Some comments have caused me to think a bit further about what these things mean ...
Just as the majority of Americans voted for Obama so Latinos did. Jews despite swinging in increasing numbers towards Republicans earlier, went as heavily for Obama as they did FDR. Catholics increased their vote for Obama. Yadda. What demographic did not? White Anglo Males from 45-60?
That, if anything is a clear warning sign to Republicans.
How did Latinos vote in 2000? 2004? 2006? Historically?
America is NOT WASP.
WASP decline began as early as the immigration waves of the 1840's.
The Irish were not regarded as 'anglos'
The German immigrations which resulted in complete divisions and corps of the Army of the Potomac which could barely speak and communicate (O.O. Howard's at Chancellorsville, for example) was regarded as a sign of decline
The eastern europeans were certainly not regarded as white anglos.
I also take exception to the idea that lots of immigration means socialism and third world-ism.
This is all very similar to the argument which began the day Andrew Jackson ran for president supported by (at the time) the western undereducated, ignorant, uncultured, 'untermenschen'
Those who are attracted to become Americans (as distinguished from those who just want a buck and to return home) do so for a chance to SUCCEED and thrive for themselves and their progeny.
America is a better life, or one free from oppression.
REGARDLESS OF COLOR, RACE OR BACKGROUND.
The very ideas that IMMIGRATION means open borders (when I am clearly calling for secure borders) ... IS THE DEATH KNELL FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ICONIC FOR IT, AND WILL ACCELERATE THE OUTCOME SOME DON'T WANT WHILE ENSURING THAT IN THE END - CONSERVATIVE MEANS RACIST IN THE PUBLIC MIND, AND PERHAPS IN OBJECTIVE REALITY AS WELL
Conflating these issues GUARANTEES DEMOCRATIC RULE
Precisely what the most left leaning dangerous persons in this nation desire.
MY ANCESTORS, I assure you, did not come as WHITE MALES.
In fact they were 1 male and 9 women arriving here on my dad's side. On my mother's side, an orphaned woman, with 2 girls and a boy. Not one had a cent. Just an address to go to. Not an anglo cultural idea among the lot.
They created 11 who served in WW2 - the from the pacific to D-day at Normandy. 3 more in Korea. 4 in Vietnam. 1 in civil rights. Among them they created tailors, radar developers, bus drivers, hospital admins, teachers, and one cardiac research scientist type.
They all came from the late 19th century to the 1920's. I state all that because I bet IT IS TYPICAL.
Today the Americans who happen to be Asian DOMINATE the high achievement levels in high schools (certainly on the west coast where many attend after school schools in order to ACHIEVE as adults), and form pluralities in many graduate, law and medical schools.
As Christine's fine post points out wordlessly, America's 'culture' is culture less.
Ironically it is PRECISELY that which has held us together amid the forces which have destroyed other nations, and made many more weaker and unable to thrive.
But no matter - I mention the idea of the 1924 immigration law as an idea, and icon of closure. Quotas. Exclusions.
The idea is that conservative, if it means anything must mean BLIND to all but adherence to a set of ideals .. a set which define our ability to thrive as individuals, and rise to the level of our intelligence, hard work, and risk taking guts, unhindered by govt.
But maybe that is too liberal a definition?
14 comments:
I left this comment on Christine's post yesterday, and I think it applies here as well:
The past few days I've been thinking about this topic, so I'm glad you posted on it.
Here's what I've been thinking.
In California, and much of the rest of the nation, we have collusion between business and government to encourage illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants provide cheap labor. The fact of the matter is, most Californians take advantage of this cheap labor SOMETIMES. Many of us hire illegal immigrant gardeners and handymen.
Here's the problem. As long as they are illegal immigrants, they are not given equal protection under the law.
This is a form of apartheid.
And, it encourages further law-breaking, and the formation of groups to protect this underclass population. The Mafia became useful to the Italian immigrants because it served as a de facto police force/justice system to which Italians (who were discriminated against in the early days of the 20th century) could appeal to for help.
Similarly, we have a Mexican Mafia, and a series of gangs and drug cartels who function as a kind of buffer for the illegal immigrant population. Additionally, we have groups like Mecha and the Aztlan Movement in general who are fomenting hatred of whites and Jews.
These are the wages of sin, and the sin is this collusion; this apartheid system.
My wife is a first generation immigrant from the Philippines. When her family came here, they became citizens by going through a process of obtaining green cards, taking classes in American History/Government and Civics (the study of the Founding of America and the Constitution). They all had to take tests, pass said tests and swear allegiance to the United States of America in order to gain citizenship.
We do not require this of illegal immigrants.
Instead, every so many years, repenting of the sin of our collusion in a system of apartheid, we grant them amnesty by the millions. Presto, chango, they are American citizens.
