Lion of the Blogosphere

Republicans, unhappy that whites are voting for them

The New Republic feature story is a brilliant hatchet job on the Republic Party with the title and subtitle “Original Sin,” “Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people.”

I say brilliant because the obvious intent of the author is to harm the Republican Party, and it seems to be successful as Republicans are clueless about how to respond to it. All I could find are weak responses like “The New Republic staff is all white” or “we had a lot of black and Hispanic people speak at the Republican Convention” or “Marco Rubio!”

The basis of the argument goes that John C. Calhoun (who?) was racist, and he wrote a lot of stuff (having nothing to do with race) that modern-day Republicans agree with, and therefore modern-day Republicans are racist too. Republicans are so fearful of being racist they are unable to just laugh off such a stupid guilt by the vaguest association.

I predict that Republicans will respond to this article by trying even harder to make sure that Marco Rubio becomes the nominee for president. And then the liberal mainstream media will do a hatchet job on him pointing out how he believes in creationism and is an anti-abortion nut. The irony is that if the Republicans were truly a party of white people, they would have won the last presidential election because whites are still a majority of voters. Romney lost Ohio, for example, because he couldn’t get blue collar whites to vote for him. Republicans are in fact the party of a reluctant rich—reluctant because the richest Americans vote Democratic despite that the Republicans support policies to benefit them—and of anti-abortion protestant Christians.

Will those blue collar whites in Ohio who voted for Obama vote for an Hispanic who has the exact same message as Romney except that he’s softer on immigration? I think not. If anything, this gives them even less reason to vote Republican. They will enthusiastically support Joe Biden.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 12, 2013 at 7:34 am

Posted in Politics

56 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. In the soon to arrive tribal America, minority whites will need an explicitly white party that promotes white interests. It might as well be the Republican Party if it can be ethnically and politically cleansed, otherwise something else will arise.

    The Democrat Party is also at risk because of the fundamentally incompatible goals and needs of Hispanics and blacks. The violent ethnic cleansing now happening in parts of California is a harbinger of the Donkey’s future.

    bob sykes

    February 12, 2013 at 8:01 am

    • Oh god… Tribal America? Minority whites? Ethnic cleansing?

      I guess we haven’t changed at all since the turn of the 20th century.

      Bob Jones

      February 12, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    • As long as we have an electoral college, we’ll have two major political parties. You are right though that the Dem coalition is fundamentally unweildy; it has been glued together with copious deficit spending, which has (so far) obviated the need to slight one constituency to distribute largess to another. It won’t last indefinitely though.

      As it becomes more apparent that we are slowly sliding from first world status (e.g., gas lines after Sandy, blackouts at the Super Bowl), bond investors will eventually tighten the screws on the US, forcing the Dems to be slightly less Santa Claus and slightly more Grinch.

      That will, in time, lead to a schism between black and Latino Dems, and blacks will return to the GOP.

      DaveinHackensack

      February 13, 2013 at 1:22 am

  2. Why is it a weak response to point out that the TNR staff is all white?

    Gap year

    February 12, 2013 at 9:16 am

  3. Republicans aren’t the party of White people (since White Americans aren’t and never will be monolithic), they are the party of only White people.

    JayMan

    February 12, 2013 at 9:33 am

  4. Alright, but just what is the hangup of blue-collar Catholics anyway? Didn’t plenty of them vote for Reagan?

    I get it that Romney never articulated a program that explicitely helps middle class or respectable working class voters– and that was a big problem.

    All the same: are Catholics so far gone into tribalism that they’re just going to vote for a party that reviles their (purported) spiritual beliefs and scorns their economic interests? Just because they like the ghost of Teddy?

    Or is the GOP incapable of presenting a face anywhere in between “South-awn law-yaa sippin’ a mint juleep” and Rubio-Rice?

    Maybe the latter. Maybe. Wait, wasn’t Ryan a Catholic? Does a crypto-Muslim really beat a Mormon with these cafeteria Catholic voters?

    And yes, Obama loves him some crypto-Muslim dog whistles, for whatever reason.

    Lucius Somesuch

    February 12, 2013 at 9:47 am

    • They stayed home. If white turnout had been at 2008 levels then there would have been seven million more white voters.

      T

      February 12, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    • Do not underestimate the extent to which blue collar whites have absorbed the pernicious and dysfunctional values of the counterculture and the black ghetto. Cf. Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” for substantial documentation of that trend. Living together, illegitimate kids, drug abuse, etc. etc. I can see it right here in the small rural northern Nevada town where I live.

