October 2, 2012

What will Mormons do post-Romney?

Ever since roughly 1890, Mormons have been trying to compensate for the weirdness of their founding era by closely emulating mainstream middle class white American culture (which hasn't been that hard for them since they tended to start out as mainstream Northwest Europeans).

This worked well for them subjectively in terms of social acceptance within America (nobody much cares, or even notices, that the Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is a Mormon). 

And, this Mormon strategy of being more mainstream than the mainstream also worked well for them objectively, in terms of prosperity, safety, sobriety, honesty and a host of other measures of good things, because the 20th Century American middle class mainstream had lots and lots of good values.

But now, a representative (indeed, exemplary) Mormon is trying, like John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama, to lead his people to the ultimate symbolic level of acceptance, the Presidency. To Mormons, Romney represents the beau ideal of their culture. 

Perhaps we'll have a different perspective after the debates, but at present it appears that the Mormon strategy has broken down at making the last leap. Contemporary Americans find Romney, and Mormons in general, weird and creepy and offputting and suspicious. And that's less because Mormons' great-grandfathers were polygamists than because Mormons try hard to act like the mainstream middle class white Americans who took the human race to the Moon, and what could be more uncool (and maybe downright racist) than that?

In 1928, voters rejected the first Catholic presidential candidate, Al Smith. This caused much soul-searching among Catholics, and the overall response was to redouble their efforts to fit into the American mainstream. Catholic schools became ever more Americanized (e.g., relative to Quebec's). The next Catholic nominee, JFK, was almost a parody of upper class WASPishness: winters in Palm Beach, Choate, Harvard, naval officer, sailing, golf, etc. 

As a candidate, JFK gave a famous speech to suspicious Protestant ministers in Houston that allayed suspicions that he would let Catholic internationalism conflict with Protestant American nationalism. This speech is spun these days as a triumph over Protestant bigotry, but if you actually read JFK's speech, it was a near complete capitulation to Protestant American nationalism. Catholic Rick Santorum read it for the first time earlier this year and, being basted in 21st Century minoritariansm, he was shocked by how the minority candidate had fully endorsed the fundamental prejudice of the majority and promised to live up the majority's demands.

After JFK's election and, perhaps more importantly, martyrdom, American Catholic distinctiveness and sense of peoplehood receded.

But what will happen among Mormons if Romney is defeated in sizable part because he's so Mormon in affect, values, and behavior? Will they redouble their efforts to be even more what they are? Will they decide they have to loosen up and get funky? Will we see more ads on TV featuring Mormon Tongan NFL players?

Or, feeling rejected as a people, will Mormons go off in a new, subversive direction of ... what?

Mormons aren't a huge group (usually said to be about 9 million). And they aren't hugely talented. They generally seem to be about the white American average -- but that puts them increasingly above the American average. And they are better organized, more cohesive, and less dysfunctional than most. So, if they move in a particular direction, it could be moderately significant.

The most likely reaction would probably be to modernize by accelerating the Third Worldization of Mormonism. That would be the easy, socially acceptable path. But that way leads to irrelevance because nobody cares much about nonblack nonwhites, especially ones who choose to assimilate into polite Mormonhood rather than riot over YouTube videos.

Perhaps, though, there are other, more unexpected directions that insulted, alienated Mormons could turn. I don't know enough about them to guess what those might be, however.

119 comments:

anony-mouse said...

One huge difference between the Mormons and other Northwest Europeans is that Mormons have larger than average broods rather than smaller than average ones. You might say they act old Protestant but breed old Catholic.

32 years (1928-60) means that we may get a Mormon President in 2044

Anonymous said...

Harry Reid can worship Cthulhu and drink the blood of virgins, no one will notice or care. Because Democrat.

Anonymous said...

"Or, feeling rejected as a people, will Mormons go off in a new, subversive direction of ... what?"

Mormon-metal as the next sub-genre of extreme heavy metal?

Anonymous said...

Ehh they're already subverting their message of wholesomeness in their stupid mormon ads they're spamming all across the internet lately.

>I'm a tattooed freak
>And I'm a mormon

>I'm a single parent
>And I'm a mormon

Anonymous said...

As an example of Momons fitting in I offer the band Neon Trees (named for the In N Out burger graphics).

Anonymous said...

Mormonism had NOTHING to do with the rise of Romney. So, it doesn't matter.

But Mormonism can be useful to white conservatives.

Instead of thinking of a white community as a whole, a core bunch of white conservatives should form a Mormon-like community. And they should focus on increasing its power, influence, and etc. It will be good for morale.

When we think of the 'white community', we have to include liberals, libertarians, cons, etc, etc, and they all disagree. So, that is dispiriting cuz so many whites are not with you. You feel like "What's the point?"

But if your identity is tied to a core white community, you won't have to worry about what the larger white community thinks since you're devoted to the core.

Suppose 10 million white cons form their own community. And they emphasize family, having kids, and working hard. Over time, 10 million can grow to 20 million to 40 million and etc.
Mormon advantage was just that. Though part of the white community, they had high morale cuz their main loyalty was to their own core white community. So, even if most whites weren't with them or didn't agree with Mormon principles, Mormons had a powerful sense of belonging, meaning,and community.
This is also the power of Jews. Jews could see themselves as just white people, but then, they'd just become disillusioned cuz most white people may not agree with values and ideas favored by Jews. So, Jews have a core Jewish identity, and this gives them powerful sense of morale. They don't care what other white people think since their main loyalty is to white Jewishness.

So, this aspect of Mormonism should be used by cons. Form more core communities. And the core principles of these communities would be smartness, hard work, HBD truth, secularism with respect for religion, and etc.
One problem with Mormonism is its ridiculous spiritual doctrine.

Suppose you're a disillusioned white American cuz so many white Americans don't seem to be on the same page as you. But suppose you belong to a new core white community made up of 1 million people. That will give you morale. Now you belong to a core community. You know there are others like you. And if more such core communities form across America, they will grow as dots, and there will come a time when those dots can be connected.

Anonymous said...

Paradoxically, we need to form separate core white communities in order form the greater white community.
If there had been no Mormonism, most whites in Utah would have just been a bunch of whites like any other. But because they separated from other whites as Mormons, they formed a powerful community, and it became an emblem of whiteness.

The problem with 'whiteness' today is it's too generic and bland. Whites hanker for new core communities. These can be ethnic: Italian, Irish, German, etc. It can be religious: Mormon.
Conservatives need to go for hyphenated Americanism. It will be our multiculturalism. If leftist multiculturalism is uniting non-white diversity against whites, rightist multiculturalism can be uniting white diversity against enemies of whites.

In the past, Anglo-Americanized whiteness was not bland. It was proudly associated with the settling of America, the great stories and tales of developing wild territories, defeating the Indians, and other great glories. But most of Anglo-American history is now associated with 'racism', and the only good thing about 19th century history is said to be the Civil War where whites, to atone for their sins, fought and killed other whites to end slavery. In the first half of the 20th century, immigrant ethnic groups watched Westerns with Anglo-American heroes and wanted to be like great proud Anglo-Americans. But all of that's been condemned as 'racist', and so the new good kind of Anglo-Americanism was to be nice and apologetic and bland. This isn't very appealing.

Why are so many white conservatives pro-Zionist? They feel too bland and 'nice'. They want some red meat, some attachment to a core identity. Since they can't get it from whiteness anymore, they get it from Zionism. But supporting and identifying with Jews haven't done much for conservatives; if anything, it has lost us much time.

So, we need to develop new core white communities where people can find a powerful sense of home.
We can create new sects of Christianity, or synchronize Christianity and paganism, etc. But in all, we must emphasize discipline, hard work, unity, HBD, secular science, and love of culture.

Dutch Boy said...

If the Mormons learn from the Catholic experience, they should ditch attempts to fit into the increasingly dysfunctional American mainstream. Such attempts by Catholics have been disastrous for Catholicism and yield up politicians like the faux Catholic Kennedys and their ilk.

Anonymous said...

"But what will happen among Mormons if Romney is defeated in sizable part because he's so Mormon in affect, values, and behavior?"

Mormons are now the most American of Americans. They will eventually choose political separation and secede rather than let Utah turn into California. (Note that Harry Reid is NOT a US Senator of Utah and never could be).

Mormons are the only whites with a strong group identity determined by genealogy. They will probably survive the coming Mexiggedon issuing from US maternity wards.

Dennis Dale said...

You're absolutely right. Kennedy declared his Catholicism subordinate to the State and popular will and so the Catholics finally "arrived", at the White House no less, and Catholicism was killed.
Catholics should have just waited, while cultivating minority status--we'd never demand a minority declare his faith--or particular ethnicity--subordinate now.