No classes in History, no tests, no swearing allegiance to our nations laws, traditions, or Constitution.
This further perpetuates the underclass status of Mexican immigrants.
They are "Americans" without understanding anything more about America than what they can see on the streets and on TV beer commercials, etc.
And ultimately, we are setting ourselves up for the birth of a kind of New Tribalism in America. Instead of having a population who swear allegiance to the ideas on which America is founded, we have a sub-population (almost exclusively from South America) who have little understanding of what it means to be an American.
The result of this is they will continue on believing in their tribe, rather than believing in the American tradition of Ideas over blood.
This is a disaster in the making. Ultimately, we could wind up with a situation similar to what is occurring in Europe, where Ethnic Nationalism is once again rearing it's ugly head.
This above thoughts are particularly important, in my opinion, when we discuss the Republican Party and what it stands for. As we all know, the Republican Party was actually established to be the anti-Slavery party. The Republican Party quickly replaced the Whig Party on the American political scene. The Whig Party was a Conservative Party which did not oppose slavery.
So, the foundation of the Republican Party was built on the message of being opposed to slavery.
This ideal was viewed by Abraham Lincoln and his fellow Republicans as being consistent with the American Constitution.
Likewise, in my opinion, the Apartheid system which is established and supported by illegal immigration, and a lack of orderly immigration policy under the "Amnesty" program, is counter to the ideas established in the American Constitution.
This ought to be a Republican issue.
In fact, if you query the Republicans on the street about it, it is an issue. Perhaps, the issue, behind security.
However, the power structure of the Republican Party is NOT REPRESENTING IT'S CONSTITUENCY.
The fact is we're not just individuals, but members of groups largely defined by race, religion, language and nationality. Humans are social animals and we tend to travel in herds, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the political arena.
For example, in the 2008 US presidential election whites voted 55 - 43 for McCain over Obama. But if you exclude Jews and Muslims (Arabs, Turks and Persians are defined as white by the US census bureau), who voted for Obama in the 80%+ range, then the percentage of white Christians who voted for McCain is probably closer to 60%.
Contrast this with non-whites, who supported Obama by an astonishing 80 - 18 margin. And this pattern is by no means restricted to the 2008 election. The Republicans have won the white vote in every election dating back to 1964, which means that Democratic victories in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008 only came about because of their virtual stranglehold on the non-white vote.
And this pattern of voting with your race/religion/language group is by no means restricted to the US: It's universal. There was an election in South Africa less than two weeks ago. The ANC again won an overwhelming victory, based on gaining almost all of the black votes. The smaller parties were all supported by particular demographic groups: The Democratic Alliance won the votes of most whites and coloureds, Inkatha won the Zulu vote, The Independent Democrats were supported almost exclusively by coloureds, the Freedom Front Plus by Afrikaners, the Minority Front by Indians, and so on.
In Quebec, the white, Francophone, Catholic majority votes for the socialist separatist PQ and, to a lesser extent, the conservative autonomist ADQ. Meanwhile the votes from Quebec's racial, religious and linguistic minorities virtually all go to the liberal federalist LPQ. This pattern is repeated without exception every election. And there are hundreds of examples of ethnic voting patterns found everywhere in the world. That's just the way it is, and it will probably never change, at least not in our lifetimes.
So should the Republican Party try harder to reach out to ethno-religious groups? George W Bush might have been the best friend Israel could ever hope for in the White House, but American Jews rewarded his party by voting 83% (!!!) for B Hussein Obama. Similarly, Hispanic voters supported Obama 67 - 31 even though both Bush and McCain were both staunch supporters of bilingualism, open borders and amnesty. Even Asian Americans, despite their higher-than-average incomes, voted for Obama by a 2 - 1 margin.
So what can the Republicans do if they ever want to win a national election again? Especially in an era of mass immigration when only 12% of immigrants are "white", and even they are largely Arabs, Turks and Persians. They can start by adopting the Sailer Strategy, i.e. mobilizing their white base. In 2008, the Democrats won the following states that are more than 80% non-Hispanic white: Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. These are the states that the Republicans should target for 2012. How? For a start by opposing blatantly anti-white policies like mass Third World immigration, affirmative action and government-funded multiculturalism.
The Republicans are the party of white America because old-stock whites are generally much more conservative than non-whites and other minorities. They can keep on desperately pandering to minorities and keep on losing elections. Or they can mobilize their white base and win. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that they will continue with the politically correct former course than the non-PC, but winning strategy of the latter. Because, hey, it's better to let America slide into socialism than offend the gods of PC. Right?
Agree ..most of the benefits of the illegals are on the employer side.
The illegals have few rights, and live in fear. How can they not?