      Oh, and by the way, these people voted for Obama too. But “Didn’t plenty of them vote for Reagan?”

      Give me a f*king break. That was 28 years ago!! Those people are long gone, and if they’re not, they’re sucking at the Social Security and Medicare tit and have much reason to vote to keep the gravy train running. What the hell, the bill won’t come due until they’re ALL dead!

      sestamibi

      February 13, 2013 at 1:09 am

      • Romney turned out FEWER Republicans in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, and 2008 already suffered depressed GOP turnout for a variety of reasons.

        Romney lost because the absolute number of Republicans actually fell compared to 2008. And 2008 was also a low GOP turnout election. Mitt wound up with more overall votes than McCain only because Romney, based on CNN exit polls, won the Independent vote 50-45 over Obama. McCain by contrast lost Independents by 52-44% in 2008. The result was Romney netted 2 million more Independent votes than McCain did but still lost because of an unenthusiastic base.

        Based on CNN exit polls, the voter turnout model for 2012 was D 38%, I 29% and R 32%. Total vote counts came out to 129,064,662. Romney Republicans 96-3%, Independents 50-45%, and lost Democrats 92-7%.

        In 2008, CNN’s voter turnout model was D 39%, I 29% and R 32%. The total vote count was 131,313,820. McCain won Republicans 90-10%, lost Independents 44-52%, and lost Democrats 89-10%.

        The total number of Republican votes for 2012 was 41,300,692 (0.32 * 129,064,662).

        The total number of Republican votes for 2008 was 42,020,422 (0.32 * 131,313,820).

        Romney lost almost 800,000 Republicans compared to McCain’s already dreadful performance.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 14, 2013 at 10:54 pm

  5. The word “Hispanic” is really useless, we should be talking about Mexicans or Mestizos. They will never vote for Republicans, and it is not clear they would be happy to vote for a Cuban-American either. This “racism” accusation is getting so old, but I guess it still works. Republicans really are the Stupid Party. What should be asked is, why should whites simply accept the Mexicanization of America? Come to think of it, even blacks should be against it.

    zenocosini

    February 12, 2013 at 9:53 am

  6. Interesting article, but a complete hatchet job, as you say. I enjoyed the comments about Calhoun, a Democrat, Southerner and slave-holder, as were, Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson and Polk. Other people mentioned with vilification were Orval Faubus and George Wallace, both Democrats. It was Lincoln and the New England Republicans who promoted emancipation and tried to protect the freed slaves after the Civil War, over the bitter opposition of many Democrats. But that was then and this is now. Ultimately TNR article is a tautology – the Republican party is a white people’s party because most blacks and Hispanics don’t vote Republican. How shocking!

    Black Death

    February 12, 2013 at 10:04 am

  7. Pretty much everyone alive in the mid-19th century was racist by modern standards. It is a shame John C. Calhoun is largely forgotten in the average layman’s knowledge of history since he is in roughly the same league as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, etc. from the standpoint of being a major political figure who was never elected president. His money was used by his descendants to found Clemson University.

    Jokah Macpherson

    February 12, 2013 at 10:29 am

  8. The Republican party is rotten at its core. Its leaders, immediately after the election, began to betray their voters regarding amnesty for illegals. Many conservatives, including prominent ones like Ann Coulter and Rich Lowry, noticed and opposed it. If they pass amnesty, it’s almost assured that they will lose House seats in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016. Immigration is a nonnegotiable on our side and we will stay home. If they legalize 12-15 million illegals AND their families, the Republican party will cease to exist within 10 to 15 years.

    The rot at the heart of the Republican party is that they are not proud of their voters. The Democrat party has a base of feminists, gays, and blacks. It perpetuates that coalition by proposing policies to help these groups, in effect rewarding them for their votes. The Republican party, incontrast, craps on its voters (mostly married whites). They constantly look for ways to reward Democratic voters. Nobody will vote for a party which does not reward its voters. And until Republicans get that, they will continue to lose.

    Jack

    February 12, 2013 at 10:44 am

    • Republicans look for ways to reward large corporations and the very wealthy. These are their true constituencies. This has the unintentional side effect of strengthening the democractic party by increasing the percentage of the population not engaged in mainstream and productive behaviors. Charles Murray recently wrote a book about those behaviors which he defined being employed, going to church, being married, and not engaging in crime.