Anonymous said...

There's hasn't been a Jewish president and it doesn't seem to bother them.Why will the Mormons be any different?

bluto said...

I think the best prediction about Mormonism is that it will be to the American Empire as Catholicism was to the Roman Empire (an establishment of the culture and beliefs that remained an important force long after the political entity's failure).

Anonyia said...


"Mormons are the only whites with a strong group identity determined by genealogy. They will probably survive the coming Mexiggedon issuing from US maternity wards."

I disagree. Mormons plan to integrate Mexicans into their fold. They care more about increasing numbers than genealogy. I always see their missionary boys proselytizing in the ghetto of my current city. I find it funny that they didn't show up until after a tornado hit us hard a year ago. I guess they figured poor people hit by a natural disaster would be more vulnerable and thus apt to convert? I don't know. Something seems phony about it all.

White southerners and some white ethnics like Italians definitely have stronger group identity than Mormons. What creates strong group identity is a little bit of exclusionary behavior and toughness. From all I've seen, Mormons are currently lacking either factor.

Marlowe said...

Baptize more dead people.

MC said...

Since I don't see him commenting here yet, I'll go ahead and link to Bruce Charlton's excellent post on this topic:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/02/future-of-mormonism-recreating.html

MC said...

"What creates strong group identity is a little bit of exclusionary behavior and toughness."

Oh, Mormons have the exclusionary behavior, though entirely unintentionally. It's just a by-product of the fact that it's hard to associate comfortably with people whose way of life is so alien (as most people's are to Mormons).

Toughness, not so much, although don't count us out entirely. The Prop 8 response by Mormons was a good sign that we'll assert ourselves when encouraged to so by our leaders.

Semi-Employed White Guy said...

Harry Reid can worship Cthulhu and drink the blood of virgins, no one will notice or care.

From listening to your average Fundamentalist Christian, that's what the average Mormon does.

Andrew Gilbert said...

Jeez, reductive much Steve? First, you write as if there's a steady progression in assimilation/acceptance in American culture, though when George Romney ran for the GOP nomination in '68 his religion didn't seem to be much of an issue. More importantly, you seem to believe that if Romney loses it'll be because of his religion, but can you actually cite any evidence for that? Obama so far has run a much better campaign, defining Romney as an out of touch plutocrat with an agenda that will benefit the upper classes. If Romney's repudiated at the polls in November, I doubt most Mormons will experience it as a major setback for the religion.

Anonymous said...

"nobody much cares, or even notices, that the Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is a Mormon"

Reid and his ethnically Jewish wife converted to Mormonism while he was in college. That fact has helped him squeeze out a couple of narrow victories in ~6% Mormon Nevada, where otherwise Republican-leaning Mormons might have tipped the scales Reid's way. In 1998, Reid held onto his senate seat by a margin of 428 votes.

"[Mormons] will eventually choose political separation and secede rather than let Utah turn into California...They will probably survive the coming Mexiggedon issuing from US maternity wards."

The Mormon Church and its Utah media organs, KSL Radio and the Deseret News, are 1000% in favor of open borders and amnesty. Utah is more friendly to illegal immigrants than any other Republican state (and many Democratic ones).

"There's hasn't been a Jewish president and it doesn't seem to bother them.Why will the Mormons be any different?"

Three Jewish Supreme Court justices > one Jewish president. Of the 46 justices appointed since Louis Brandeis, 8 have been Jewish, none have been Mormon.

JustAClown said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57524286/romney-will-keep-obamas-immigration-policy/


ok, GOP shills, start spinning!

Anonymous said...

Too bad the alt right (despite being represented basically by an 80 years old man and the ghost of Robert Taft) is so picky. You could have had a decent leader in Santorum. Decent man genuinely cares about the lower middle class. But yea he doesn't carry a picture of Darwin in his wallet (his actual kids take up all the photo sleeves; I thought you guys were into big families) so cross him off the list. Too bad Lindbergh's kids were all with that secret German wife.

Anonymous said...

@Steve Sailer

"Contemporary Americans find Romney, and Mormons in general, weird and creepy and offputting and suspicious. And that's less because Mormons' great-grandfathers were polygamists than because Mormons try hard to act like the mainstream middle class white Americans who took the human race to the Moon, and what could be more uncool (and maybe downright racist) than that?"

Yeah, and when you got there you put the flag of the human race there, huh? No, you put the American flag on lunar soil. I think the Germans should feel cheated since at least 50% of the credit should go to the German rocket scientists brought to America via Project Paperclip. Without them, the Russians would have likely beaten you just like they beat you to be the first ones to put a man in space. But I digress...

Mitt Romney is a square and boring individual. He does not inspire people because he represents a version of the American Dream that made sense in the 1950s but makes no sense today. Only a few Americans aspire to having a corporate job in a cubicle, living in suburbia and being married to the same woman all your life, having a few kids and then dying. And that dream is very hard to achieve today anyway. Back in 1960 you could achieve this dream of having a petit bourgeoise lifestyle with a high school diploma or at most any college degree. In 2012, this dream is only possible for those with Harvard and Yale degrees. Even a lot of successful doctors and lawyers cannot afford a house in suburbia. Mitt Romney is a Harvard graduate. How can an average American identify with him? He makes more money than they ever will, has opportunities in life opened to him by his Harvard degree that they never will have and even has better teeth than them. Romney has also stated several times that he is not concerned with the poor. So why should they vote for him? What does he have to offer them despite an almost-impossible-to-achieve dream of bourgeoise blandness?

mel belli said...

Americans find Romney, and Mormons in general, weird and creepy and offputting and suspicious

I think you're misreading this one, Steve. Americans find leveraged buyout artists creepy. Ratner would get the same reception if he ran for Prez.

not a hacker said...

What does he have to offer them despite an almost-impossible-to-achieve dream of bourgeoise blandness?

Judicial appointees who won't force him to kiss black ass?

JustAClown said...

I am eagerly awaiting articles and comments from the paleocons on this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57524286/romney-will-keep-obamas-immigration-policy/

For months now the GOP shills and paleocons (aka crypto-GOP-shills) have been screeching that obama is gonna ruin america with immigration and that romney will take care of immigration. O really?

And I am still waiting for the flood of articles from the paleocons on the recent news that gov't stats show that obama has deported 1.5 times more illegals per month than Bush ever did:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/27/obama-is-deporting-more-immigrants-than-bush-republicans-dont-think-thats-enough/


Fact is that deporting illegals and cracking down on immigration is LEFTIST, true Leftist. And though the Dems are not really leftist, more rightwing, really, they are at least not as far rightwing as the GOP. And because the GOP is rightwing, they did not deport much. And because the GOP is far rightwing, the GOP will help Capital cram as many nonwhite cheap labor cattle into america as they can. You know it, too, but you won't admit it.

I am waiting, paleocons! Start spinning for your fauxpopulist Dear Leader!

**crickets**


Anonymous said...

What will Mormons do post-Romney?

Uhh, even more Amanda Seyfried lesbian sex scenes?

[I mean, we can dream, right?]

JustAClown said...

just a few weeks ago, Obama snubbed Netanyahu, refusing to meet with him:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100180493/barack-obama-refuses-to-meet-benjamin-netanyahu-on-his-us-visit-a-rude-snub-to-7-million-israelis/


And you paleocons are the ones always screeching that israel is always using america and dragging us into unwarranted wars. I agree. That is why I would prefer to have america let israel fight its own damn wars.

But when obama snubbed netanyahu, there was a great silence in the paleocon blogosphere. Gee, I wonder why.

You see, Obama aint much of a leftist, but he is further left than the GOP. And guess what, brighteyes? Refusing to let Israel drag us into a war with Iran IS Leftist.

And I like that!

Carol said...

One problem with Mormonism is its ridiculous spiritual doctrine. .

That is precisely what drives them. You don't get one without the other. That goes for any movement: they need that animus of spiritual conviction. Or else why bother?

Baloo said...

Not this paleocon, JustAClown. I don't know what kind of paleos you know, but most that I know of are supporting Romney in the same spirit that we'd have supported the Tsar against Lenin. Reluctantly.

As for Mormons and what they might do next:
The Mormon Threat

Anonymous said...

"Will they redouble their efforts to be even more what they are?"

They will remain as they've always been: insular but at the same time seeking mainstream acceptance in their humble way. Which is to say, not much will change.

"Will they decide they have to loosen up and get funky? Will we see more ads on TV featuring Mormon Tongan NFL players?"

They're certainly going in that direction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lcZsZMjkJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoVWvQc9Nt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p8H41KlRdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8s5Gi0JWlM&feature=related

Unfortunately, the church is probably going to decrease in cohesion and effectiveness in the near future due to heavy diversification even within the wards and stakes in the contiguous US. Or I could be wrong. Remember that story of high school football teams using Christianity to bind the diverse players together?