Among them are those predators who want to harm america..WITHOUT ANY DOUBT
When I hear 'immigration reform' I think amnesty.
Not a secure border.
But REAL reform should create an America which draws in those who wish to adopt our ideas, and are free to do so. Those people would be inimical to those who cross the border illegally in order to hurt America
JEPPO you have pronounced the death knell, in the formal identification ...
"The Republicans are the party of white America "
THE END.
ALL SHE WROTE.
If what you say is true, then I cannot work for a party based on race. EVER.
What happens when you lose ALL the people like me?
You are arguing for political identification based on race and group as an ultimate endpoint.
ETHNIC NATIONALISM
I live in a rural, MONOCOLORED, 100% white area. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
McCain won here by only 80 votes. And THAT was a small miracle.
His problems are not about color. The Republicans' problems are not about color
Foley and Hastert, Livingtstone, Delay did from 1994 until 2006 what it took the democrats from 1932 to 1994 to do. Bush completely destroyed the idea of the party of Reagan, and made the idea of the word 'conservative' a joke. The republican party was regarded here as completely corrupt, dissolute and useless. Power had ruined them.
Newt's 1994 contract was not about color, race, or national group.
The ultimate endpoint of Sailer's article is ABSOLUTELY - CofCC.
I'll take my chances convincing the new Americans over the long haul that conservative ideas are OBJECTIVELY CORRECT.
But if republicans self identify as the white party they lose before the discussions begin.
1932 = 'Dems are for the working man.'
2009 = "The Republicans are the party of white America "
That's' a dream for Alinsky lovers.
A DREAM
I will NEVER identify with, work for, or promulgate ideas which seek political dominance based on race, or group, and excluding others. That is what Sailer is doing.
'Whites are the real America. I am pro white. Whites understand the culture that made America, others do not and cannot.'
That's what I get from Sailer
Sailer, direct quote -"If you don't want whites to act like a minority group - e.g. racially-conscious, bloc-voting, biased, prickly, led by racial racketeers constantly proclaiming their group's victimization - then the government should stop making whites a minority through mass immigration."
Are you kidding? He wants all whites voting as a bloc to stop any chance of losing their influence BASED ON COLOR RIGHT NOW.
CofCC, dude.
I've met some of them at the poolside in Fairhope, Alabama, spraying lemon juice on themselves. I love it there. Nice folks. Except for one tiny thing.
Pastorius said, They are "Americans" without understanding anything more about America than what they can see on the streets and on TV beer commercials, etc.Absolutely. With the numbers of illegal Latino immigrants, entire communities have fractured and/or reverted to a tribal mentality.
As for a white Republican Party, that's a huge mistake in every way I can think of, including what Epa said in an above comment. Such a racist philosophy (if it can be called philosophy) will lead to a race war. And what would be the outcome? IMO, tyranny so as to restore order.
It was REAGAN who gave amnesty to 3 million. I'm not in favor of that now since nothing was ever done to secure the situation, but still...all take note.
I don't think I am misinterpreting Sailer at all.
I also DON'T CARE what the white population % is. I really don't care. Arguments around that as some kind of measurable 'good' simply fail.
We can measure our success by how many BECOME AMERICANS WHO MAKE AMERICAN BETTER, not by how many whites we are as a % of the whole.
"old-stock whites" ... that let's me out. And I think you'll find my ideas almost top to bottom GOLDWATER ..right down to:
"When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. "
In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned,” Goldwater retorted: “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”.
“You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
.................................
"If you want to see what happens to a nation when control passes from Europeans to non-Europeans, there are plenty of examples to choose from in Latin America and southern Africa: Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc."
Mexico was an indian nation, inarguably despoiled and destroyed as only the Spanish could do. No matter what you think of the Aztecs. The rest of those nations are a list of colonies which might fit that description to one extent or another as well.
Europe was never IMHO a very nice place, and that's why we are here REFUGEES from there. Nothing from then until now I want to emulate about europe politically. I'll take the beer, wine, and a few other physical items.
But the real issue is this...
Is America an exceptional nation?
If so, what made it so?
You seem to think it is the culture developed by white people.
I think it would have dried up like a prune left to what was here almost homogeneously, before the first waves of non anglos in the 1840's.
I think the ideas of a few men standing on the shoulders of a few others all together luckily for us in the right place at the right time, has fired the imagination of many people all over the world. Those people wherever they ARE AMERICANS.
Without them, we'd be nowhere. That's true if they are blue and worship goat heads.
We need them. Just as much as they need us.
I outlined the very few ideals of what conservative must mean today to be successful, we have a fundamental disagreement it seems to me about what conservative means.
Ok, let's try this again.