      To the very limited extent that Republicans intentionally help democratic constituencies it seems to be mainly so that elite republicans can keep getting invited to fashionable parties in new york and washington d.c.

      Reynald

      February 12, 2013 at 6:41 pm

  9. “The Democrat Party is also at risk because of the fundamentally incompatible goals and needs of Hispanics and blacks. The violent ethnic cleansing now happening in parts of California is a harbinger of the Donkey’s future.”

    Not to mention that blacks are often hostile to homosexuals, and homosexuals are fast becoming the Levy’s preferred victim group.

    Sid

    February 12, 2013 at 10:59 am

  10. Hispanics have a political culture of collectivism and will always vote Democrat. Black people are also collectivist. Anti-racist websites actually define the concept “individual effort” as cultural racism. This is why “urban schools” emphasize group projects in class.

    The Republicans, nationally, might get a few more votes if they abandon the pro-life and creationist rhetoric, but they will always be seen as racist if they emphasize individualism.

    Blog Raju

    February 12, 2013 at 11:43 am

    • But isn’t anti immigration itself a collectivist belief? I’m anti immigration because I believe that wealth is created to a large extent on the societal level and the composition of that society matters. Im not some superman who can make my way in any society. I will benefit from being part of a middle class broadly prosperous society. I am lucky enough to come from a genetic and cultural heritage capable of supporting that kind of a society and so I want to live in one.

      There’s not much to worry about from an individualist perspective. We’re going to get much poorer and more unequal. There will be a period where we try to expand the social safety net to compensate but eventually it will fail and we’ll dramatically cut back on those and other programs and end up with a very limited government. The well to do will lock themselves in gated communities with private security and all the non elites will suffer much lower wages and fewer government services. All the John Galts will thrive because they can just pay someone to mow their lawns, look after their kids, allowing them to focus purely on their work. And the low wages will mean there will be that much more left over for the “makers” who really deserve it. What’s not to love if you come from an individualist perspective? Why do you think the Cato institute and other libertarians support open borders?

      Reynald

      February 12, 2013 at 6:59 pm

  11. Hatchet job, yes. I wouldn’t add “brilliant”.

    The author equates “Republican” with “conservative”. Ha.

    He claims Republicans have embraced Calhoun’s State’s Rights arguments. This is almost completely wrong. Republicans are falling all over themselves to grow the federal gov’t.

    Sam T. tags Repubs with a “take back America” longing for the “old days”, when what I see more of is the Left/Lib/Democrat longing to take America back to the 60’s, when gov’t worked better, and we had the growing wealth to start all these wonderful 5 year plans. Now that we have to actually pay for these plans, the Dems have lost interest in making the enterprise work, and are reduced to blaming the Repubs via hatchet job articles in the New Republic.

    Sam T. blathers on about circa 1950’s political history and tasks Republicans for not signalling proper beliefs, when what was warned about came to pass: increased federal action to bring about social equality brings no more equality but more onerous gov’t.

    He non-sequiturs into more Calhoun talk like a high schooler writing a paper…now a disjointed history of Nixon, Reagan, George W. Please. This is crap.

    Tanenhous tags the Repubs as nullifiers of Constitutional mandates and popular will, but from what I see the Dem/lib/left are the ones anxious to avoid the parchment and any poll results they don’t like.

    And his last paragraph! What a gag-fest. What a sack dance. Translation: “White people are going down.” Well, Mr. Sam T., we’ll see how that works out.

    rightsaidfred

    February 12, 2013 at 12:48 pm

  12. “The violent ethnic cleansing now happening in parts of California is a harbinger of the Donkey’s future.”

    lol wut?

    Alex

    February 12, 2013 at 1:32 pm

  13. OT: Lion, please consider creating a Facebook page for your blog.

    Robert

    February 12, 2013 at 2:06 pm

  14. Joe Biden isn’t running for president simply for the fact that he’ll be too old. There are too many talented younger Dems to justify running a 73 year old with a 45 year politcal career. The bitter infighting would almost certainly rip the party apart.

