comparing Vermont to Alabama a fundamental difference arises between the white population of both states. 8
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:33 | # Don’t assume strict economic (albeit short term) rationality on the part of all immigrationists. I’ve been involved with the issue for decades, in official (I mean employment, not elected representative) as well as observer and activist capacities. Yes, some foolish greedmongers want to enrich themselves at the expense of the larger body politic (many “salt of the Earth”-seeming agricultural types fit this bill; ditto contractors). Immigration is sadly one of those issues where the benefits are highly targeted, while the harms are diffuse (unless you’re a victim of an immigrant criminal, obviously). But many otherwise conservative and Christian whites (and especially libertarians) really do have a risible soft spot for immigrants. In my involvements with the CA state as well as local GOP, I have seen this many times. Please trust me: not all of these persons are motivated either by racial self-hatred or economic greed. I have been driven to near total frustration by good conservatives who simply cannot bring themselves to be “racist”, even to the (in fact, not racist) extent of just acknowledging that mass immigration is wrecking our state, not least by giving a permanent electoral lock to the Democrats (the one bit of good news out of 2012 is that, whatever you’re hearing about an amnesty sellout by the usual suspects - do we have any 2014 primary challengers for SC’s Lindsay Graham? - more and more pundits, as well as funders I know operating ‘behind closed doors’, are openly questioning the electoral effects of mass immigration; it is not impossible that a silver lining might actually come from Obama’s reelection). Never, never, never underestimate the sheer goodness of whites - the extent to which they really are motivated by fundamental issues of morality (why do you think I’ve gone back to school and chosen Catholic Thought as my doctoral specialty?). The battle for WP in America will be decided on the plain of ethics. If we do not succeed in making WP palatable to Christians (as it certainly is in fact), we will continue to go nowhere politically (and thus fall ever further down history’s drainpipes racially). 9
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:15 | # Leon, opinion polls have always shown Republican whites are against immigration liberalization clear back to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. This pattern has never been violated. This is purely a case of treason in high places. 10
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:04 | # I’ve heard plentiful anecdotal evidence that farmers and contractors prefer immigrants because they will actually do the work at all, much less cheaply. Also heard that you can no longer presume that native-born American kids schooled in US public schools, will be able to properly make change at a cash register, or handle slightly-complicated cashier task like disposition of a layaway certificate, free-sample-coupon-with-code-number, etc. the last time I had occasion to look at a US DoD instruction about how we foreigners should write English-language technical manuals for gear we sell to the US Forces, it instructed that an (American) 6th-grade reading proficiency was to be presumed. Hiring wetbacks might be motivated by “greed”, or it might be motivated by a lack of any visible alternative. Your average real American farmer has working-capital bank loans that need to be paid THIS COMING HARVEST. Anyone who doesn’t is more likely to be a Yuppie “gentleman farmer”. Actually the buying-decision demographic on that is largely middle-aged white female. Go look at the tractor ads in “Hobby Farmer” magazine. “Horse-lover” magazines also show that real well. 11
Posted by Silver on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:40 | # Hymie, Hymie, Hymie. You just don’t get it do you? Mexicans are as capable of learning how much Jews lie and hating Jews as a result as anyone else. In fact, because they don’t have ‘holocaust’ shame working against them they are probably even more capable of it. Your big gambit is that they benefit from Jewish lies so they would not dare turn against you. That’s delusional. It’s just human nature to hate bullshit artists. I don’t think it will really matter that they temporarily benefit from your bullshit. 12
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:54 | #
Insane as it may seem to us, a lot of white people don’t have a negative view of immigration, though perhaps this will start to change among the GOP grassroots as awareness of immigration’s role in reelecting Obama becomes more widespread. 13
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:28 | # Hymie
Yes, unskilled farm work is the bottom rung on the economic ladder which is why it has the hardest time attracting a permanent stable workforce. In fact it mostly doesn’t want a *permanent* workforce at all - only seasonal. However this applies to immigrants too so each wave of immigrant workers comes in for a while and then drifts off to the cities so immigrant workers don’t provide a permanent solution to the cheap seasonal worker problem. Each wave is a temporary solution while at the same time creating a different ever-growing and much worse permanent problem in the cities from this vast mass of unskilled labor that is only any use for picking crops. California is the poster child for this problem. The whole state is bankrupt because of 50 years of trying to solve the farm problem this way. A working solution has to be either seasonal itself e.g. if this was Roman times, raid Mexico for farm workers every season and release them back over the border after the crops were picked, or technological. If California, especially California which used to be world leader in technology, had started developing technology for picking crops 50 years ago they would be in massively better shape. Seeing as Israel is probably in the same spot re agriculture and farm labor i’d suggest they do the second option. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/robo_picker?currentPage=all A shorter-term option for the meantime would be building school terms around harvesting and making a tradition out of schoolkids spending a few weeks of the year picking crops for pocket-money. That’s how it used to work in rural areas. Criminals also.