The reason my post was about the original dates of immigration, was to prove a point.
If it were not for the immigrants, our country would not exist.
Immigrants built this country from the ground up.
I believe that our appreciation of that fact, has become blurred. In order to deal with the illegal immigration problem, we have unconsciencly sent a message to all immigrants. Whether this is the message we have intended to send or not, the fact is, it's out there.
Immigrants will always flock to the United States of America. This is the greatest and freest country in the world. And whether we are willing to admit or not, we need them.
The Republicans need to re-evaluate their message. Because they can't win, without the immigrants.
Actually, the immigrants (the large majority of them, legal and illegal, are uneducated and unskilled peasants from Latin America) are the reason the Republicans may never win another election, at least not as anything purporting to be a conservative party. If Obama manages to ram through amnesty, then it's all over but the crying for the GOP.
I completely disagree that America *needs* immigrants. Have you no faith in yourselves at all? You're the greatest country in the world, but you seem to think that you're doomed without a massive influx of Third Worlders who, let's face it, certainly don't have a sterling record of achievement in their own countries or in the US. It would would make a lot more sense if Americans and other Westerners migrated to the Third World, to try to bring them up to our standards, rather than allowing tens of millions of them to migrate here and inevitably drag us down to their standards.
For all the multicultural propaganda that we're constantly bombarded with, remember this: America at its founding was 100% white (blacks and Indians weren't recognized as citizens), 98% Protestant and 80% British. It was these WASPs, so derided and scorned today, who created the American nation, based on two of the finest political documents ever written, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, and have been the driving force in creating an unparalleled American superpower from the humblest of beginnings four centuries ago at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. The WASPs should be recognized for their incredible achievements, rather than belittled for for their real and imaginary failings.
Since all Western countries have drank the multicultural kool-aid, it is and will remain difficult to compare the effects of mass Third World immigration versus no mass Third World immigration between the various nations of the West. But we will be able to compare them with monocultural First World nations like South Korea (99.9% Korean), Japan (98.5% Japanese) and Taiwan (98% Chinese). In 50, or even 20 years time, I predict that the balance of world power will shift permanently to East Asia, where they still have pride and confidence in their cultures and have absolutely no interest in turning their nations over to Third World colonizers. Meanwhile the West will simply disappear: Europe will amalgamate with the Muslim Middle East (Eurabia), and the US will fold itself into Latin America(Estados Unidos), all thanks to mass immigration. I wonder what our descendants will think of our generation, who sold out their birthright in the name of diversity. Probably not much.
"America at its founding was 100% white" FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
Slave were persons (despite Dredd Scott's case), and their contributions MADE the economy which enabled the Constitution and our independence possible
My faith in myself is that I will achieve, and that american ideals will achieve no matter what the mix of (legally) incoming americans is at any time.
My faith in america is that OUR (Jefferson's) theory of the natural inalienable rights of man make US exceptional and makes us what we SHOULD BE.. the object of people who believe in such ideas worldwide
These facts of mankind and american freedoms are not related to any totally bogus idea of race and narrow cultural birthright which can be sold out.
Right, I should have phrased it "At its founding, the American polity was 100% white", since blacks and Indians had no political rights.
As a Canadian, I can tell you that American exceptionalism is a myth. Why? 'Cause we're just like you. Sure we have somewhat higher taxes and somewhat fewer freedoms than you, but that's only because you're a couple of decades behind us on the slippery slope. I'm sure y'all will catch up with us real soon now (waves to President Obama!).
I'm glad you have faith in your country, Epa, because with the direction it's heading in, you're sure gonna need it.
There is not a single person in America, except Native Americans, who's family didn't come from somewhere else.
We have been a multi-nationality country, since the day the first man walked across it's border.
Today, we have many thousands of productive immigrants in our country. These people came here to escape severe poverty, oppression, violence and inhumane treatment.
Every one, whether they make beds, clean your office, serve you your fast food, sell you a car, a house, serve you at a bank or grocery store or run your company, is in some way contributing to our countries worth.
Worth goes beyond money. Contributing to your daily comfort, cleanliness and hunger, contributes to your well being, which in the end, contributes to our worth.
The subject of immigrants needs to be brought out of the money box. Yes, there are people here illegally. But, let's not group ALL immigrants into the same conversation all the time.
That is what has happened to the discussion of immigration in this country. All the immigrants hear is negativity in regards to immigrants.
And that, is where the Republican party can change. Acknowledge the hard working, contributing people who have come here.
Win their votes.
jeppo, I commend to you Wellington .. and as it must be for REAL democracies always .. who said at Waterloo of the wars with Napoleon.."It was a near run thing, it was the nearest run thing you will ever want to see"
It just can't be any other way.
Post a Comment