    James McKeane

    February 12, 2013 at 2:16 pm

  15. “John C. Calhoun (who?)” Indeed, it’s always surprised me that Minneapolis has never re-named its Lake Calhoun. I guess too few people have ever heard of him.

    steve

    February 12, 2013 at 2:56 pm

  16. I would just point out that America has had these ethnic divisions before. A hundred years ago, the Republican party was the party of the old WASP establishment in the north, while Democrats were the party of all the newer, mostly Catholic “hyphenated Americans,” as Teddy Roosevelt put it, from Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc. These newer immigrants eventually assimilated and the old ethnic voting blocs eventually dissipated. Modern America will probably follow the same course.

    Jeff

    February 12, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    • This time it’s different! In today’s milieu there is ready differentiation by physical appearance along with genetically distinct behavioral attributes / cognitive abilities. The latter leads to persistent economic inequality and the former allows it to be seen by everyone. The manifest end result: intractable resentment and distrust…on both sides.

      anon

      February 12, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    • It looks as if the Catholic hyphenateds are still voting Democrat, shamefully enough.

      And who is the Joyce, the Vico, the Chopin of the mestizos?

      Lucius Somesuch

      February 12, 2013 at 3:40 pm

      • I agree the differences in cognitive ability matter, especially in the short run, but I would point out that Cuban immigrants tend to vote majority Republican, in part thanks to their experience with leftism in Cuba. If immigration tips the scales in favor of Democrats for a time, the results will turn people off, restoring some semblance of balance to the political system. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that left-liberalism isn’t an effective governing ideology (hell, plenty of very smart white people still haven’t figured it out).

        Jeff

        February 12, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      • “the results will turn people off, restoring some semblance of balance to the political system”

        No they won’t, as long as Republican turn middle class off by trying to privatize Medicare and Social Security.

        WRB

        February 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm

      • Jeff, I don’t spend every hour on my knees praying for America’s ruin, so if you’re right, we can both turn out happy.

        However– and I’m not the most kneejerk pro-Coolidge of types, but still– how long have Americans had to catch on about the infelicities of left-liberal governance? Those LBJ years were kinda rocky in some ways, no?

        A Democrat one-party hegemony run on the ballots of a Hispanic lumpenproletariate may turn off a heck of a lot of whites, but what are they to do about it? They could, I suppose, try and force a Constitutional Convention and reinstate property requirements for the vote; or, ahem, some Chilean solution might materialize some day in May, whether we fully like it or not.

        But when oh when will Mexican immigrants ever get tired of welfare, affirmative action preferences, identity politics, blaming whitey? and when will blacks, as voters, ever desert their gravy train too?

        Answer, of course: never. And since the GOP cannot fathom nor stomach the thought of unifying the white middle class behind it, I’m afraid, as Lawrence Auster puts it, “it’s THEIR country now.”

        Lucius Somesuch

        February 12, 2013 at 7:57 pm

      • Lucis, I think Republican strategists assume that Mexicans will become more prosperous, move to the suburbs, and then, like Irish and italian immigrants before them, get tired of supporting blacks – which will eventually cause mass defection of Mexicans to the Republican Party, much like Italians and Irish formed the majority of the “Reagan Democrats” in the 80s.

        There are of course two problems with this hypothesis – one is that Mexicans show no signs of becoming more prosperous as a general class, the other is that, to judge by Asians, non-whites will continue to vote Democrat even as they become more prosperous because they are convinced that the GOP is the “racist” party.

        Peter the Shark

        February 13, 2013 at 4:42 am

      • Lucis, I think Republican strategists assume that Mexicans will become more prosperous, move to the suburbs, and then, like Irish and italian immigrants before them, get tired of supporting blacks – which will eventually cause mass defection of Mexicans to the Republican Party, much like Italians and Irish formed the majority of the “Reagan Democrats” in the 80s.

        The mainstream GOP pundits have nearly all given up on the idea Hispanics will ever become Republican, so at least there’s some waking up going on among the Republican columnists.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 14, 2013 at 12:34 am

    • It dissipated after 40 years of almost zero immigration from 1920 to 1965 and after Americans fought in two civil wars. Since the draft in not coming back and immigration will only accelerate, I doubt if poor Hispanics will finally turn into WASP-like voters. Do you really think that El paso will somehow become the same as Burlington, VA?

      superdestroyer

      February 12, 2013 at 9:34 pm

  17. “What should be asked is, why should whites simply accept the Mexicanization of America? Come to think of it, even blacks should be against it.”