The Mormon message/lifestyle is enough to keep social capital strong in the face of diversity, but I think the inclusion of more diversity will be better for the new members than for the white base and the church as a whole.

It really frustrates me that the leadership of the church is more focused on finding new tithe payers uber alles (hidden under the guise of spreading the message, of course).

The church already had a good thing going and originally only had to deal with prolish white behavior. Now with minority vigor, the church's boorish members will reach critical mass and individual wards will be less able to cap bad behavior through shame and/or intervention.

Of course, there's always the divide and tithe strategy. My stake was in Southern California, and we had so many Hispanics that some wards segregated services by language (English service at 9am, Spanish at 1pm). With church being 3 hours long, the two wards almost never saw each other, which is one way to make diversity work. ;)

Anyway, that's one future possibility of the church as seen from the cutting edge of tomorrow's America, California.

peterike said...

I am waiting, paleocons! Start spinning for your fauxpopulist Dear Leader!

Romney is not a Paleocon and no Paleocon would mistake him for one. Nor is he even a faux populist, must less a real populist.

I don't think you know what those terms mean. Or you're just a nitwit.

As for Obama deporting illegals. Wow. 1.4 million of them. Yee hah! Bush deported 2 million over his two terms. Yup, Obama is ahead of the game there. Effect of both: nil.

Now if Obama were deporting 1.4 million a month, then we'd be getting somewhere.

PS - The same article you linked also says this: "The House Judiciary Committee also says it’s unearthed new evidence that the White House was inflating its deportation numbers." Dissembling from the OBAMA administration? Shocking.

Matthew said...

Mormons do have a strong sense of group identity (stronger than white Southerners and Italians, certainly), but that identity has, til now, been reinforced by a common Northwest European background.

Increasing diversity in the Church hasn't fully hit home yet, and I suspect that diversity will grind away at what feeling of unity remains - not because of the differences in culture or appearance, but because of the differences in behavior. Mormons take proscriptions on alcohol use, tobacco use, premarital sex, and extramarital sex very seriously. Blacks and Hispanics do not.

Eventually the Mormon Church will either quietly reduce its efforts to convert non-whites (white converts these days are increasingly rare), or white Mormons will leave in greater numbers, for reasons they may or may not openly connect to the Church's growing diversity - like white Californians who flee the state not realizing that increasing diversity is in large part to blame.

What's important is that, unlike a lot of other religions, the future of the Mormon Church is directed and controlled by a small, secretive, and loyal group of men, most of them senior citizens. This small group will decide if the Church goes off in any new direction as a result of the election. Will a Romney loss in diversifying states like Virginia (64.5% white), Colorado (70.0% white), and Nevada (54.1% white) have any effect on their decisions? The Church has generally favored illegal immigration (in part, I suspect, because prominent wealthy members like the Marriotts favor it). Will they see differently if Romney loses Hispanics 70-30, as polls are projecting, or will they double down on Hispandering, Karl Rove-style?

What I think is certain is that the Mormon leadership has lost sight of what they are really "marketing," and are risking have sacrificed their profitable current customers in an effort to reach out to less-profitable potential customers. The Mormon Church was once a people that somehat incidentally had a theology. Now, like the American elite in general, they are behaving like an elite and a theology where the non-elite are entirely fungible.

Planetary Archon said...

Romney isn't losing because he's creepy. He's losing because his party has nothing to offer the American people but more tax cuts on the rich.
The guy just screams 'corporate executive', like the people who laid them off. That might work in good times, but now people are poor and desperate.

Social conservatism and economic liberalism are winners. Their reverses are losers. Each party has one of each, so it goes back and forth.

Anonymous said...

You could have had a decent leader in Santorum.

That is laughable, Santorum would have been a GOP George McGovern or Walter Mondale ( Take your pick ), no woman under the age of 55 or with a professional or even moderately complex job would have voted for him. Obama's spin doctors would not have even had to spin much at all ( Santorum will turn America into 17th century New England! ). However bad Romney loses if he does, you would have to double that gap with Santorum. He was tone deaf in the foreign policy arena as well, he would have made Bush II look like a dove on the Middle East and probably ordered airstrikes on Iran two minutes after being sworn in. The GOP nominating Santorum would have killed the party in a presidential sense. He is a male Sarah Palin.

JustAClown said...


peterike said...

Romney is not a Paleocon and no Paleocon would mistake him for one.
=====================
Reading comprehension. I said YOU were the paleocons. And you SHILL for the GOP. That is what you get for not doing your homework in 7th grade--a lack of reading skills.

You paleocons are the GOP outreach effort.

================
you wrote:
Nor is he even a faux populist, must less a real populist.
===============

Of course he is a faux populist--he is a republican, after all. Remember, brighteyes: GOPers are fauxpopulists, and Dems are fauxLeftists.

Glad I could be of service!

===========

I don't think you know what those terms mean. Or you're just a nitwit.

=-===============

Whatever, brighteyes.....


=============
As for Obama deporting illegals. Wow. 1.4 million of them. Yee hah! Bush deported 2 million over his two terms.

=============

arithmetic fail! From the article:
"Bush deported 2 million immigrants over the course of two terms. That’s more than the 1.4 million that Obama has deported to date during his first term. But Obama is deporting them in higher numbers every month than Bush did—1.5 times more. "


So your math is as good as your reading comprehension. I am shocked!


Matthew said...

"He does not inspire people because he represents a version of the American Dream that made sense in the 1950s but makes no sense today. Only a few Americans aspire to having a corporate job in a cubicle, living in suburbia and being married to the same woman all your life..."

No one aspires to a wife, kids, and big house in the suburbs with a big yard, unencumbered by debt? Bullshit. Go away, troll.

"Mitt Romney is a Harvard graduate. How can an average American identify with him?"

You. Are. A. Fucking. Troll.

Obama and ROmney both went to Harvard for their graduate degrees (where ROmney managed to earn two - a J.D. and MBA, but Obama only one). Meanwhile Romney went to Brigham Young University for the bulk of his undergrad (Stanford for a year), while Obama went to Occidental and Columbia.

Do you know what the full-time 2012 undergrad tuition is at BYU for a practicing Mormon? $4,710. Even for a non-Mormon it's only $9,420. Do you know what it is at Columbia University, where Obama went? $47,246. At Occidental? $44,540.

He makes more money than they ever will, has opportunities in life opened to him by his Harvard degree that they never will have and even has better teeth than them."

Barack Obama has bad teeth?

Barack Obama's wife got a 150% raise for being black and the wife of a senator. How normal is that? Barack Obama got a nice book deal for being a black law school student. How normal is that? Did anyone offer Mitt a book deal for being a white guy at Harvard Law?

Anonymous said...

I'm not getting the impression that Romney is losing... Am I missing something?

Beecher Asbury said...

Too bad the alt right (despite being represented basically by an 80 years old man and the ghost of Robert Taft) is so picky. You could have had a decent leader in Santorum. Decent man genuinely cares about the lower middle class. But yea he doesn't carry a picture of Darwin in his wallet (his actual kids take up all the photo sleeves; I thought you guys were into big families) so cross him off the list.

If you are speaking to folks who look up to Robert Taft, then you have to know that anti-interventionism is a big selling point. Darwin has nothing to so with it. Santorum is essentially a neocon when it comes to foreign policy which makes him a no-no for the alt right.

Olave d'Estienne said...

JustAClown, could you please clarify what you're talking about? You know of some paleoconservatives who are satisfied with Mitt Romney and the contemporary Republican Party? I can't guess who you're referring to.

How do you figure opposing mass immigration is leftist? (It may be "true Leftist" since these days the "true" (capitalized) version of anything is always the opposite of the ordinary usage.) In any case I'd hardly call VDare, AmRen, View from the Right, Steve Sailer, or Tom Tancredo "leftist". (I would hope traditionalist nationalists could at least keep the term "rightist" since the neocons stole "conservative" from us.)

All the anti-immigration types I know of are quite anti-Bush, anti-Obama, anti-Romney. A few of them juggle a little to decide who is "least bad" on immigration, and some may use the relevant pressure group rating.

And though the Dems are not really leftist, more rightwing, really, they are at least not as far rightwing as the GOP.

Do you feel this way because of the respective parties' voting records on immigration? If so, do you have any figures proving that the parties' positions have dramatically reversed themselves since 2007-2010?

(This comment may or may not constitute **crickets**. It's a matter of opinion. I don't identify as a paleoconservative but I am probably closer to them philosophically with any other movement that has a name, unless "VDare-style restrictionist" counts a name.)