14
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:57 | #
Into quite recent times (1950s at least) working class people from London had a tradition for heading out to the countryside in the summer, as a holiday and being paid to pick crops like apples and hops, probably a weekend element to this as well. 15
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:04 | # we used to let Palestinians do farm labor, but the Thailanders give less trouble. There’s really none of them that want to “immigrate”. They will BBQ people’s stray pets, but moshav-nikkim have learned to keep the cats indoors during the King’s Birthday. Thailanders do NOT see themselves as any kind of “lesser race” than anyone else. They work here till they have the money to buy a home and pay a dowry…. then they go back. They want to llive amongst their own kind! Almost no problems with them, nor with the Filipinit visa-overstayers-cleaning-houses-off-the-books. Some of those catch a divorced Israeli guy and marry into a “green card”. They’re good in bed and in homemaking as a rule, so they can usually find some older guy that will be happy to have them on hand. It is the Africans that are causing problems. As in crime. Schoolkids as farm-labor?? That paradigm worked, MANY decades ago. You’re a city kid - you think that farmwork is all harvest stoop-labor. Not even close. American farmers nervous about loss of immigrant labor? Business owners are paid to worry about what might go wrong, so I don’t blame them or scorn them. But it’s more likely that Californian politicians would ban (or otherwise encumber the deployment of) the ROBOTS than the future-Democrat-voters, don’t you think? 16
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:45 | # @lurker @hymie 17
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:43 | #
. Yes, and those same Goopers (Republicans) in high places aren’t even articulate enough to expose Obama’s “tax the rich” as a shell game to gut the white middle class. F’ing pathetic! 18
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:38 | # >> {“Silver”}
I do hold enough information to know that if such is true, then brainwashing and manipulating Mexicans would be child’s play. I’d start with widespread dissemination of all-you-can-eat buffet restaurants, and move on to a steady diet of Bollywood-type weepy TV romance shows. Throw in some beauty pageants and some boxing championships to seal the deal. The only thing that might be even easier still, is manipulating Blacks. Merely requires some hip-hop rap music, some NBA leagues, and some Food Stamps. Don’t even need to spend to give out contraceptives to the sub-teenage girls. They’re ok with getting knocked up by thugs. Whites look like a somewhat more difficult case. But at the end of the day, why would you bother? Exactly what threat is White Nationalism to the continuity of the Hebrew Regime in Jerusalem? Your taxpayer’s aid money makes our lives easier, but we can survive without it. It wasn’t until 1968 that we started getting more than you gave the to the Filipinos. Damn…. maybe sinking the USS Liberty was a good investment!! 19
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:49 | #
That jogged my memory of the Port Huron Statement in which Tom Hayden expressed concern over the fact that automation would displace the uneducated Southern Negro. Hayden more or less makes an admission that Negros are too stupid to ever get up to speed in order to move into the more applied technological jobs which automation would provide. “Soft bigotry of low expectations” indeed! HEH! Anyway, thinking about the Port Huron Statement also reminded me of the CBC and Congressman’s Clyburn’s outrageous assertion that the English language is in itself racist. I kid you not! Check it out:
I suspect this insane assertion was derived or misinterpreted from The Port Huron Statement itself when Hayden penned This:
20
Posted by commonwealth contrarian on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:04 | # Although there might be a small social benefit to Christianity, when it comes to positive social indicators, race and IQ trump religion hands down. For example, high IQ white atheists, commit less crime, pay more taxes, have less traffic accidents, and have fewer kids out of wedlock than “Christian” NAMs - its just a shame more of them can’t be right wing! Post a comment:
Next entry: Re-Evaluating The Hierarchy of Motives: An Optimizing Process of Motives for The White Class
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:02 | #
Yet geniuses like Karl Rove and his ilk continue to assure “the folks” that Hispanics are “natural conservatives”. These douchebags contend that since Hispanics are Christian (mainly Catholic) and demonstrate strong family values, thus given time, they will assimilate and become model citizens devoted to maintaining and defending the principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.
The only problem with Karl’s assumptions is they don’t resemble the reality on the ground. The truth is most of these so called Catholic Hispanics (74% of them)voted for the most anti-Catholic pro-abortion president in history. Furthermore, these same Catholic Hispanics sport an out of wedlock birthrate that exceeds the 50% mark; their high school dropout rate rivals that of American negroes. With each succeeding generation this trend only gets worse, not better (Re: Mexifornia by Victor Davis Hanson). Model citizens indeed!
The reality of the situation is absolutely contrary to what most mainstream “conservative” pundits contend. The truth is Hispanics are natural constituents of the “We’ll Give You Free Stuff Party”(Dems), not the “We’ll Give You Austerity Party”(G.O.P.).
Bottom line, the demographic change has left the GOP’s appeal in the dust. The Republican Party is operating beyond its expiration date. The U.S. of A. has been transformed beyond the tipping point via third world immigration.
It’s over.
Kaput!
Time for secession.