    I loled when a talking head on TV discussed the necessity of bringing immigrants into the middle class. The whole point of immigration is to undermine the middle class. Mexicans are eager to work for less than minimum wage, which kills whatever hope an honest, native born American who was born with subpar intelligence has of working a blue collar job and receiving a respectable slot in society. Indians work in software and engineering, and turn careers that should get a college educated American at least $80,000 a year into ones that pay half that, after years of hard toil studying boring, quickly obsolescent material.

    Immigration does benefit the economy, because it brings in productive individuals to the labor force and cuts labor costs. It just doesn’t benefit the economic standing of most Americans. Allow me to roll my eyes when Obama ran his campaign against Romney because Romney didn’t “understand or connect with the middle class,” and is now ready to undermine native born Americans once and for all. Then again, those Americans asked for this to happen for them, since Ohio went blue, so their poverty is their choice.

    I would talk about how horrible America will be when it becomes ever more like Mexico – 50,000 dead from their fighting the cartels – but someone who accuse me of being racist.

    “Immigration is a nonnegotiable on our side and we will stay home. If they legalize 12-15 million illegals AND their families, the Republican party will cease to exist within 10 to 15 years.”

    The problem is that we have no political recourse. Libertarians and Democrats love immigration. Republicans are eager to join in. The fundamental problem is that Americans dislike hearing and discussing the truth. Our natural optimism has mutated into a deaf hope that we can ignore how things really are, what whole groups of people are really like, until reality changes course and we have what we want. Political correctness means denying what is true, and making oneself ignorant.

    Look at us – we all hide behind aliases and euphemisms to guard our innermost opinions on the most important matters of the day. Americans hate the truth, and no society can properly function as long as it sees the true to be ugly, and the false to be desirable.

    Sid

    February 12, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    • Sid, to paraphrase a judge on an old “Law & Order”, I usually don’t like to editorialize from the bench, but I’d like to say that this comment makes me feel just a little bit cleaner for being part of a discussion like this, if only as a pseudonym- and with all the regrets our pseudonymity imposes. You state the SOTU with bracing clarity, and I hope we all have at least somebody in our real lives we can give it to as straight up as this.

      And someday, somehow, our damned country.

      Lucius Somesuch

      February 12, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    • “…aliases and euphemisms”

      I’ve found the balaclava to be a useful item for many reasons in many situations.

      rightsaidfred

      February 12, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    • The seeds of this country’s destruction were planted early on with the importation of slaves and then the continued tolerance of immigration so we became ” a country of immigrants.”.

      This country was doomed from the start. Unfortunately, the idiots running Europe the last 40 or 50 years thought it was a good idea to copy us, so now Europe is ruined forever.

      Twain

      February 13, 2013 at 12:32 am

  18. Ever since the 1968 election, Republicans’ technique was to say vaguely right things before the election and to do something else when elected. It’s surprising they got away with it for over forty years.

    Like Jack said, the Republican party craps on its voters. When was the last time Republicans did something for White heterosexual males? I would say in 1973, when draft was abolished.

    WRB

    February 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm

  19. “What should be asked is, why should whites simply accept the Mexicanization of America? Come to think of it, even blacks should be against it.”

    Blacks are the favorite pet victim group of every single immigration-loving SWPL that I know. Of course, these SWPLs don’t associate with any prole blacks or any prole “people of color.” If they do associate with blacks or “people of color,” they’re always upper middle class and if they’re blacks, they’re what Derb would refer to as IWSBs (Derb is always trying to come up with a new word or acronym that he thinks will catch on; I wish this one had). Diversity-loving pro-immigration SWPLs view all non-whites as a monolith (with the exception of Asians), which would be hypocritical if they weren’t so dedicated to the belief that if only the almost non-existent white racism that exists in this country would go away, we’d live in a utopian society.

    Robert

    February 12, 2013 at 7:06 pm

  20. Getting away from the idiotic abortion issue will be a big boon for Republicans. Gay marriage wise, at least the republicans arent doing anything actively anti Gay. Banning abortion is a major major assault upon women’s freedom in this day and age, especially in a country that prizes “Liberty” over everything.
    The problem with the abortion issue is that along with Creationist “Science”, it alienates the elite. A society will always be shaped by its elite, there is no getting around that. That is the natural law. The elite will never tolerate the moral certitudes of the great unwashed limiting their freedoms.
    When the elite have no reason to be anti Republican, we will see more support in the main stream media and things like that.
    Dump the bible thumpers.