JustAClown said...

Planetary Archon said...

Romney isn't losing because he's creepy. He's losing because his party has nothing to offer the American people but more tax cuts on the rich.




agreed. But the interesting question is why he does not offer more.



Social conservatism and economic liberalism are winners.



Social conservatism? What does that mean or include? Anti-Affirmative action? Immigration restriction?

And what does economic liberalism mean? Being against cuts to social security, medicare etc? Being for taxing the rich? Being against war?

Please explain.


Their reverses are losers. Each party has one of each, so it goes back and forth.


I would say that each party has its own version of faux-economic populism: the GOP pretends to be for cutting immigration and against racial preferences etc. The Dems pretend to be for taxing the rich and for preserving the social welfare state, e.g. social security, medicare and for universal healthcare.

In reality, both parties are mostly lip service of hardcore economic populism.

The Dems are a little bit more true-economic populist than the GOP.

But this whole idea of combining the economic populist espoused by the GOP and the economic populist espoused by the Dems, that is an intriguing idea. Funny that no american on the internet but me has ever uttered those words. But there is a rising tide in Europe that cries out "Anti-austerity! Anti-immigration!"

Ah, they got their fauxleftist peanut butter on someone's fauxpopulist chocolate. Anti-austerity AND anti-immigration.

Imagine a presidential candidate who was against racial preferences, against mass immigration, for universal healthcare, for taxing the rich more, against unwarranted foreign wars, against outsourcing etc.

What would the media do?
The same thing they have done to Golden Dawn in greece--demonize! The media subculture is evolved to prevent mixing GOP populism with Dem populism.


Anonymous said...

That is laughable, Santorum would have been a GOP George McGovern or Walter Mondale ( Take your pick ), no woman under the age of 55 or with a professional or even moderately complex job would have voted for him. Obama's spin doctors would not have even had to spin much at all ( Santorum will turn America into 17th century New England! ). However bad Romney loses if he does, you would have to double that gap with Santorum. He was tone deaf in the foreign policy arena as well, he would have made Bush II look like a dove on the Middle East and probably ordered airstrikes on Iran two minutes after being sworn in. The GOP nominating Santorum would have killed the party in a presidential sense. He is a male Sarah Palin.


Says the guy with the peeling Tancredo sticker and if I had to guess a ragged copy of Portable Nietzsche (or is it Tom Paine) in the backpack he takes to his temp job.

JustAClown said...

Anonymous said...
I'm not getting the impression that Romney is losing... Am I missing something?


He has already lost. It's all about the handful of swing states. And in those states, he has already lost.

Anonymous said...

"just a few weeks ago, Obama snubbed Netanyahu, refusing to meet with him"

With the full approval of liberal Zionists.

This was calibrated to send a message that

1. Obama is not owned by Jews(though he is)

2. Conservatives should stand up for Israel since 'stealth muzzie' Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.

Killing two birds with one stone.



Anonymous said...

If by some crazy chance Romney wins and the economy tanks in 2013, GOP is really gone forever.

peterike said...

Woops! Drudge linking to a new video of Obama doing his Super Black Racist act!

Matthew said...

"Romney isn't losing because he's creepy. He's losing because his party has nothing to offer the American people but more tax cuts on the rich."

Sorta. He's losing because he can't really campaign on anything but tax cuts for the rich. End affirmative action? Racist! Secure the borders (and reduce the unemployment rate)? Racist! Shrink the welfare state? Callous! Shrink the military? Neocons and their donors (Adelson, etc.) would be appalled.

Mitt Romney's not just campaigning on his own record - he's campaigning on the failed record of so many Republicans before him (Bush I, Bush II, McCain, Dole, even Reagan) to fight for a more conservative America, where whites aren't treated as second-class citizens in the country we built.

Anonymous said...

The original KKK was philo-semitic and anti-Catholic...

Auntie Analogue said...

"What will Mormons do post-Romney?"

The Hully-Gully? The Macarena? The Gangnam Style?

How about...they'll go on being Mormons.

One thing's for sure, if Mitt wins there won't be any Oval Office cigar action. Or beer summits.

peterike said...

Oh and on the subject of "Romney the disconnected plutocrat" who can't POSSIBLY understand what dah workin' man goes through...

“During my campaign for governor, I decided to spend a day every few weeks doing the jobs of other people in Massachusetts. Among other jobs, I cooked sausages at Fenway Park, worked on asphalt paving crew, stacked bales of hay on a farm, volunteered in an emergency room, served food at a nursing home, and worked as a child-care assistant. I’m often asked which was the hardest job – it’s child care, by a mile.”

“One day I gathered trash as a garbage collector. I stood on that little platform at the back of the truck, holding on as the driver navigated his way through the narrow streets of Boston. As we pulled up to traffic lights, I noticed that the shoppers and businesspeople who were standing only a few feet from me didn’t even see me. It was as if I was invisible. Perhaps it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect. – I wasn’t a particularly good garbage collector: at one point, after filling the trough at the back of the truck, I pulled the wrong hydraulic lever. Instead of pushing the load into the truck, I dumped it onto the street. Maybe the suits didn’t notice me, but the guys at the construction site sure did…”

denizenofgoo said...

mormons for women suffrage!

apparently it was due to polygamy

JustAClown said...


Olave d'Estienne said...
JustAClown, could you please clarify what you're talking about? You know of some paleoconservatives who are satisfied with Mitt Romney and the contemporary Republican Party?


Vdare, sailer, taki, et al, all shill for romney, albeit under the pretense that they are holding their noses. And the vast majority of comments here support him.


How do you figure opposing mass immigration is leftist?


It increases wages for the working class. That's leftist. Lessening immigration would increase homogeneity and thereby increase the unity of the electorate, making it easier for them to discover their common interests and thereby elect and hold accountable politicians to represent those common interests. That increases democracy and increases control by the voters of their own gov't and thereby decreasing control by the rich of the govt.

The core of true leftism--democracy and wages.




In any case I'd hardly call VDare, AmRen, View from the Right, Steve Sailer, or Tom Tancredo "leftist".



Just because the media and academia and hollywood say that a certain set of ideas represent Leftism, that don't make it so. The people who own and manage the dominant institutions are rich. They have different interests than the majority and so therefore the things they believe and desire for the USA are different from what the rest of us want.

Shocking, aint it?



Do you feel this way because of the respective parties' voting records on immigration?


Immigration, healthcare, taxation, war, racial preferences, etc etc. All economic populist issues. Forget social issues, that is just a distraction.


If so, do you have any figures proving that the parties' positions have dramatically reversed themselves since 2007-2010?


No, cuz it didn't happen.

eah said...

To Mormons, Romney represents the beau ideal of their culture.

Mr Sailer, it's interesting how you make such a statement purporting to know what "Mormons" (all of them?) believe about Romney and his candidacy.

sunbeam said...

Anonymous said:

""But what will happen among Mormons if Romney is defeated in sizable part because he's so Mormon in affect, values, and behavior?"

Mormons are now the most American of Americans. They will eventually choose political separation and secede rather than let Utah turn into California. (Note that Harry Reid is NOT a US Senator of Utah and never could be).

Mormons are the only whites with a strong group identity determined by genealogy. They will probably survive the coming Mexiggedon issuing from US maternity wards."

There are a lot of Mormons spread across the Western US in particular.

But leaving aside all the other issues with secession, exactly what would you get with an independent Utah, or Deseret, whatever you want to call it?

Basically you have one of the FSU 'Stans with no oil. A landlocked country with no particular reason for any of it's neighbors to trade with it, or have anything to do with it.

What people were willing to put up with in the 19th century, and live like just isn't viable today.

There are some parts of the US that could break off and do well, perhaps better than with the rest of the US attached to them. Utah isn't one of them though.

An independent Utah is pretty apt to have a serious case of third world poverty.

And no, I wouldn't expect them to do as well as the folks in Singapore did.

Anonymous said...

"The ‘god’ Mitt Romney worships is not in the New Testament, it’s in the Cayman Islands and the banks in Geneva"

--Bill Maher

Anonymous said...

If Romney loses, it won't be because he's a Mormon - it will be because he's a Republican Mormon.

If the Dem's run a Mormon for President, it will be all "Have you no decency, you bigot?" if anybody dares comments on his religion.

Matthew said...

"He has already lost. It's all about the handful of swing states. And in those states, he has already lost." - JustATroll

No, he hasn't. The election is over a month away. A month back Romney was tied in the polls. You saying he can't regain in a month what he lost in a month?

And now the negative headlines are turning against Obama: more bad economic news, the Libya scandal, the Lockheed scandal, the statements by Biden about the middle class suffering the last 4 years.

This election ain't over by a longshot. Obama might very well win. America really has become that stupid. Romney is wooden and unexciting, but all the trends favor him.

Anonymous said...

I am still waiting for the flood of articles from the paleocons on the recent news that gov't stats show that obama has deported 1.5 times more illegals per month than Bush ever did


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/27/obama-is-deporting-more-immigrants-than-bush-republicans-dont-think-thats-enough/


We are still waiting for you to realize that "facts" and "Erza Klein" are mutually incompatible.

I will say this for Obama - by destroying the US economy, he has encouraged a lot of illegals to leave. I'm certainly not going to vote for him on that basis though.

Fred said...

I'm a Mormon, raised in California, who recently retired to Utah after living outside the US for the last twenty years (Foreign Service). I live in a small conservative town in Utah Valley and attend an equally conservative congregation. Most of the people I know here will vote for Romney, but the record of the last few elections shows they would have voted in more or less equal numbers for any Republican presidential candidate.

What I don't sense is much excitement over the race. I think most Mormons realize that Romney will at best do what Republicans do best--feebly protest the activites of liberals and perhaps postpone slightly the coming debacle. If Romney loses I don't expect the reaction to be much different than it would have been if Bush had lost.

Anonymous said...

I think there's a crack in the foundation of this post, Steve: so far as I can tell, Romney isn't trying to win. If he doesn't want to win at all, then he obviously doesn't want to win for his LDS church community. So if he loses, which he really might (since every day he announces that he agrees with Obama on yet another political issue), he will just fade away and the way other Americans see Mormons may not change--and the way Mormons see themselves may not change either.

Matthew said...

"The ‘god’ Mitt Romney worships is not in the New Testament, it’s in the Cayman Islands and the banks in Geneva" --Bill Maher"

The "god" Bill Maher worships is in his pants, and is about 3.7" long fully erect.

"If by some crazy chance Romney wins and the economy tanks in 2013, GOP is really gone forever."

At this point we have to deal with the fact that the economy is going to be stagnant for quite some time. It will be stagnant under Obama, it will be stagnant under Romney. The best we can hope for is to get a guy in there implementing policies that will, long-term, bring it back on course. I'm not sure if that guy is Romney, but I know it isn't Obama.

JustAClown said...


sunbeam said...
Anonymous said:

They will eventually choose political separation and secede rather than let Utah turn into California.
....

An independent Utah is pretty apt to have a serious case of third world poverty.




Utah would do great if they seceded. They would be free of the elite-centric 'civil rights laws' so they could kick out the nonwhites. They would have control of their nation and have a fairly homogeneous nation, thereby having a great deal of unity, which means that they would be better able to elect and hold accountable politicians because the electorate has a great deal of common interests.
This would result in a high degree of democracy, especially if they converted their govt to a parliamentarian style.

Look at the other small white nations: sweden, denmark, australia, switz et al. These are the best nations in the history of the world because they have a high standard of living because they have a high degree of democracy.



And no, I wouldn't expect them to do as well as the folks in Singapore did.


Senator, I have been to Singapore. Singapore is a friend of mine. And, Senator, Singapore is no Denmark/Sweden/Austria etc.

Anonymous said...

Obama so far has run a much better campaign, defining Romney as an out of touch plutocrat with an agenda that will benefit the upper classes.


No, that's the media's campaign. The Obama campaign has been straight socialism - remember "Julia"?

Matthew said...

I will reiterate: the biggest change I think may come of a Romney defeat is related to the Mormon Church's stance on il/legal immigration. If Romney loses because of the Hispanic/immigrant vote in places like Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, there is some chance the Church may rethink its attitude towards immigration, especially its tacit support of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Of course the Republican Party will face the same dilemna. A Romney loss against an opponent as weak as Obama will wake the GOP up to the reality that it needs to start doing more for its white, middle class voting base.

Steve Sailer said...

"A Romney loss against an opponent as weak as Obama will wake the GOP up to the reality that it needs to start doing more for its white, middle class voting base."

I would bet the opposite will happen.

Anonymous said...

So Steve, have you seen the breaking news of Obama at Tucker Carlson's blog, The Daily Caller?

He will break it down on Hannity tonight.


Barry's a race hustler.

Anonymous said...

While Mormons may not be "hugely talented," they tend to be just as talented as the average members of their races, far more disciplined, and more likely to marry and have 4+ kids. These factors will probably lead to their dominance of conservative "family values" culture in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

That's nice to think, Matthew, but in all likelihood the Beltway insiders who think they know it all are going to tell the Republicans they need to double down on more amnesty, etc.

I would not be surprised if the Republicans tried to purge their party of anyone not for more amnesty, much like they did of anyone who wasn't 100% Zionist.

Matthew said...

"I would bet the opposite will happen."

At this point I think it's pretty clear that Hispandering is not a fruitful election strategy, that getting more of the white vote is the only path back to power for the GOP, and that it finally needs to convince the white middle class that it's on their side.

The Tea Party was all about the disaffected white middle class - people disaffected because they're struggling, because they see America in decline, or both.

Even if Obama remains, Republicans will certainly hold the House after November, and may hold the Senate. The most effective thing they could do with that power is to accept tax increases on the rich in exchange for genuine spending cuts. They should also insist on increased spending for border control and an end to the administrative amnesty.

Anonymous said...

The "god" Bill Maher worships is in his pants, and is about 3.7" long fully erect.

______________________________

I'd not expect it to be that long. He's a very angry man and that kind of anger doesn't have its roots in politics but in self image. He's short, but that's not enough to make him that way. He IS very homely; that *is* enough to make him that way,

However, I do suspect such anger rests on more than lack of height and lack of attractiveness. Yeah, he must have a very small dong.

Anonymous said...

@Matthew

"You. Are. A. Fucking. Troll.

Obama and ROmney both went to Harvard for their graduate degrees (where ROmney managed to earn two - a J.D. and MBA, but Obama only one). Meanwhile Romney went to Brigham Young University for the bulk of his undergrad (Stanford for a year), while Obama went to Occidental and Columbia."

I can see that you are very stupid and that reading comprehension is not your forte.

Obama does not ask the elctorate to identify with his Harvard graduate Self: he asks them to identify with his cool black man Self, and with what a black candidate represents: a historic win against racism, anti-capitalism and large social programs.

Conversely, Romney asks the electorate to aspire to being LIKE him. His Harvard Self is the only Self he has. He asks the electorate to identify with what he represents: corporate America, burgeoise values and the hopes for the Common Man to one day join the plutocracy. Mitt Romney could be the poster boy for the Harvard MBA program:

"Get into Harvard and you some day can be a millionaire with perfect teeth."

Obama does not show himself as elite, but rather as a champion of the underdog. Him getting into Harvard is shown as an underdog managig to get into an elite institution with his sweat and tears. Mitt Romney is the elite, he loves being the elite and he makes it very clear to voters that they should aspire to become like him instead of demanding a government that catters to underdogs.

JustAClown said...

pols hispander not because they expect a return at the ballot box, but because they expect the media will treat them better. Remember, the media runs on advertising revenues. And advertising purchases are made with corporate profits. The more profits, the more ads bought. And the fatter media management and owner wallets.

So the media likes lots of hispanic immigrants. So the media likes it when pols hispander.

Follow the money.

Seek to discern the rules of the culture.

Bob Arctor said...

"A landlocked country with no particular reason for any of it's neighbors to trade with it, or have anything to do with it.

....

An independent Utah is pretty apt to have a serious case of third world poverty."

Someone better tell Austria and Switzerland that small landlocked nations with no oil are doomed to poverty, as if possession of a sea coast or petroleum deposits were the primary determinants of national wealth. Nigeria, Indonesia, Algeria, and Mexico have plenty of both coasts and oil yet none are remotely as advanced as any landlocked and mineral poor EU nation.

And to put an exclamation point on top of your buffoonish ignorance, Utah is actually one of leading natural resource producers in the country, in fact.

NB: Countries don't need secondary "reasons" to trade with other countries; what ungodly "reason" did America have to trade with mainland China? If you have something of value to sell, someone will buy it from you, no external "reason" or "greater purpose" either required or asked for.

Matthew said...

"That's nice to think, Matthew, but in all likelihood the Beltway insiders who think they know it all are going to tell the Republicans they need to double down on more amnesty, etc."

I'm not saying there won't be a lot of pressure to go that route, and there's a very good chance it'll succeed. But what you'll face post-election is a GOP that has heard such strategies time and again. You can only try gilding the neofeudalist/neocon turd so many times before you ask, "Why not offer them something besides a turd?"

Anonymous said...

"A Romney loss against an opponent as weak as Obama will wake the GOP up to the reality that it needs to start doing more for its white, middle class voting base."

Obama is not a weak candidate per se. That he's polling this well despite bad economic numbers and bad foreign policy means he's a very strong candidate.
In this age of mass media and TV and all that bulljive bullshit, he's quite formidable--though with full complicity of the media.

One good thing is about having a con in the white house is that the media does its job. But with Obama in office, the media is not doing its job. Instead of 4th estate, it's 'for the state'.

Anonymous said...

The nature of politics is funny. It's not driven by reason or facts.

For example, take the ongoing hogocaust. Some might say it goes on because most people don't know pigs are intelligent.
But many people do know pigs are intelligent but eat pork anyway and feel no shame about it.
And even after movies like BABE, people eat pork.
And even if people were told pigs are as smart as dogs, people will go on eating pork.
Objectively knowing something doesn't change anything. Most people will go on doing it just the same. They might feel a bit of private shame, but it won't do much. It's like when the MSM objectively reported Obama's association with Wright didn't 'gain traction' since it was reported coldly and factually than judgmentally and hysterically.

So, knowing facts don't change anything. Politics is driven by hype, hysteria, shaming, and activism.
If celebrities came out and called for the end of hogocaust(and said shame on those who eat nice little piggy), if top politicians called for an end to the horror, if TV shows and movies presented pigs as saint-animals killed by vicious pig-eaters, if schools put up pig posters all over and said it's terrible to kill pigs....
THEN there would be a call to end the hogocaust.
So, things change when people are PUSHED and stirred by hype, hysteria, shaming, and etc.

Merely/factually/rationally knowing that pigs are as smart as dogs or even smarter doesn't change anything. There has to be an active campaign that hypes the pig as wonderful animal and shames people who eat pigs as pork-eating Nazis.

Many people knew about the Holocaust after WWII, but it took an active campaign to turn it into an moral imperative and secular religion. Only since the late 60s did it start becoming HOLY in American culture and politics.

Americans in the North did little about slavery in the South until there was activism that grew around the abolition movement. Northern whites knew slavery was bad but as long as there was nothing like UNCLE TOM'S CABIN to turn the issue into a moral hysteria, the mere fact of knowing about slavery didn't change anything. It was not enough to know that slavery is wrong. It only became a hot issue when a hot campaign grew around it. And for the next 100 yrs, Americans knew about racial discrimination but did little about it. Things began to change only in the 50s and 60s when blacks organized and were led by determined Jewish leftists with control of media. So, knowing about segregation didn't make most whites do anything about it. They felt compelled to do something only when a hype-and-shame campaign grew around the issue.

Americans care more about whales than about pigs. Why? Cuz of SAVE THE WHALE campaigns. Americans oppose the killing of even whales that are not endangered. Why? Because of the hype-and-shame campaign that some made killing whales a terrible sin. Now, pigs are just as smart as whales AND MANY PEOPLE KNOW THIS, but how come there is little impetus to end the hogocaust? There is no hype-and-shame campaign to save the pig.

Dems are actively engaged in many hype-and-shame campaigns. Conservatives are not.
If conservatives wanna make an issue of 'affirmative action', section 8 housing, illegal immigration, and etc, they must come up with hype-and-shame campaigns. It's not enough to state the facts or lay out reasoned arguments. There needs to be hype and shame.
March against businesses that hire illegal labor than American citizens who are out of work.
March outside homes of white politicians who push section 8 housing in working class white neighborhoods.
March against media for not reporting black crime. Call them out with hype and shame. Use hysteria. If feminists say 'war against women', hype our cause as 'war against working class whites'.

Anonymous said...

Reason and facts only go so far. People can know stuff but still feel no passion or commitment to do anything about it. But when the issue is hyped-and-shamed, then people who don't agree with the campaign are put on the moral defensive. They either join the cause or sweat apologetically.

Just imagine if hogocaust became a hype-and-shame campaign. Many American who eat pork would be shamed into stop eating pork and then feel good about themselves for having come to love the pig. And those who continue to eat pigs will feel 'mean and terrible'.

This is what happened with the gay agenda. There was a powerful hype-and-shame campaign. And it was also aided by cultural advertising. People don't so much think rationally/factually as associationistically. It's the whole trick of advertising. Ads associate products with cool images, beautiful people, enticing sounds/music. So, a shampoo commercial will show a beautiful woman with silky hair. If a fat ugly woman with bad hair uses it, she'll still be ugly. But she associates the product with the image of beautiful woman with silky hair(and nice music and etc). She buys the product for associational than rational/factual reasons.

Cultural advertising associated gayness with all the cool, funny, cuddly, lovable, hip, and 'moral' stuff. Over time, gayness became the new 'norm'. Once people associated gayness with nice stuff in media, then they started thinking ALL gays are wonderful, and so opposing 'gay marriage' is just terrible, heartless, and eeeeeevil.

Anonymous said...

Media, advertising, entertainment. Same thing. Those who control them control our hearts and minds.

Harry Baldwin said...

JustAClown said...And I am still waiting for the flood of articles from the paleocons on the recent news that gov't stats show that obama has deported 1.5 times more illegals per month than Bush ever did

If you listen to Obama's answer to the question of deportations during his Univision interview, you'll note that he seems to apologize for the deportations--it's not something he wants to take credit for.

OBAMA: So more than half of our enforcement now is directed at people with criminal records. Of the remaining half, about two-thirds are actually people who are typically apprehended close to the border, so these are not people who have longstanding roots in our community. [Sending border crossers back as soon as they've entered the country didn't used to be listed under deportations--under Obama it is. So that inflates the numbers.]

Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. [He means little he can do to cut down deportations.] Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers.[You see, deportations are not his fault.] What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine.[In other words, he wants fewer deportations.]

Mr. Anon said...

"Perhaps, though, there are other, more unexpected directions that insulted, alienated Mormons could turn."

Fort Joe Smith in the Arachnid Quarantine Zone............

Mr. Anon said...

It is interesting to note that Kennedy is still the only Catholic to have ever been elected President, and that was over fifty years ago.

Anonymous said...

"Obama is not a weak candidate per se."

His approval rating is still below 50% (though just barely), his party took a beating in the 2010 elections, and the economic numbers are bad, bad, bad. That's what I mean by "weak." If the press weren't doing everyhting it could to prop him up his approval would be down closer to 40%, and the outcome wouldn't be in doubt.

Auntie Analogue said...

"I would bet the opposite would happen."


I agree. The GOP are capitalists par excellence, and capitalists have always banked on demogrpahic trends, tailored their sales to the fastest growing market segment and the largest market segments, and white people the world over are a self-shrinking market segment, half of which already parrots ideology and buys product tailored to non-white tastes. Moreover, the GOP can read the affirmative action - all the race-preferences - writing on the wall that dooms white Americans to second-class status and earning power. Atop all that, the GOP are just as Internationalist-Globalist as the Dems are; the only distinction without a difference between the two parties is that the Dems love to cloak their globalism in "Kumbaya"/"social justice" while the Republicans cloak theirs in "spreading democracy" - and both of those cloaks embrace de facto open borders.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Too bad the alt right (despite being represented basically by an 80 years old man and the ghost of Robert Taft) is so picky. You could have had a decent leader in Santorum. Decent man genuinely cares about the lower middle class. But yea he doesn't carry a picture of Darwin in his wallet (his actual kids take up all the photo sleeves; I thought you guys were into big families) so cross him off the list."

In one of the (many, endless, tiresome, tedious) debates, Santorum proudly proclaimed that he wanted to govern in the great tradition of ................ George W. Bush.

That was enough for me to cross him off my list.

You're right that it is too bad that a cantankerous 80 year old man is the best we've got.

DaveinHackensack said...

If Romney keeps up the Hispandering, Numbers USA might take away his B- on immigration (unless they already did, and I can't find it on their site).

Bear in mind that Univision is the only major non-Fox network that has asked Obama tough questions recently (not just on immigration, but on Fast & Furious). So maybe Mitt thought he saw an opening to steal 1% or 2% of the Hispanic vote by announcing he wouldn't rescind Obama's 2-year deferral on enforcement for young illegals and by maintaining some deliberate ambiguity on the immigration section of his website.

What does Mitt really believe on this issue? I don't know, but I doubt he's as zealous about opening the southern border as Bush was, and the GOP grassroots was able to contain Bush on the issue. So, presumably, it would be able to contain a President Romney as well. In any case, as the as the economy is sucking wind this bad, net migration from Latin America will probably continue to be low.

DaveinHackensack said...

If the Mormons are having so many kids, why are there still so few Mormons? Must be a lot dropping out of the church I guess. If that's the case, maybe instead of doing all their foreign missionary work, Mormons should take a page from that Hassidic Jewish sect (the Lubavitchers?) and instead of trying to convert non-Mormons, try to reengage lapsed Mormons.

Anonymous said...

'The increased third worldization of mormons'.

Strangely enough, until a convinient 'revelation' coincided with a federal 'equalities' investigation way back in '78, mormon doctrine expressly forbade black membership, and it had a dim view of prosletyzing the 'colored' peoples of the world. Basically it was a 'whites only' religion - and even then it was really only interested in attracting north-west Europeans in its missionary efforts.
The essence of mormon dogma, as expounded by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, is in fact, deeply racially discriminatory, I believe that acoording to their scriptures a dark race that inhabited pre-historic America were evil doers, whilst a white race they massacred were the good guys.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to note that Kennedy is still the only Catholic to have ever been elected President, and that was over fifty years ago.

JFK was totally against the Isreali nuclear bombs, LBJ was a protestant philo-semite...

Anonymous said...

"If the Mormons are having so many kids, why are there still so few Mormons? Must be a lot dropping out of the church I guess...maybe instead of doing all their foreign missionary work, Mormons should...try to reengage lapsed Mormons."

Dropout rates are high: around 70% in the late 90s, when I stopped attending. Mormons place heavy emphasis on re-activation of lapsed members.

"Strangely enough, until a convinient 'revelation' coincided with a federal 'equalities' investigation way back in '78, mormon doctrine expressly forbade black membership, and it had a dim view of prosletyzing the 'colored' peoples of the world."

Blacks were not barred from being members, they were barred from holding the priesthood. Even before 1978 the Mormon Church made a concerted effort to convert pretty much everyone but blacks. Africa was only off limits because a congregation made mostly or entirely of blacks would not have enough priesthood members to function.

Racial discrimination is not 'the essence of Mormon dogma.' It was part of Mormon doctrine, but far from central or essential to it.

Justthisguy said...

As a Founding Stock American, one who is still officially a Southern Methodist, but has attended only Anglican services for the last thirty years or so, I think Mormons are just silly.

I mind the time (yes, I was drunk) when I yelled at a coupla Mormon Missionaries on their bicycles, in their white shirts and black ties, "Joseph Smith made it all up!"

I'm still gonna vote for Romney. He's not quite as bad, etc., and will kick the can down the road for another coupla years, to give us time to prepare.

Cail Corishev said...

"At this point I think it's pretty clear that Hispandering is not a fruitful election strategy,"

That was clear when Bush did it (44%) and when McCain did it (40%). You can't Hispander any harder than those guys without actually calling for the Reconquista. I don't see any evidence that the GOP is suddenly going to wake up on this issue. Yes, they should, but they should have 12+ years ago. It's more likely that Steve's right and they'll just try harder.

Hail said...

"That was clear when Bush did it (44%)"

Steve debunked this back in 2005. Bush got only 40% of the Hispanic vote.

McCain did it (40%)"

Actually, McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote (according to the same metric that showed Bush getting 44%).

McCain, the most wildly-pro-Hispanic presidential candidate in U.S. history, got clobbered in the Hispanic vote.

Hail said...

DaveinHackensack wrote:
"If the Mormons are having so many kids, why are there still so few Mormons?"

There may well be quite a few, soon. (Amish, too) --

Mormon Fertility and America's Destiny.

Cail Corishev said...

Hail, thanks for the correction; it was even worse than I remembered. The point is: even when Republicans offer amnesties and bilingual education, campaign in Spanish, and basically do everything the race hustlers say they should do short of declaring the border officially null and void, they still lose the Hispanic vote by a sizable margin.

If Norte Americanos Bush and McCain, who were tight with Mexican elites and genuinely seemed to think Mexican immigration was a wonderful thing, couldn't convince half of Hispanics to give the GOP at least one try, Romney doesn't stand a chance with them. But I still don't expect the GOP mainstream or leaders to accept that.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Romney's Mormonism is that big a deal other than as you say Mormons are whiter than average white people (1950s definition) because they haven't succumbed to the poison culture as much. I think his big problem is simply that he's a shill for the globalist overclass.

On the other hand if there's a reaction anyway then mormon space colonies on the moon, cool.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 9:40 pm said: Instead of 4th estate, it's 'for the state'.

Hunsdon replied: Nice coinage. A new one to me.

Anonymous said...

"You might say they act old Protestant but breed old Catholic."

Old Protestants bred like rabbits too.

.
"There's hasn't been a Jewish president and it doesn't seem to bother them."

It bothers them a great deal.

.
"Without them, the Russians would have likely beaten you"

You mean Russia's captured German scientists would have?

.
"For months now the GOP shills and paleocons..."

Paleocons have never been pro-Romney.

.
"But when obama snubbed netanyahu, there was a great silence in the paleocon blogosphere. Gee, I wonder why."

The left is anti-Israel because they see Israelis as "whiter" than Palestinians. It's about race and being anti-white. From a white isolationist point of view the net difference between an anti-white isolationist and a white interventionist is not that great.

.
"At this point I think it's pretty clear that Hispandering is not a fruitful election strategy"

That's not the prime directive though. The people who fund the GOP want unlimited mass immigration to drive down wages. The electoral strategy has to fit that prime directive.

The most likely outcome is a massive purge of anyone who is not 100% globalist.

.
"A landlocked country with no particular reason for any of it's neighbors to trade with it, or have anything to do with it."

It's the people that matter.

.
"and white people the world over are a self-shrinking market segment"

Not entirely self-shrinking. Those white people that hold to the culture they had in the 1950s aren't shrinking at all. White populations are shrinking in direct proportion to how much they've been poisoned by the malign culture beamed at them since the 60s.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQGJe4kgGQw&feature=g-u-u

Obama opens 28-point lead over Romney on key question

Dahlia said...

Steve,

Your point about Kennedy's speech is a fine one and is absolutely correct. I think you're a bit unfair to Santorum. For him, being a minority means nothing. If you instead say the embrace of minoritization by America allowed Rick Santorum to develop into a more traditional Catholic, that would be correct.
__________________

An aside point. This iron law of modern (only) politics needs to be remembered:

*The average person leans Left on economic issues and leans Right on moral issues; this fact will always be forgotten because elites are more morally liberal.*

Rick Santorum was the most popular candidate with women in the Republican primary. He would have attracted Reagan Dem women had he won (he was most popular with poorer women), but the rest, an elite minority, would have absolutely hated him.

Anonymous said...

Mormon success is super super simple.

Start with superior stock and a winning plan aka conservative values and breed, breed, breed.

The Ten commandments and ten kids.

It ain't rocket science.

pat said...

Lately you have been writing about Heinlein.

In a famous Heinlein novel he never got around to writing in this timeline, the Mormons decided to colonize the fourth planet in the Beta Moroni system. A disease they contracted from the indigenous dinosaurs killed most of the menfolk and they reluctantly returned to polygamy.

The LDS (Later Day Spacemen) debate as to whether to re-colonize Earth - or New Detroit has it's black inhabitants now call it.

Quite a prophetic book in its way.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

Well, I think in places like Orange County or San Diego Mormons are above the norn. They most likely have some college or Ba and a professional job. Roman Catholics in those counties fit the old penecostial sterotype of low education and low job skilled since they are heavily hispanic and white Catholics in California have drated from their faith which is a shame since Catholism unlike Evangelicalism has a much older history. Its a shame that the Hispanic masses will Represent Catholicism in the future in the US, granted some hispanics are attractive to becoming protestants but the white upper-middle class megachurch Saddleback Valley Church era is dying out since whites are aging. White Evangelicals are aging almost as fast as white mainline members.

Anonymous said...

The worst Republican state for being illegal friendly is Texas not Utah, for example they are pushing to expand a guest worker program more so than the one in Utah. They had Republican Leadership attack Obama overdeporations. Granted, I think there about 3 good on illegal immirgation but most Texans Politicans have the Bush/Perry mentality. The only thing I think they are better than utah is issuing Driver's Liscense. And remember two Bush Sr and Jr were heavily behind Republicans being soft on illegal immirgation.

Anonyia said...


"And to put an exclamation point on top of your buffoonish ignorance, Utah is actually one of leading natural resource producers in the country, in fact."

But does Utah have an adequate fresh water supply? I can't imagine constantly importing water is very financially viable unless one's country is super rich.

Clutch cargo cult said...

I have a sister in law who thinks Romney is "creepy", when I ask what she means she can't articulate(she's not very smart and a dyed in wool liberal). I think are society poisons single women to hate normal family men like Romney.

It's also funny to hear all the talk about "international catholicism" when you can't speak of Zionism

Anonymous said...

"McCain, the most wildly-pro-Hispanic presidential candidate in U.S. history, got clobbered in the Hispanic vote." - Perhaps not. They don't necessarily want America's doors thrown open to the third world at large, only to them.

Svigor said...

When we think of the 'white community', we have to include liberals, libertarians, cons, etc, etc, and they all disagree. So, that is dispiriting cuz so many whites are not with you. You feel like "What's the point?"

Then think of the 'pro-white community.' There goes all that chaff, and all the whites left are on your side. Stopping caring (much) about the slugs (except for their potential to join your faction) just because their skin is white is not off the table for pro-whites. I'm living proof.

Svigor said...

Yeah, and when you got there you put the flag of the human race there, huh? No, you put the American flag on lunar soil. I think the Germans should feel cheated since at least 50% of the credit should go to the German rocket scientists brought to America via Project Paperclip. Without them, the Russians would have likely beaten you just like they beat you to be the first ones to put a man in space. But I digress...

Mitt Romney is a square and boring individual.[snip]


One thing that's perfectly clear is that you love America and Americans, and want what's best for us. I for one will definitely take your endorsement of Obama to heart.

Svigor said...

Romney isn't losing because he's creepy. He's losing because his party has nothing to offer the American people but more tax cuts on the rich.
The guy just screams 'corporate executive', like the people who laid them off. That might work in good times, but now people are poor and desperate.


Uhm, the economy just screams 'corporate executive, please!' right now, so...

Svigor said...

I'm not getting the impression that Romney is losing... Am I missing something?

This place has been swarming with Obamatons since the election started heating up. If they're swarming outposts this far removed, they're worried.

All the anti-immigration types I know of are quite anti-Bush, anti-Obama, anti-Romney. A few of them juggle a little to decide who is "least bad" on immigration, and some may use the relevant pressure group rating.

But... we know from Clown that immigration restriction is TRUE LEFTIST (like "True Scotsman"). And we know from this and this that Jews are as pro-immigration as it gets. Ergo, Jews are right-wingers! (I kid, but they aren't in fact TRUE LEFTISTS, either; they're leftist in the sense that blacks are - the opportunistic sense).

How do you figure opposing mass immigration is leftist?

It increases wages for the working class.


C'mon man, this is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The TRUE LEFTIST party you're shilling for doesn't exist. You're running a chintzy bait-and-switch, even if you don't know it (though I don't know how you could be unaware).

Basically you have one of the FSU 'Stans with no oil. A landlocked country with no particular reason for any of it's neighbors to trade with it

I'm always mystified by that bit; why would their neighbors suddenly have less reason to trade with them than presently?

Anonymous said...

I'm starting to believe those who say Republicans lack intelligence. Take for example that the world's average income is about $7,000 - do they stress that this is what an American who works with his hands can expect to earn if we have open borders - this is what Mexicans make. Even if the country was completely socialized, what do you expect to get when no one has anything to contribute?

I've never heard a mainstream republican make the case that cheap labor thwarts inventiveness. They have an aversion to subjects like alternative energy, limited resources and conservation. They spend way too much time criticizing the Chevy Volt rather than complimenting the creativity of its design with the modifier that it is a rough draft of the kinds of inventions that can free us from constant intervention in foreign countries.

Olave d'Estienne said...

Just because the media and academia and hollywood say that a certain set of ideas represent Leftism, that don't make it so. The people who own and manage the dominant institutions are rich. They have different interests than the majority and so therefore the things they believe and desire for the USA are different from what the rest of us want.

The people who own and manage the dominant institutions are rich and leftist. They hate Whites because Whites represent to them what the bourgeoisie represented to the paleo-Marxists. Your other sentences (in that paragraph) are spot-on, though.

I would hope traditionalist nationalists could at least keep the term "rightist" since the neocons stole "conservative" from us.

Anonymous said...

Why do republicans concede every environmental issue to the Dems. Use their own sword against them. Will America wait for foreigners to start arriving here in droves looking for food and water, before it asks itself how much food and water do we really have? Do we have a right to decide who gets it? My Catholic Catechism says that lifeboat ethics are sinful, that we should all go down together, but I'm not sure that most people, or even most Catholics, have ever read the catechism.

Most of the 3 billion people projected to be born worldwide by mid-century will be born in countries already experiencing water shortages. from WikipediaFood security

Anonymous said...

"Then think of the 'pro-white community.'"

But 'pro-white' is too generic and can mean anything. For there to be a core identity, there has to be something that can form a cohesive community. Mormons have Mormonism. Jews have Holocaust and tradition.
And besides, one doesn't have to be white to be pro-white. Look at Bad Eagle David Yeagly.

By the way, Zionism is Jewish Nationalism, but Jews never call Zionism that. Jews know 'nationalism' has negative connotations.
So, white nationalism needs a new term. What is the most sacred city to Western Civ? Athens?
Then white nationalism should be called Athenism, and we should all be Athenists.

Geoff Matthews said...

What Fred said. While some of the local news stations are playing of Romney because of his Olympics connections, I don't meet many people who are enthused. Its mostly anti-Obama fervor that is driving them.

From my own perspective, as a practicing Mormon, Romney wasn't my first choice. I consciously decided to be more critical of him because I didn't want to support him because we share the same religion (and I didn't care at all for Huntsman). I think he'd be competent, I'd like him to fire a lot of Washington bureaucrats, loosen employment regulations, and a few other things (in spite of its effect on me, I'd like to see the Bush tax cuts expire so we can pay down the debt). Can he do this? Does he want to do this? I don't know. If I knew that he wanted to do this, I'd be enthusiastic. As it stands, I'm not.

Marick said...

I think few who consider voting for Romney would be put off by the fact that he is a Mormon. At this point, whites and Christians (those who would vote for the Republican candidate du jour) view a religious white man like Romney as an ally, even if he is a Mormon. As my mother would probably have said," At least he believes in something!"

Gregory said...

" Marlowe said...

Baptize more dead people."


- You Dems really have a strange fascination with the dead. First voting, and now this?

With the thoughts you'd be Thinkin said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc
Maybe the mormons will turn to Ervil LeBaron types?

Mr. Anon said...

"Gregory said...

""Marlowe said...

Baptize more dead people.""

- You Dems really have a strange fascination with the dead. First voting, and now this?"

Here's some news for you - the mormons really do carry out proxy baptisms of dead people who were not mormons when they were living.

Anonymous said...

The differences between Mormon assimilation and Catholic assimilation are actually interesting in that they prove another major iSteve-y point- the degree to which "The Dirt Gap" drives American cultural variation.

The question that first got me thinking about this was simple: "If both Mormons and Catholics tried to assimilate into the broader American culture in the mid-20th century, why did so much of institutional Catholicism collapse into tepid left-liberal politics and mediocre morality, while Mormonism, striving toward the same thing, has become the epitome of Eisenhower-era moralism and naturally affiliates with conservative Republicanism? After all, if you simply look at each religion's official documents, you'd draw the conclusion that Catholicism was many, many times more conservative than Mormonism, which is not what we observe in practice.

Steve's explanation- that Catholics stopped trying after Kennedy was elected- makes some intuitive sense, but as Phillip K. Lawler documents in The Faithful Departed, 1960 was only the beginning of the obsessive Catholic drive toward getting the respect of the establishment.

What I suspect was really happening was that Catholicism and Mormonism were assimilating toward different "establishments". Rural, western Utah, the cultural heartland of Mormonism, had a geography that put it firmly on the Republican-leaning side of the dirt gap. In contrast, the highest-prestige Catholic Archdioceses are mostly in the crowded, urbanized Northeast. When America's cultural fabric tore apart in the '60s, Catholics chased the left half, and Mormons the right half. Urban America scorned Humanae Vitae because there wasn't room for all those kids, so urban bishops simply stopped mentioning it for a few decades. In contrast, Mormons have no explicit prohibition on artificial contraception, but with all that room out west, having kids just sort of became the done thing.

Now, of course, liberal Catholicism is dying, while Mormons look poised to finally "arrive" in American life. I am bad at predictions, but my two cents: In a few generations, white Catholics in America will be few in number, but most will be conservatives or traditionalists who multiply like rabbits, while most seats in the pews will be filled by lukewarm Hispanics. Mormons will probably eventually follow the same path of their New England cousins, and change their religious tenets over and over until they don't really believe in anything anymore. This is less farfetched than it may sound- Mormonism doesn't stand up well to intellectual scrutiny, and they have abruptly changed their core doctrines before (e.g., polygamy). I sometimes wonder how many of them really believe Mormon doctrines, rather than believe in Mormonism's healthy social practices and insulation from the poisonous larger culture. They could definitely go the way of the Congregationalists they used to be...