    Grand Mariner

    February 12, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    • Abortion is a tangent. The elite don’t vote Republican because of the abortion issue. The elite don’t vote Republican because, notwithstanding what the GOP actually does these days, it’s still the lesser evil for rural and suburban whites. Unlike the effete, urban elites, these folks have guns, Bibles and patriotism. If they ever get really pissed off, there will be no stopping them and high finance, NGO’s, transnational bureaucracies with their cushy sinecures for childless, promiscuous, urban women go up in smoke.

      Abortion isn’t about ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty.’ It’s about enabling women to sleep with attractive men who make terrible husbands and fathers. It is a sideshow to a much more visceral and high-stakes class struggle.

      The Anti-Gnostic

      February 14, 2013 at 8:59 am

  21. Mexicanization of America? There’s no chance of that happening. That’s like saying western Europe will be invaded by eastern Europe and its corruption and crime. Mexico (and the majority of the Americas for that matter) is significantly more developed than the majority of the world (Mexico’s HDI is .77). Ireland, Italy, and Poland were once impoverished, corrupt and crime filled to a similar extent as that of sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, an “Americanization of Mexico” is far more likely. Even if Hispanics were to make the plurality of the population, the U.S. would still remain predominantly white, although Catholicism would be the largest denomination. Unless a republican candidate can somehow manage to win over the catholic vote (which likely will not happen), Religion plays just as big a role as ethnicity.

    Bob Jones

    February 12, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    • Hispanic americans have “mexicanized” our countries average PISA scores, why is it so absurd to think it won’t stop there?

      http://www.vdare.com/articles/pisa-scores-show-demography-is-destiny-in-education-too-but-washington-doesnt-want-you-to-k

      Reynald

      February 12, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    • “Mexicanization of America? There’s no chance of that happening.”

      Ever been to Fresno, CA? Looks like the future to me.

      rightsaidfred

      February 13, 2013 at 6:05 am

    • The notion of comparing Ireland, Poland, or– good God!– Italy to sub-Saharan Africa, at any juncture of time (concurrent or otherwise!) is so ludicrous as to demand rebuke.

      At what possible juncture of history, pray tell, has Italy not been parsecs beyond Africa? The Italy of the Scipios? of the Catos? of the Caesars? of the Antonines? of Gregory the Great? of Aquinas? of the Borgias? of Botticelli, Leonardo, Raphael? of Bernini, Vivaldi, Vico? of Rossini, Verdi, Puccini? of Fellini, Visconti, Antonioni?

      Name one sub-Saharan African, or person of sub-Saharan African lineage, who has ever rivaled a single name in that litany.

      The Ireland of “Barry Lyndon” is preferable to sub-Saharan Africa today. The Polish Diet was no more ineffectual, and almost certainly more civil, than any sub-Saharan government today. Government by the damned Corleones would be preferable to life in sub-Saharan Africa today.

      Oh and yes: Western Europe HAS been invaded by Eastern Europe’s corruption and crime. Roma, Gypsies, camgirls. Fay Weldon’s “She May Not Leave” offers an entertaining take.

      Lucius Somesuch

      February 13, 2013 at 12:12 pm

      • In 1910, Italy had an HDI of .291, a rating significantly lower than most of present day sub-saharan Africa. Ireland and the UK were relatively well off during that time period but still had an HDI nearly half that of present day Mexico. With that being said, a few countries like Gabon and Botswana aren’t terrible (HDI similar to that of China) and will likely reach “High” development within 20 years. Italy was a corrupt and impoverished while much of Europe was improving throughout the early 1900s. Say all you want about the statement pertaining to development but people were drowning in their own waste 100 years ago.

        Also, to all those that are discussing the “mexicanization” of the U.S. it simply won’t happen. Hispanics also aren’t a race contrary to Reynald’s graph, they are an ethnicity and consist of all races similarly to anglo-americans, The Irish and Italians weren’t considered “white” by even the official census during the early history of the U.S.

        Also, Western Europe may have been “invaded” but does it really matter? Saying that Western Europe or the U.S. was better off in the past is just ridiculous, and although I know that many people simply cannot see a country outside of the anglosphere, Western Europe, or a handful of Asian nations developing, it has already happened. Argentina and Chile are safer than the U.S. and have developed to a similar level of that of Poland. Mexico city also has a lower intentional homicide rate than most cities in this country. In other words, as education and economic activity increase (which they inevitably will), violence and corruption will decrease.

        Bob Jones

        February 13, 2013 at 6:50 pm

      • In 1910, Italy had an HDI of .291, a rating significantly lower than most of present day sub-saharan Africa.

        So if you were given the choice, would you prefer to live in Modern Africa or 1910 Italy?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 14, 2013 at 12:16 am

      • Bob Jones,

        The historic HDIs (or similar measure) of countries relative to other modern ones is meaningless. Technology is a rising tide that lifts all boats (right up until we use it to wipe ourselves off the planet). The historic ratios of HDI between two countries compared to the modern ratio is much more informative. Also no one is suggesting that outcomes are entirely determined by genetics or even that Hispanic issues are primarily due to genetics. We’re probably closer to being able to reliably improve a groups genetics than we are to improving their culture. So determining that a problem is cultural doesn’t really help solve it.

        The fact is that Hispanics lower average quality of life (i.e HDI) and social cohesion. So an increasing percentage or Hispanics is bad regardless of whether they are a “race” or not. I also would say most of them are a distinct “race” in so far as they look different because the majority are either black or mestizo. This is obviously not the case with the self appointed Hispanic leaders who are the most visible (largely because of hispanic-american cultural inertness, something not captured in traditional measure of quality of life)

        I certainly agree it is possible that in a significant amount of time (likely at least 50 years) the average Hispanic quality of life matches or exceeds that of whites and that Hispanics are generally accepted both by themselves and others as part of mainstream america (meaning social cohesion has been restored). I would put the likelihood of those two things happening at around 1/5 to 1/3 within 100 years. I see very little potential for a large Hispanic influx actually causing some significant long term improvement to this country. I also think that an uplifting of Hispanics in the US would very likely be accompanied by an uplift of those groups in their original countries. So I don’t see much gain even for the descendants of Hispanic immigrants. Hispanic-americans would certainly benefit in the mean time from living in the US but not nearly as much as immigrants from other parts of the world would. Plus I am alive now and am mostly concerned with what happens in my life time. So for all of these reasons I don’t support more Hispanic immigration and want to remove as many of the non elite Hispanics from this country as is ethically possible. I also would have had serious reservations about immigration at various points in this countries history.

        Also I’m interested in more information about Irish and Italians in historic censuses if you have link.

        Reynald

        February 14, 2013 at 1:15 am

      • The Undiscovered Jew: “So if you were given the choice, would you prefer to live in Modern Africa or 1910 Italy?”

        That’s a flawed question. How you feel is determined by your absolute well being and your comparative well being. Italians in 1910 not only had no idea about lives of people in the future but were also generally pretty ignorant of how the rest of the world (and even country) lived. Africans in 2013 know all about the rest of the 2013 world. SO the question of where someone would prefer to do with more than absolute well being.

        I’m not totally familiar with the figures or methodology but it is absolutely likely that the absolute well being of an 2012 African is higher than a 1910 Italian. Technology and science have been a huge boon for the lives everyone.

        Reynald

        February 14, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    • Here’s some information with correlation as to what I have been saying:
      http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/

      Go back to 1980 and you’ll see that Latin America is just as impoverished as the rest of the world. They have always been steps ahead of Southeast Asia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_living_on_less_than_$1_per_day_1981-2001.png
      When Mexico reaches similar development to Argentina and Chile, immigration will not be a major problem any more.

      HDI 1870-1930:
      http://books.google.com/books?id=AIKDcwju1J0C&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=us+hdi+1930&source=bl&ots=geVzBrWVl8&sig=6WlUPq3XW8cGG1dbW7fWyMWfIso&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mdwcUZX8C5TW2wXGroHgAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=us%20hdi%201930&f=false

      In other words, Italy was less developed than Argentina (which actually sounds reasonable). Of all the countries in the Americas (Including the U.S. and Canada), it is probably the most European. Previous HDI measures matter because during that time period, children were working in sweatshops and very few people had sanitation, especially in OECD nations. There is a certain chance that you had a higher quality of life than your ancestors.

      Bob Jones

      February 14, 2013 at 7:58 am

      • Bob, you’re out of your mind. Quit clutching your HDI-autism to your chest and try and wrap your head around the fact that 19th Century Europe was not some cesspool. Just because Italian peasants didn’t use your bidet doesn’t mean they were drowning in their own waste. Even if you weren’t a Visconti aristocrat then, you still had the magnificent trappings of civilization all about you. Was Garibaldi some banana republic outoftown tryout? Even the cornpone peasant Marxism of Bertolucci’s “Novecento” would be beyond the comprehension of SubSaharan Africans today.

        I don’t care if some child-murdering thug in Zaire can make a call on a cell phone. The fact is preposterously irrelevant. Sub-Saharan Africa revels in bloodshed, “witchcraft”, the most vile of passions and superstitions amidst orgies of squalor. A Dickens novel’s trials and impoverishments would be an elysium by comparison: and that’s just in material terms; to say nothing of the social, spiritual, cultural blessings of living amidst a real civilization.

        And as for your precious Mexico: it is not, and it’s not gonna be, an Argentina, let alone an Italy.

        Lucius Somesuch

        February 14, 2013 at 3:27 pm

      • Bob Jones is right. Relative levels of development do change over time and they can’t be totally predicted. I just don’t want to take those risks with my country and don’t want to spend my whole life waiting for things to work out. You’re admitting they have about as much potential to develop in their own country as they do here so lets stop having people move here and crossing our fingers that they get their act together and just focus on developing their home country.

        Reynald

        February 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    • I don’t even care if Mexicans can “fit it”. I don’t want them here. I do not want to be ruled by people from a different country. They have no bunsiness being in this country just like these Asians that are coming here now.

      I don’t even wants milions of Europeans coming here. Of course, I ‘d rather have them than Africans and most South Americans.

      I am tired of all these people that think they can move to a country and take it over.

      Mass immigration is an invasion of a country that forces it change.

      Twain

      February 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm

  22. “Ultimately TNR article is a tautology – the Republican party is a white people’s party because most blacks and Hispanics don’t vote Republican. How shocking!’

    This country revolves around black people more than it did during slavery because everyone has to pretend they would be happy to live around a bunch of black people, when we know they wouldn’t. It’s insidious..

    Twain

    February 13, 2013 at 12:23 am

  23. The good news is that nobody reads TNR. As to the GOP being the ‘white people’s party,’ this is accurate to the extent that Donna Brazile (Gore’s Campaign Chair) was right in 2000 when she described the Dems as “the party of blacks, women and gays.” But I say again, as a religious reader of TNR up to the mid-90’s, nobody reads that thing. They lost common-sense Dems when Andrew Sullivan turned it into an annex of The Advocate, and it’s too literate for Kos types.

    helene edwards

    February 13, 2013 at 4:29 pm

  24. The way to get race realist policies to gain traction is to defund the leftist organizations that profit from liberal policies; Per Breitbart.com, the Washington D.C. area today boasts 7 out of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US. I’d wager at least half of that wealth comes from salaries paid out to D.C. bureaucrats employed to transfer white tax dollars to neurologically unassimilable American blacks and third world immigrants.

    We don’t need to rely on the national Republicans to defeat the left, we can defund the left by working at the local level. IF the Cathedral is shut down then we can potentially get sane race realist policies because there won’t be enough public support to put up with current policies on race if the liberals don’t have their organizations to manufacture support and suppress dissent. The minority vote wouldn’t matter a bit in this scenario because the low IQ miniorities wouldn’t know what month it is without the left.

    In the absence of USG political propaganda, which, if I may digress, now easily surpasses the combined propaganda output of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union combined, sane “minority control” policies would go mainstream because multiculturalism is inherently counter to white people’s normal instincts. Unplugging the Cathedral would also collapse the support for the Left’s other policies on issues not directly related to race such as Gaianism, feminism and tax hikes.

    Cross posted from Moldbug’s joint:

    Some counter-Cathedral measures include:

    1) Call your state legislators or Governors (especially if they are GOP) and ask them to force public universities to accept MOOCs for college credit.

    I hear the economy is doing splendid these days, so splendid that hundreds of thousands of leftist humanities professors surely won’t object to looking for work in the private sector after Sebastian Thrun’s outfit automates their jobs out of existence.

    2) Boycott newspapers. The newspapers are already hemaragaing revenue to the internet behomoths, so another good push should finish them off. I must say it’s wonderful passing the Current Events newsstand at Barnes & Noble without seeing a print version of Newsweek. Let’s send more newspapers to their grave like Newsweek this year instead of waiting for Boehner to outsmart Pelosi. And waiting, and waiting…

    3) Walk the streets for Wisconsin-esque anti-public union referendum petitions.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    February 14, 2013 at 12:31 am


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 224 other followers

%d bloggers like this: