November 17, 2012

Ross Douthat keeps getting better and better

From Ross's op-ed column in the NYT:
Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values — reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear. 
Consider the Hispanic vote. Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do — one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully — or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems. 
Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children — which is now commonplace for women under 30 — is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.

110 comments:

Prophet said...

Good article, but it just makes it clearer that changing demographics will make the GOP irrelevant in the future. The GOP will never be able to get Hispanics, Blacks, unmarried women, etc...to vote for them. Never ever.

The USA will effectively become a one-party state run by the Democrats.

Corn said...

This excerpt from Douthat's op-ed reminds me of something in Buchanan's "Suicide of a Superpower""
How the Democratic Party was once described as "warring tribes united by their common search for plunder".

Anonymous said...

An iSteve reader?

Average Joe said...

I think what we are seeing now is the slow disintegration of the United States. White conservatives will over time move away from the more liberal states towards the more conservative ones. Over time the more conservative states will border other conservative states while the more liberal states will border other liberal ones. The more conservative states will eventually form some sort of union and stop sending tax dollars to Washington. The more liberal states, being more diverse, will be more chaotic and will be unable to stop the conservative states from breaking away.

Anonymous said...

The remaining Times op-ed staff thinks: Now that sounds like a plan!

Sammy the Elder said...

"The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems."

"Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children — which is now commonplace for women under 30 — is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides."


All of which points to a second unspoken trend among democrat supporters- a lack of future planning and a focus on immediate gratification now in exchange for more dire consequences in the future. The more that "evil white men" are held back to give opportunities to less qualified minorities, the more benefits given to minorities, and the more NAMs are brought in bringing down the proportion of more productive whites, the more that government has to provide, and with less wealth and fewer productive citizens to support it. This is an unsustainable trajectory. It's already on borrowed time, with $16 trillion in debt and rising. How long can you keep charging to the national 'credit card' before your creditors eventually shut you off, or before interest buries you? The natural order has mechanisms to deal with cancers like affirmative action and liberalism. It isn't pretty, and like cancer, the longer it is allowed to grow and metastasize, the worse it becomes.

DaveinHackensack said...

That is a great column. Nice point at the end about how the new Democratic majority is a sign of American decline, rather than progress. Maybe David Brooks will draw some courage from it and up his game too.

Anonymous said...

You imply that hordes of Latinos are invading our country, stealing votes from the GOP, having anchor babies by the boatload, dropping out, turning atheist, and generally making the lives of curmudgeons a living hell.

While I totally get that this column was written for the exclusive pleasure of white Republican fogies. you should be aware that many upward-assimilating immigrants also read The Times. This is not a way to attract their votes.

The president earned their votes largely by doing the right thing and granting temporary amnesty to Dream Act candidates -- but only after feeling the pressure from activists. Their support had nothing to do with mooching off the state, and everything to do with human rights. Oh, and keeping their families together, continuing their educations, going to church, and working hard.

Mitt Romney, as you may remember, thinks "illegals" should just self-deport. When he found out they were illegally mowing his lawn, he fired them. You may remember that he enjoys firing people.

Noah172 said...

I used to think that Douthat was just another PC "respectable" conservative, like David Brooks or those sell-outs over at National Review. Now I see him more as someone trying to sneak Sailerite wisdom -- cleverly disguised -- into the inner sanctum of American liberalism, the Sulzberger/Slim NYT.

A smart, savvy, verbally adept goy advancing our cause (somewhat) from inside the synagogue, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

Nevertheless, even though immigration was literally not discussed during the 2012 election, the GOP must change their stance on immigration to win over hispanic voters.

Jim Bowery said...

Average Joe, let me give you some ground truth about The Big Sort to which you allude:

When I moved from urban California to rural Washington (state) I noticed how many people had preceded me in my move who were fiercely "liberal". I also noticed how rapidly immigration was invading Washington; I could sit at a busy intersection in Tacoma for minutes before seeing a white male and the Hood River (rural) Walmart was predominantly Hispanic.

Now I'm in Iowa and it is a badge of honor here for women with whom I went to high school to have come back from places like LA and Miami, after their fertile years have gone, as single mothers with a child sired by a Jew or black in tow. They are fierce Obama supporters but not even conservatives who never left Iowa want Iowa to avoid the fate of California if one is to listen to their morally vain political rhetoric.

It is rather like a hoard of people who have flown from an epidemic area to an area they think has a lower population of infected -- and claiming that the problem with the area to which they have fled is its low rate of infection.

How can this end in anything but massive deaths?

Rex's Toolkit said...

" Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nevertheless, even though immigration was literally not discussed during the 2012 election, the GOP must change their stance on immigration to win over hispanic voters."


No. This was part of their problem in the first place. Trying to Hispander when they should have been trying to rally white voters. They are not the party of Santa Claus, they cannot do it as well as the Democrats. What they can do is rally together the white vote. Currently, about half of whites vote Dem and half vote Republican (I am aware the amount skews a little one way or the other each election). If whites would vote in cohesive levels of Asians, Jews, Hispanics and especially like Blacks, and if politicians would act in response to the will of the majority we would have no problem not only winning, but could begin rolling it all back. Close the borders, kick out illegals, shut off AA, etc "wit' a quickness".

Prophet said...

"No. This was part of their problem in the first place. Trying to Hispander when they should have been trying to rally white voters. They are not the party of Santa Claus, they cannot do it as well as the Democrats. What they can do is rally together the white vote. Currently, about half of whites vote Dem and half vote Republican (I am aware the amount skews a little one way or the other each election). If whites would vote in cohesive levels of Asians, Jews, Hispanics and especially like Blacks, and if politicians would act in response to the will of the majority we would have no problem not only winning, but could begin rolling it all back. Close the borders, kick out illegals, shut off AA, etc "wit' a quickness"."

What if I told you that getting that high of a white vote is impossible because there are far too many whites who are lib-traitors?

What then?

Corn said...

"When he found out they were illegally mowing his lawn, he fired them."

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

Just like in days gone by, when unmarried women joined a nunnery and married Jesus, today's unmarried women are in fact married to the state. That's why they vote Dem., and just like the nuns, they are Tue Believers.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

Ross got a lot of self-righteous hate for what was a very fair and mild article. Seems to have struck a nerve...

Corn said...

"Now I'm in Iowa and it is a badge of honor here for women with whom I went to high school to have come back from places like LA and Miami, after their fertile years have gone, as single mothers with a child sired by a Jew or black in tow."

I'll put emphasis here on single mothers. Although Murray didn't seem to endorse this course of action, after reading Coming Apart I came to the conclusion that one of the best things our society could do is stigmatize single motherhood to the extent that it was stigmatized in the 1950s. We also have reliable DNA testing now, so cads who knock women up out of wedlock would be easier to stigmatize as well.

White middle class married families lean strongly Republican, the poor and out of wedlock, not so much. This is what bugs the hell out of me. The Democratic Party has a vested interest in illegitimacy and poverty. Those conditions breed more Democratic voters.

jody said...

jim bowery,

i wonder if this is why nevada is starting to turn blue. when i lived there it was well run and fairly red. but mexicans were flooding in, and even worse, liberals fleeing california. they were everywhere and liked to complain out loud about how they had moved from "the LA area" and how "it sucks now". then during elections they went and voted straight democrat. thousands of these people were showing up every month. in 10 years them and the mexicans alone were probably enough to tip the state.

"single mothers with a child sired by a Jew or black in tow."

how i like to think about it is this way. whenever a european woman has a mixed race kid, 3 permanent democrats have been created.

women who have mixed race kids are soon to be single moms with mixed race kids, and single moms with mixed race kids are lifelong democrats. the kids will grow up to be democrats. and of course the fathers are also democrats. there are lots of these "families" in my neighborhood and i assume this is a trend nationwide.

whiskey is a troll to be ignored, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. he's right about this kind of thing. he will exaggerate the degree to which it is happening, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. european women and vibrant men are forming an unwitting alliance against conservative european men. they aren't doing it deliberately or consciously but this is the real political effect. a growing democrat electorate.

Anonymous said...

Jim Bowery wrote:
"Now I'm in Iowa and it is a badge of honor here for women with whom I went to high school to have come back from places like LA and Miami, after their fertile years have gone, as single mothers with a child sired by a Jew or black in tow. They are fierce Obama supporters but not even conservatives who never left Iowa want Iowa to avoid the fate of California if one is to listen to their morally vain political rhetoric."

The next generation sired by single mothers who have procreated with blacks will be seen as black. They may be fervent Democrats, but they are no longer white. This defection phenomenon can't help but make the remainder white population more united, if only in their desire to assortively mate. One suspects that it's also the lower SES, lower IQ whites who are defecting. I would be interested in your take on this.

I really question how long this whole situation can last though (i.e. the federally encouraged invasion, and especially the self-hating attitudes of Democrat voting white people). The situation is becoming more and more obvious, and eventually there must be a backlash. As far as I'm aware, it would be unprecedented for any side in this sort of conflict to just give up without some sort of a fight.

As another commenter has alluded to, the trajectory of an increasing demographic demanding racial spoils from a shrinking demographic is unsustainable. This is going to end in tears.

Anonymous said...

"If whites would vote in cohesive levels of Asians, Jews, Hispanics and especially like Blacks, and if politicians would act in response to the will of the majority we would have no problem not only winning, but could begin rolling it all back. Close the borders, kick out illegals, shut off AA, etc "wit' a quickness"."

Exactly. What is only lacking is the will, and the will is getting stronger. The GOP share of the white vote was the largest in 24 years - and this was with a wimp on immigration, advocating to criminals to "self-deport". (For his next trick, Romney was going to solve crime by telling criminals to "just don't commit crime".)

Anonymous said...

"What if I told you that getting that high of a white vote is impossible because there are far too many whites who are lib-traitors?"

What if I told you that most people have to hit rock bottom before they change their ways? Most people aren't early adopters. The country is nearing half non-white, it's starting to be obvious to everyone what is happening. If there truly was some sort of change brewing, it would manifest itself in the white non-Democrat vote. The GOP share of the white vote is at a 24 year high. Draw your own conclusions.

bla-bla said...

"You imply that hordes of Latinos are invading our country, stealing votes from the GOP, having anchor babies by the boatload, dropping out, turning atheist, and generally making the lives of curmudgeons a living hell. "

Other than the term "Latino" which does not mean anything (are the mestizos descendants of the Latins who founded Rome?...I did not think so either...or maybe they are from Latinia), I do not see any errors in this paragraph. Do you?



"you should be aware that many upward-assimilating immigrants also read The Times."

Yes, about 1% of them. The one-percenters, you know.


"Their support had nothing to do with mooching off the state..."
But surely their leaders are mooching off their supporters, right?

"Oh, and keeping their families together..."
Can the family reunification go the other way? From USA to Latinia?

That's it for now, folks!

Castilian said...

I think about how moved I am by that short article, and about how angry some people seem about it. And I realize anew how deep the divide is between me and my own countrymen.

bla-bla said...

"The situation is becoming more and more obvious, and eventually there must be a backlash. As far as I'm aware, it would be unprecedented for any side in this sort of conflict to just give up without some sort of a fight."

Think USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989-1990. The commie bosses (some would call them "elites". ha!) gave up their privileges without a fight (except Romania, there were hardly any shots fired). But that was just the facade. In fact, this was a "changing of the guards" as the 2nd tier of commie bosses (or 3rd, or 43rd) took over.
On the other hand, think of the USSR and Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1990. People endured a low standard of living and political oppression for *generations*.

Anonymous said...

Well done Ross, but you are going to get hammered at the Times for that Sailerite moment of truth-telling.

Snapperhead Soup said...

"Just like in days gone by, when unmarried women joined a nunnery and married Jesus, today's unmarried women are in fact married to the state."

They are now married to the Nannery.

Anonymous said...

"Their support had nothing to do with mooching off the state, and everything to do with human rights."

Moron thinks illegal immigration and getting benefits--at the benefit of legal American citizen tax payers--is a 'human right'.

What else is a human right, genius?


Rev. Right said...

The fact that Democratic Party political success depends in large part on increasing poverty and decreasing two parent family formation explains why Democrat Party policy intiatives increase poverty and decrease two parent family formation.

Maybe Republicans could start pursuing policy initatives that increase the kind of demographic trends that would contribute to their political success.

anony-mouse said...

I hate to spoil all this anec-doting with some data:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_fertility_rate

Of the top 10 states 9 went to Romney

Of the 10 bottom states 9 went to Obama

The Hispanic birthrate is apparently so high that Puerto Rico is at the absolute bottom of US States and Territories. Just look at Sotomayor and her huge brood.

Those post-fertility Iowans and their one child 'families' aren't anyone's future.

Now if you want nicer anecdotes:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverful

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family

I have some real bad news for people here-Demographics actually favors the GOP.

Amazingly enough people who use the least birth control have the most children.

Silver said...

On the other hand, think of the USSR and Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1990. People endured a low standard of living and political oppression for *generations*.

No, you're wrong. You're badly, badly wrong. Wrong in the way only a blind american patriotard can be wrong.

Living standards improved t.r.e.m.e.n.d.o.u.s.l.y over the period of communist rule up until the 1980s.

Of course, that means you're also right. Because it didn't take very long after living standards stopped improving for the communist regimes to be toppled.

beowulf said...

OT but David Packouz, the Miami Beach stoner/weapons dealer, is now on the Midnight Cowboy career track.
"Man Who Sold Old Chinese Ammunition To Army Arrested For Prostitution."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/david_mordechai_packouz_prostitution_aey.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Christopher Briggs said...

Most comments assume that Republican policy will hold steady. That faced with enough pressures/demands, the white electorate might unify before becoming totally outnumbered. This is far from so; what defines the Republicans (and any political faction) is a political platform of relative continuity bent on securing power. Alas, only the stable do survive. But the corollary is not the party's disappearance. It is, as Mr. Sailer has observed, the ever left-shifting center. Most dramatically, over only the last 20 years Republican immigration policy has shifted left (and so immigration center is shifted left). This policy among all is least likely to shift left since, as you all note, it amounts to Republican political suicide.

Corn said...

"I have some real bad news for people here-Demographics actually favors the GOP."

If we had firm border control, then yes. However the Democrats are letting the world's reserve army of the unemployed through the gates quicker than these fecund GOPers can match them.

eah said...

No such renewal seems to be on the horizon.

Let me know when he mentions HBD -- or better, IQ directly -- as the primary reason for that.

eah said...

Oh, and if you're naive enough to believe this is some kind of hopeful sign, then do read the comments that follow Douthat's piece.

Anonymous said...

"What if I told you that getting that high of a white vote is impossible because there are far too many whites who are lib-traitors? What then?"

You are probably right. However it's too early to give up just yet.

In 2008, McCain got 68% of Southern Whites, but only 49% of White outside the south. It looks like this time Romney got 70%+ of southern Whites but in the low 50s outside the south.

Romney White share:

Pennsylvania: 57%
Ohio: 57%
New Jersey: 56%
Nevada: 56%
Colorado: 54%
Wisconsin: 51%
Connecticut: 48%
New Hampshire: 47%
Iowa: 47%

North Carolina: 68%
Missouri: 65%
Arizona: 62%
Virginia: 61%
Florida: 61%

It's not unrealistic to go from around 50% to around 60% outside the south. That is enough for a decade or two, to create breathing time to slow immigration and integrate those already here.

How can Republicans cut deep into the white vote outside the south? Easy. Drop abortion and gay marriage.

According to exit poll Republicans lost abortion 2-1, it’s toxic among college educated and women. Conservatives lost on those issues, deal with it and let’s try to save what can be saved.

Whites outside the south are hardly socialist. The Sailer Strategy is still viable; it’s just being blocked by social issues (and to a lesser extent by tax-cuts for the rich).

a Newsreader said...

Anonymous said...

Ross got a lot of self-righteous hate for what was a very fair and mild article. Seems to have struck a nerve...

11/17/12 7:25 PM


eah said...

Oh, and if you're naive enough to believe this is some kind of hopeful sign, then do read the comments that follow Douthat's piece.

11/17/12 9:34 PM


He tends to get that sort of response from every post he writes. The New York Times's comments section is always full of cretins.

Anonymous said...

"Good article, but it just makes it clearer that changing demographics will make the GOP irrelevant in the future. The GOP will never be able to get Hispanics, Blacks, unmarried women, etc...to vote for them. Never ever.

The USA will effectively become a one-party state run by the Democrats. "

rescind white man's right to vote, then watch the one party break into even more hilarious hijinks.

Anonymous said...

'I'll put emphasis here on single mothers. Although Murray didn't seem to endorse this course of action, after reading Coming Apart I came to the conclusion that one of the best things our society could do is stigmatize single motherhood to the extent that it was stigmatized in the 1950s.'


"THE TWO-TIERED SOCIETY
Society consists of two tiers which are becoming defined with
increasing sharpness—an upper patriarchal tier whose men are higher achievers, whose women accept the double standard, and whose children grow up in stable two-parent nuclear families; and a lower matriarchal/plebeian tier whose women reject the double standard and whose men and children live in, or are in danger of falling into, the
female kinship system. Welfare and the legal system and the Backup System which replaces fathers are the bulwarks of the lower tier. Father custody is the means of strengthening the upper tier."

The Case for Father Custody by Daniel Amneus 1999

Anonymous said...

"Mitt Romney, as you may remember, thinks 'illegals' should just self-deport. When he found out they were illegally mowing his lawn, he fired them. You may remember that he enjoys firing people."

And you, sir or madam, should know that this kind of post doesn't make it here among people who actually read.

Mr. Romney made his "I like to fire people" comment talking about competition--his point was that if a person doesn't do a good job, the consumer has the right to fire him and hire someone who can do the job better, and that competition makes for a better product.

I've fired illegals twice, once directly, once indirectly. The first was a guy who told me he was here legally and would bring me his papers. He didn't and I let him go.

I hired a local roofer a few years back after asking him if he used Mexican labor. He said, "Yes" and assured met they were all here legally. The day they came to do the job, I asked the crew leader if he was legal. He turned pale. I fired them.

Anonymous said...

"You imply that hordes of Latinos are invading our country,...having anchor babies by the boatload, dropping out,..."

And they're not? Where the hell do you live?

stari_momak said...

I've been going over to NRO for the first time in Donkey's Years, just to see what the movement conservative take is on the amnesty. Much to my surprise, I found that <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/percent-377975-america-vote.html>Mark Steyn</a> has finally started applying his demographic analysis of Europe to, you know, the country where he lives. There have been hints, but his sort of come out of the closet now. I'm surprised the thing was published.

That link it to the OC register, but the same piece was published at NRO.

Anonymous said...

Look, if the mass of Mestizos were capable of contributing the kinds of talent, skills, ambition that people like Geraldo Rivera and the progs seem to think them capable of, Mexico would be a place people flocked to.

I've not seen a tank in the public square of Mexico City, its huge gun pointed at tens of thousands of Mexicans threatening to overthrow a corrupt government.

Nah, they come here to demonstrate that WE give them their rights.

The map. Remember the map. You can't import poverty and expect not to have poverty.

ATBOTL said...

"I used to think that Douthat was just another PC "respectable" conservative, like David Brooks or those sell-outs over at National Review. Now I see him more as someone trying to sneak Sailerite wisdom -- cleverly disguised -- into the inner sanctum of American liberalism, the Sulzberger/Slim NYT.

A smart, savvy, verbally adept goy advancing our cause (somewhat) from inside the synagogue, so to speak."

Because of the internet, many more younger intellectually oriented conservatives have been exposed to forbidden ideas than were in past generations.

When I was younger, young conservatives with little real understanding often made un-PC statements just to shock and anger liberals. That type would also immediately cave when threatened.


Prophet said...

"I hate to spoil all this anec-doting with some data:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_fertility_rate

Of the top 10 states 9 went to Romney

Of the 10 bottom states 9 went to Obama

The Hispanic birthrate is apparently so high that Puerto Rico is at the absolute bottom of US States and Territories. Just look at Sotomayor and her huge brood.

Those post-fertility Iowans and their one child 'families' aren't anyone's future.

Now if you want nicer anecdotes:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverful

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family

I have some real bad news for people here-Demographics actually favors the GOP.

Amazingly enough people who use the least birth control have the most children"


The fertility rates of blue states where lots of Hispanics live are are skewed lower by the white, Asian, and black fertility rates.

Hispanics (really, Mexicans) in the USA have the highest fertility rate of any ethnic group:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/census-minority-birth-rate_n_1523150.html

ben tillman said...

What if I told you that getting that high of a white vote is impossible because there are far too many whites who are lib-traitors?

What then?


I'd tell you you're wrong. "Lib-traitors" do not necessarily remain "lib-traitors".

rob said...

Anonymous said...
You imply that hordes of Latinos are invading our country, stealing votes from the GOP, having anchor babies by the boatload, dropping out, turning atheist, and generally making the lives of curmudgeons a living hell...


Hordes of Latinos are invading our country. That's why there are so many Mexicans in the US. You didn't know that? I'm pretty sure you did. That's why so many anti-Whites are against enforcing the border: it would slow the flow of scabs. The Mexicans and other sundry Meso-Americans are having anchor babies. Their academic performance is mixed: we educate Mexicans much better than Mexico does, but at a much higher cost, and they are much less capable than Whites.

As for self-deportation, why not? They self-imported. Are you pretty sure they got all retarded and shit after that?

Anonymous said...

"Living standards improved t.r.e.m.e.n.d.o.u.s.l.y over the period of communist rule up until the 1980s."

I don't believe Russians regained their 1913 standard of living until the 1950s. The early Five Year Plans were frankly extractive, accumulating capital for industrial expansion by suppressing consumption.

It's true that living standards improved after Stalin, and by the 1980s some types of consumption were actually subsidised. Bread, for example, could be cheaper than the grain used to make it. Partly, though, that's just the economic chaos of state socialism: with no market, there's no way to tell what anything should cost.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

I've read this op-ed and thought it's ironic. But it's actually serious...

Anonymous said...

The meat of Steyn's article is correct. (Except for South America being conquered by Hispanics, not in the 21st century use of the term as interchangeable with "mestizo"). However, he pulls his punches at the end.

"So, yes, Republicans should "moderate" their tone toward immigrants, and de-moderate their attitude to the Dems who suckered the GOP all too predictably. Decades of faintheartedness toward some of the most destabilizing features of any society, including bilingualism (take it from a semi-Belgian Canadian), have brought the party to its date with destiny. Or as Peggy Lee sang long ago in a lost land, "MaƱana is soon enough for me."

Why should Republicans "moderate" their tone towards (illegal) immigrants? Non-white immigrants don't and won't vote for the GOP, so why bother? Telling illegals that they should "self-deport" is some of the most pusillanimous rhetoric imaginable, and this needs to be moderated? Whatever.

Anonymous said...

Hate to say it, but it's because Douthat's a religious adherent, specifically to a boring old semi-modern Western religion. It may seem strange to a lot of you frequent commenters who are either 127th-generation Confucians or spiritual reincarnations of Confederate military brass (or both at once) but belonging to a generic civic group like a local parish or congregation puts a person in better contact with more "diverse" points of view & the other walks of life. Most D.C. pundits couldn't be bothered to attend the biennial Unitarian picnic; the Aspen Ideas Festival is their church. Likewise Douthat seems not to be psychically dependent on delivering some sink-or-swim burst of witty banter at the next Federalist Society soiree.

Anonymous said...

All modern successful countries in Europe and not to mention Canada have the social programs and form of healthcare Obama's adminstration is leading America towards, and no it is not because we are over-run with "government dependant" welfare out-of-wedlock, baby-poping lazy ethnic sluts like you strange cretins seem to think.

silverish lining said...

I'm tentatively pleased that Amnesty Imperative sales pitch #362--"Now More Than Ever"--is encountering patchy but general resistance during the initial weeks, from some of the newer Congress figures as well as the Limbaugh orbit (and basically ignoring the Hannity/O'Reilly sideshow, 2 machers nobody had heard of ten years ago). It'd be a good opportunity to partially undo the hippy-dippy progressive retcon of immigration restriction's presence in the American political tradition; situation now is like The Time Machine ride in "Idiocracy," w/ people believing in no such thing as advocating for the interests of native-born citizens before "Falling Down" and Newt Gingrich came around. Rather than the caricature of a '90s talk radio fad, it maybe worthwhile to get out the word on the full story from Jack London to Gene McCarthy/FAIR and all in-between. Particularly with the Internet cost-leveling, late 20th century NY Times editorials can be re-posted inexpensively to disprove the regnant Orwellian script suffocating the issue.

OTOH there are also parvenu Caplan/Reason.com types to bicker with but I'd bet the combination of light-footprint news organs & an accumulated bulk of everyday firsthand experience with the borders-easement disaster, plus Europe's problems, are very slightly tipping the scale toward action. If even CNBC now is calling out "rotting crops" press releases...

success said...

All modern successful countries in Europe...

Yeah, let's catch a ride on that train

Anonymous said...

There is a great collapse in the social order in the western world. The out of wedlook/single parent phenomena affect whites as well. The courtship system - especialy in America, is full of malice, sexual predation and psychological combat. This is a disaster that have implications in nearly every sphere of life, not the least of which is the raising of children and demographic collapse. The west has forever anthropologized other cultures; its time to bring some of the anthropologists home to see how everything broke down.

Harry Baldwin said...

and this was with a wimp on immigration, advocating to criminals to "self-deport".

Nothing wimpy about encouraging self-deportation if it is done by rigorous enforcement of immigration status before hiring. I agree that Romney sounded wimpy in his tepid defense of this during the second debate. It would have been a defining moment for him if he had pushed back hard against Obama's pro-illegal position.

whenever a european woman has a mixed race kid, 3 permanent democrats have been created.

I can see what you're getting at, but it seems to me they are three pre-destined Democrats to begin with: Non-white parent, white person attracted to non-whites, non-white off-spring. I have several friends who have either married outside their race or adopted NAM children. In every instance it hardened their liberalism, but I doubt it made any difference to their voting pattern.

Luke Lea said...

On the growing popularity of unmarried women having children, now accounting for 40% of all births: what kind of government programs could dis-incentivize this kind of behavior? How about much more generous child tax credits available only to two-parent households combine with a generous expansion of the earned-income tax credit, again only available to two-parent households?

Anonymous said...

"Living standards improved t.r.e.m.e.n.d.o.u.s.l.y over the period of communist rule up until the 1980s."

yeah.... t.r.e.m.e.n.d.o.u.s. long lines to buy stuff.

btw, petro-dollars from selling oil to capitalist nations helped some.

Anonymous said...

'Iowa: 47%'

whites in iowa want 'gay marriage'.
a sick nation.

Anonymous said...

This is wishful thinking on Douhat's part. Living single, speaking as a former practitioner, after a bit of practice, is far less chaotic and stable than marriage with children. And the Hispanics who went to the polls and voted for Obama are not the gangbangers and undocumented day laborers and fruit pickers and their pregnant teenage girlfriends of Douhat's and Steve's imagination, but working family men and women. I live in Texas and I have served often as an election clerk (not this year) so I'm not just talking out my ass.

Mike Eisenstadt
Austin

diana said...

"mi, after their fertile years have gone, as single mothers with a child sired by a Jew or black in tow."

These are two totally different demographics.

Kids who are half-Jewish tend to be the products of a religious intermarriage in which the mother is very high IQ.

Kids who are biracial black-white tend to be the products of unstable marriages or couplings of low IQ blacks and whites. (Obama is a partial exception in that both parents were high IQ, but the coupling was unstable.)

I think Jim is talking out of his ass and just threw in the Jew thing because that's what you do on this website.

Nevertheless I agree with his basic point and I think the analogy to infection and epidemics is a good one.

diana said...

In general I find the disappointment with the Republican Party on immigration to be pathetic.

Read up a little on the history of the Republican party - the free labor party - anti-union, and in favor of the movement of labor across borders. Always on the side of the union-busting bosses.

Don't tell me about Eisenhower. I know about him. He was practically a Democrat, said nice things about unions. He reigned during a period of unusual peace and social concord in the US. He deported wetbacks because illegal labor was bad for the white working class.

Since when do Republicans care about the white working class?

Romney had a huge nerve complaining about Obama's "bribes." Motes, beams, guys. Romney's plan was nothing more than bribes too. He was just gonna bribe different demographics.

What a terrible, ridiculous, nonsensical candidate Romney was.

I disagree with Obama about a lot but at least he makes sense as a politician, there is an internal coherence to his policies.

I am looking forward to the next four years. They are gonna be a blast! Bring it on!!

Rev. Right said...

Judging by the white voting pattern statistics cited above, it seems there is a direct correlation between the percentage of a state's nonwhite population and the percentage of it's white population who vote Republican (More Canadian border influence, no doubt). Therefore, one solution to the Republican's current electoral deficit would be to spread the diversity wealth by encouraging black and hispanic migration to Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New England and the Pacific Northwest. The best effect would be to draw from hard blue states with plenty of excess, like California or New York. This should nudge the percentag eof whites voting for the "white" party up over that 60% threshhold.

I have spent a good amount of time in Madison, Wisconsin, visiting my brother and his family. Madison is a town with large sections of modest to upper middle class suburban-like neighborhoods. This summer I attended a neighborhod dive team meet. It was all very idyllic, and reminded me of the America I knew in the 60's and 70's. Each neighborhood has a community pool, and they have swim and dive teams that compete against one another. It was a Friday evening, and it seemed as though everyone's parents were there. All these good liberals enjoying a family evening in their neighborhood, and every single person there was white. There was no rap music being played, no cussing or loud arguments, and no fights broke out among the competitors or their parents.

This is their world. What's the problem? Those less enlightened whites who can't have this kind of life, with safe neighborhoods and common community standards of behavior, are awful racists for not getting on board with Democrat redistributionism and demographic change.

The appeal of liberalism is that its bad effects are always borne by someone else. You get to feel morally superior, and they get to pay for it. And so it goes.

Rev. Right said...

Interesting comment on White Guilt at hbd chick, with a Steve Sailer reference:

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/liberal-white-guilt-as-altruistic-punishment/

Average Joe said...

What if I told you that getting that high of a white vote is impossible because there are far too many whites who are lib-traitors?

A lot of white lib-traitors are single women who see Big Government as kind of a surrogate husband. Married women are much more likely to vote Republican which shows that a lot of the liberal vote is based on the emotional insecurities of single women.

Rohan Swee said...

Castilian: I think about how moved I am by that short article, and about how angry some people seem about it. And I realize anew how deep the divide is between me and my own countrymen.

Countrymen? Do they carry a sense of a shared history, respond to the same "mystic chords of memory", share the same national mythos and heroes? Do they have the same cultural foundations and assumptions, the same basic morality?

Even bypassing the heart into more abstract notions of civic life, do the have the same notions of rule of law, of justness, of fairness, of the duties of citizens, and the duties of rulers, of how a society is best governed? When I sit among them, do I feel that sense of ease, of numberless tacit understandings, that tell a man that he is "home", among his own?

No, to any of these. By what possible definition of the term, beyond the most bloodless bureaucratic head-counting - we carry the same passport when we exit or enter through the security checkpoints of America, Inc. - are these people my countrymen?

Oliver James said...

"
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All modern successful countries in Europe and not to mention Canada have the social programs and form of healthcare Obama's adminstration is leading America towards, and no it is not because we are over-run with "government dependant" welfare out-of-wedlock, baby-poping lazy ethnic sluts like you strange cretins seem to think. "

First, many of these "successful" European countries are swirling down the drain faster than the US, so success is a relative term, I guess. Primarily due to progressive policies.

Second, look at the demographics for such countries for when they were successful- they previously were nearly 100% white- as the demographics have changed, and productive, creative, and self-restraining whites who don't abuse the safety nets have been declining and minorities have been rapidly rising, the failures of such a system have become apparent, as it is clearly on a long term downward trajectory. Even progressives there like Merkel have been declaring that multiculturalism is a failure.

But I guess we 'cretins' are too focused on logic, reality and facts, and not enough on worshipping at the altar of Obama, where having reality takes a backseat to 'Hope and Change'.

Mote said...

"Mitt Romney, as you may remember, thinks "illegals" should just self-deport. When he found out they were illegally mowing his lawn, he fired them. You may remember that he enjoys firing people."

Yeah, God forbid people committing an ongoing felony and essentially picking the pockets of the American populace be thwarted by asking them to leave. I'm sure you'd be more kind and forgiving if some random street thug just decided to move into your home, eat food from your fridge, watch your TV, and use your credit card to order himself some fancy jewelry for a date who he brings home and screws on your couch.

Mote said...

"The president earned their votes largely by doing the right thing and granting temporary amnesty to Dream Act candidates -- but only after feeling the pressure from activists. Their support had nothing to do with mooching off the state, and everything to do with human rights. Oh, and keeping their families together, continuing their educations, going to church, and working hard."

Keeping their families together, going to church, geting an education, and working hard are all things they can do in their home country if they are actually interested in such things; neither I nor any other American are responsible for their welfare, so please stop all the bleeding heart human rights talk. If they come here illegally they have no right to pursue a life here. And please stop with the 'Obama cares' nonsense- the whole reason he does what he does to stop the law being enforced is because he envisions having millions of more dependents sucking at the govt teat and after amnesty, voting democrat to keep the handouts rolling. Be a man and deal with reality.

Anonymous said...

Both Republicans and Democrats bribe various demographics. The difference is the the Republicans tend to bribe their constituencies with their own money.

Anonymous said...

The response of the movement conservatives to the amnesty clarion call was rather amazing. For example, guess who wrote this:

A recent editorial invoked the welcoming attitude of Ronald Reagan. How much of the Latino vote did Reagan get? In his landslide of 1980, 35 percent. In his landslide of 1984, 37 percent. That’s better than Romney, but still a wipeout. Reagan signed the amnesty of 1986. What did it do for the party’s standing among Latinos? George H.W. Bush got only 30 percent of the Latino vote in his own landslide of 1988.

Republican donors with a disproportionate influence in the party would be perfectly happy to jettison the cause of immigration enforcement. They are fine with a flood of low-skilled immigrants competing with low-skilled American workers. And why shouldn’t they be? These immigrants don’t suppress their wages; they care for their children and clean their pools.

Whenever it is pointed out that illegal immigration tends to harm low-skill workers already here, the comeback is the scurrilous canard that there are “some jobs that no Americans will do.” But most hotel maids, construction workers, coal miners, and workers in meatpacking — all tough, thankless jobs — are U.S.-born. If it is hard to entice legal workers into such positions, here is a radical concept: Pay them more.


Did Pat Buchanan write this? Steve Sailer? John Derbyshire? No, Rich Lowry.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333525/amnesty-fantasy-rich-lowry

Anonymous said...

How can Republicans cut deep into the white vote outside the south? Easy. Drop abortion and gay marriage.

Not quite. The GOP is killing itself with the white vote because it supports with a religious fervor, free trade, tax cuts for the wealthy and endless wars.

A lot of white blue collar types have lost their jobs to free trade and offshoring. They don't want to hear about more free trade agreements. They don't give a damn about cutting the top tax rates. They are fed up with spending treasure in Afghanistan and don't think Iran is a dire threat. They have enough to worry about making ends meet, feeding their kids and hopefully sending them to schools that are not overrun with minority dysfunction.

I remember during the late 1980s when the talking heads were on TV telling the nation that manufacturing was yesterday's news and that we needed to move into information technology. They were suggesting that Americans go back to community colleges and retrain for IT careers. Then offshoring came and those poor bastards had to find something else to do.

About a 10 years ago I was watching Lou Dobbs interview some GOP guy on trade. He was pushing free trade and telling Lou that we needed to spend more to retrain workers. Lou asked him what should they retrain for? The guy stuttered and finally said, "I don't know exactly". Lou replied, "That's a hell of a plan if you are telling people they need to retrain, but they don't know for what." Frustrated, the guy said, "Look, people have to understand in the modern economy you are no longer going to work at the same job for your entire career. People need to realize they are going to have to change careers every seven years or so and deal with it."

That is what is preventing the GOP from taking more of the white vote, not gay marriage and abortion. The whites who are turned off by the GOP's stand on gay marriage and abortion ARE the core of the democrat party and would never vote GOP anyway. Most whites are more concerned with their economic and social well being which the GOP doesn't care about.

Roa said...

" ben tillman said...

What if I told you that getting that high of a white vote is impossible because there are far too many whites who are lib-traitors?

What then?

I'd tell you you're wrong. "Lib-traitors" do not necessarily remain "lib-traitors"."

-Exactly. Most lib whites say and do what they do because they realize it is the path of least resistance and an easier way to get ahead. Most recognize its nonsense- this is obvious from where they live, how they fight to get their kids into white schools, etc. If the path of least resistance no longer at least the token level of public displays of support, most liberal whites would stop.

Anonymous said...

Here is a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh show on November 13, 2012. Rush actually brings up the GOP's track record with Hispanics and details how the GOP lost Hispanics even after the 1986 amnesty. His transcript reads like a post at iSteve. Maybe it is too little too late, but if anyone can rouse the base, it is Rush.

If Hannity is going to cave on amnesty and Rush is going to hang tough, I would like to see what happens to Hannity's ratings.

Anonymous said...

"Percentage of the Hispanic vote won by Republican Presidential candidates over time.

1980: Reagan - 36%
1984: Reagan - 34%

1986: Reagan signs amnesty bill.

1988: Bush - 30%
1992: Bush - 27%
1996: Dole - 21%


Brilliant Republican strategist: "What we need to win the Hispanic vote is another amnesty bill!""

heartiste said...

guilt-tripper deluxe edition:
"you should be aware that many upward-assimilating immigrants also read The Times. This is not a way to attract their votes."

But therein lies two rubs: there aren't that many upward-assimilating immigrants (of recent heritage) and there isn't much Republicans can do at any rate to attract the votes of these immigrants short of becoming a second Dem party (in which case, they still lose because the real anti-majority Gimmedat Claus is always better than an impostor working at the mall.)

I mean, hispanic Republicans (!) favor a bigger role for government than white Democrats (!). What the F are Republicans supposed to do when the demographic changes have cast their lot for them before they've even got their message out of the starting gate? Game over, man! GAME OVER.

Anonyia said...

"On the growing popularity of unmarried women having children, now accounting for 40% of all births: what kind of government programs could dis-incentivize this kind of behavior? How about much more generous child tax credits available only to two-parent households combine with a generous expansion of the earned-income tax credit, again only available to two-parent households?"

Why not get rid of the child tax credit altogether? Could have the same effect.

Svigor said...

Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values — reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear.

This is galactically obvious and takes a modicum of spine to say these days, so I'm astounded that Ross Douthat actually said it and hasn't been run out of NY on a rail.

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

It is, to him. Any attempt on the part of whites to control the territory they hold (the way Mexicans control Mexico or Jews control Israel) is a moral outrage.

That's because he hates white people and wants to see them dead.

Ross got a lot of self-righteous hate for what was a very fair and mild article. Seems to have struck a nerve...

That's because it's a Liberal Holy War, LiHoWa, and anyone who talks about the good guys (libtards) the way they talk about the enemy (non-libtards) is evil and must be destroyed.

People endured a low standard of living and political oppression for *generations*.

I wouldn't bank on western European populations enduring Idiocracy as long as Russians did. And that was under a regime that was displacing non-Russians from all the good land and replacing them with Russians.

Moron thinks illegal immigration and getting benefits--at the benefit of legal American citizen tax payers--is a 'human right'.

What else is a human right, genius?


One thing we can bank on, with absolute certainty; reciprocity is the very antithesis of a human right. For whites, anyway. Libtards think the Golden Rule is evil (insofar as it's applied to whites).

How can Republicans cut deep into the white vote outside the south? Easy. Drop abortion and gay marriage.

According to exit poll Republicans lost abortion 2-1, it’s toxic among college educated and women. Conservatives lost on those issues, deal with it and let’s try to save what can be saved.


I saw what you did there. You said "drop abortion and 'homosexual [non-]marriage,'" then you went on to support your assertion that dropping the "opposition" to abortion (something Rs don't actually do, but never mind that) is a loser. Then you crossed your fingers and hoped nobody would notice how you didn't say a word in support of your idea that opposing "homosexual marriage" is a "loser."

Clever strategy. Maybe no one will notice how Americans HATE "homosexual marriage."

All modern successful countries in Europe and not to mention Canada have the social programs and form of healthcare Obama's adminstration [sic] is leading America towards, and no it is not because we are over-run with "government dependant" [sic] welfare out-of-wedlock, baby-poping [sic] lazy ethnic sluts like you strange cretins seem to think

Yeah, that's great genius, but European countries have a hope in hell of sustaining them because they aren't composed of incompetent demographics. America is about 30% incompetent demographics and rising, you ignorant poltroon.

"All modern successful countries in Europe..."

Yeah, let's catch a ride on that train


What, deport 2/3s+ of our non-white population? It's literally impossible for us to catch a ride on that train (without removing 2/3s+ of our non-white population). What we're doing is far more self-destructive.

I live in Texas and I have served often as an election clerk (not this year) so I'm not just talking out my ass.

Lol.

Matthew said...

"Nevertheless, even though immigration was literally not discussed during the 2012 election, the GOP must change their stance on immigration to win over hispanic voters."

And even though the states Romney needed to win (but didn't) weren't especially Hispanic, except for Colorado.

It's the pro-free trade, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy, anti-corporate safety regulations, anti-protecting the spotted owls, pro-wars for Israel coalition thats killing the GOP. The focus on amnesty for illegals is a fruitless attempt to divert Republicans from the real problem. Establishment Republicans want to think immigration is the probelm because it's the business lobby that provides them funding - though the white middle class could provide an adequate subsitute, if they ever pretended to care about them.

Immigration is a diversion. It's obstinant oppisition to tax increases on the wealthy that's damaging the brand. When so many Americans are just barely staying afloat, spending cuts aren't appealing.

Harry Baldwin said...

I'm sure you'd be more kind and forgiving if some random street thug just decided to move into your home, eat food from your fridge, watch your TV, and use your credit card to order himself some fancy jewelry for a date who he brings home and screws on your couch.

And furthermore, when their sex on your couch produces an offspring, they are then legally entitled to stay in your house and to invite their relatives to move in as well. Ain't it grand?

fnn said...

Read up a little on the history of the Republican party - the free labor party - anti-union, and in favor of the movement of labor across borders. Always on the side of the union-busting bosses.-Diana

The last important immigration restriction law was passed under President Coolidge in 1924. Until after WWII the GOP was the protectionist party and the D's were the free traders. After WWII protectionism made no sense because the other industrial countries were rebuilding from the
devastation of the war.

With the current ruling elites controlling the discourse and an archaic first-past-the-post voting system you'll always get the only two viable/serious parties seeking the "middle ground" in the vicinity of pro-banker, pro-Israel policies. No "True Finns" possible here.

Anonymous said...

"Immigration is a diversion. It's obstinant oppisition to tax increases on the wealthy that's damaging the brand. When so many Americans are just barely staying afloat, spending cuts aren't appealing."

Your post is a diversion. If something is not done in the next decade or so, non-white racial bloc voting + majority + racial spoils policies = permanently shitty existence as a white person in the USA, with no legal way out of the quagmire.

Corn said...

"On the growing popularity of unmarried women having children, now accounting for 40% of all births: what kind of government programs could dis-incentivize this kind of behavior? How about much more generous child tax credits available only to two-parent households combine with a generous expansion of the earned-income tax credit, again only available to two-parent households?"

As Moynihan said, "Conservatives believe that culture influences politics."

You can tinker with the tax code but what we really need to do is make it a tenet of American society again that illegitimacy is a tragedy and a disgrace, not just a "mistake" or lifestyle choice.
I don't really see that happening. That's why I'm gloomy.

Whiskey said...

Hmm ... Obama is the most pro-Open Borders, and most Anti-Israel, President in memory. Or ever. And the lunatics here think that being "pro Israel" is a problem? What, Americans are overcome with emotion to embrace the Palestinians, and Muslims? Yeah sure, we want to hug the people who murdered our Ambassador, held others hostage for two years, and have generally engaged in jihad against us (and pretty much everyone, themselves and even the Chinese).

That's not the problem. The problem is money and sex.

All the good, high paying jobs even adjusted for living costs are in large, Blue centers and focused on the mafia-politics of Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, etc. Semi-political jobs focused on extracting wealth from others, not creating it.

White fertility is crashing because most White women sensibly would rather have lots more money in large Blue urban centers, and sex with exciting dominant men (Alpha males) than marry and have kids with some boring beta male in their twenties. Result, one kid maybe in their mid thirties. That's it. And that's the pattern all across the West. Sex and money account for vastly declining marriage, child-bearing rates, and conservative voting among White women.

There *IS* an advantage Black guys have wrt White guys in the mating/childbearing market, not very much Jewish guys (too nerdy, too White, not testosterone dominant). That's particularly true with providership being eclipsed by government handouts.

Jewishness is basically gone, outside Israel. Most Jews intermarry like crazy, and don't attend religious services, keep observances, and the like. PC liberalism on the otherhand dominates and it is a function and reflection of the urban White professional mate market or sexual market.

Anonymous said...

“The whites who are turned off by the GOP's stand on gay marriage and abortion ARE the core of the democrat party and would never vote GOP anyway.”

The GOP should moderate on both economic and social policy, but not only core Democrats are socially liberal these days.

According to exit polls only 36 percent of voters wanted abortions to be illegal. The “core” of the Democrat party is hardly 60+ percent of voters.

Voters still reject amnesty by about a 60-40 margin, while supporting abortion by a 60-35 margin. There is a large swath of voters on our side on immigration/patriotism who are on the other side regarding social issues who we need to get.

“Then you crossed your fingers and hoped nobody would notice how you didn't say a word in support of your idea that opposing "homosexual marriage" is a "loser." Clever strategy. Maybe no one will notice how Americans HATE "homosexual marriage.”

Contrary to what you think, more voters now support than oppose gay marriage (49-46 according to exit polls).

www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll

Excluding blacks who will never vote Republican anyway, a majorly of whites are now in favor of gay marriage, with support rising every year.

Public opinion has shifted on social issues; they are huge losers now, especially among well-educated (and hence more influential) voters. The issue that make the media and academics most hostile to the GOP is not immigration, it is social issues. Being socially liberal is their new religion now.

I am now a one issue voter. To gather a majority to stop demographic transformation in the short time that remains, you need to jettison losing issues. Yes that includes foreign wars and tax-cuts for billionaires, but the most important one is social issues.

Cail Corishev said...

"Maybe Republicans could start pursuing policy initiatives that increase the kind of demographic trends that would contribute to their political success."

They seem to think that would be cheating.

Hunsdon said...

Mike said: Living single, speaking as a former practitioner, after a bit of practice, is far less chaotic and stable than marriage with children.

Hunsdon said: Sir, first off, you used your name,or a name anyway, and for that I salute you. I tire of anonydroids. However, although you did put words together in a sentence, its meaning is unintelligible at any speed. How can something be "far less chaotic and stable"?

Whiskey said: Obama is the (snip) most Anti-Israel President in memory.

Hunsdon inquired: Which POTUS was it, again, who said, "F*ck the Jews, they're not going to vote for us anyway." I'll give you a hint: Last Bush but one.

Anonymous said...

"There *IS* an advantage Black guys have wrt White guys in the mating/childbearing market, not very much Jewish guys (too nerdy, too White, not testosterone dominant). That's particularly true with providership being eclipsed by government handouts."

It's interesting you mention "providership". Before the welfare state came along, being a "good provider" was something women used to prize. Now a sizable chunk of women don't realize they need one of those until after they marry, or pump out a child.

JSM said...

"All the good, high paying jobs even adjusted for living costs are in large Blue"

Whiskey's popping off again when he knows not what he speaks of.

Mines in North Dakota / Montana / are crying for mining engineers. Or if you're a safety-conscious smart, energetic dude, you can start as a roughneck (no college) and work your way up to being a tool pusher or directional driller and make 6 figures -- and the COA in the Mountain West is as low as it gets in America.

Bill said...


Anonymous said . . .

How can Republicans cut deep into the white vote outside the south? Easy. Drop abortion and gay marriage.

This would destroy the R party overnight (a good thing, in my view). It is a colossally stupid idea. It certainly is what the vampire squids who run the party would ideally like, but they are not quite dumb enough to actually do it.

Almost everybody who votes, volunteers, or contributes on abortion votes pro-life. It's exactly like guns this way.

Unfortunately, the vampire squids have painted the Rs into a corner by creating the depressing horde of Tea Party retards. These guys make it hard for the Rs to move left on economic issues---a strategy which really would win them a lot of extra votes.

Rs lost because they lost the rust belt. They lost the rust belt because they are the party of the vampire squids, because they ran a vampire squid for president, and because whites in those states are not quite stupid enough to ignore these facts.

There is no fact libertardians are not stupid enough to ignore, of course.

Beecher Asbury said...

Jewishness is basically gone, outside Israel. Most Jews intermarry like crazy, and don't attend religious services, keep observances, and the like.

Right they intermarry and are thus being lost to assimilation. I guess that is why the percentage of the electorate that is Jewish continues to remain a solid 2 percent despite the immivasion which is eroding the percentage of whites. What is happening to the whites? If anything whites who intermarry with Jews are becoming Jews. This is completely opposite of what you say.

As for attending religious services, being Jewish has never been solely defined by attending religious services. Did the Nazis only round up those who attended a synagogue?

Svigor said...

Contrary to what you think, more voters now support than oppose gay marriage (49-46 according to exit polls).

What's the win-loss record for "homosexual marriage" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) at the real polls?

Svigor said...

Hmm ... Obama is the most pro-Open Borders, and most Anti-Israel, President in memory. Or ever. And the lunatics here think that being "pro Israel" is a problem?

"Obama has the pro-Israel thing dialed down to 99, whereas all presidents for the last 25 years have all kept it at 100! Obama is the most anti-Israel president EVARRR!"

Seriously, that's the logic here. Not that I'm with the WN crowd putting Levantine foreign policy first, mind you. I've been yawning over that for years.

Most Jews intermarry like crazy

By "like crazy," Whiskey means "a hell of a lot less than white people." Hell, Italians and Irish don't even keep track of how often they intermarry any more (yes, that's what Jews mean by "intermarriage"; Jews marrying white people), contra Jews, who obsess over their purity.

Folks, Whiskey is a liar. Period. It's too exhausting to debunk the lies he posts over and over, but trust me, he's a liar. If he'd cook up new lies, that'd be something else, but he doesn't. It's just the same lies over and over and refuting them all becomes tedious very quickly.

The TL;DR version is, never trust anything that comes out of his keyboard.

Svigor said...

There *IS* an advantage Black guys have wrt White guys in the mating/childbearing market

If this was true, we'd see a lot more mulatto babies, and a lot more mixed marriages than we do. In fact, the opposite is true.

But I do agree with Whiskey that Jewish girls love the black guys.

Anonymous said...

Folks, Whiskey is a liar. Period. It's too exhausting to debunk the lies he posts over and over, but trust me, he's a liar. If he'd cook up new lies, that'd be something else, but he doesn't. It's just the same lies over and over and refuting them all becomes tedious very quickly.

You will notice that whiskey does not do this at Vox Day's blog. VD has rules that if you state something and are challenged, you must back it up or admit your error. Otherwise you will not be allowed to post. This keeps down the trolls because those who cannot debate their views are drummed off the blog.

I wish blogs like this did the same. Whiskey has been spouting out those same half truths and outright lies for years and never responds.

Anonymous said...

'By "like crazy," Whiskey means "a hell of a lot less than white people."'

Only if you define intermarriage for white people as between different ethnicities of white people. The genetic distance between many white ethnicities is not great, either.

At the racial level, there is not nearly as much intermarriage (e.g. whites with blacks, Asians, etc.). By contrast, Jewish out-marriage rate is about 50%. The percentage of whites who marry black or Asian is not nearly equivalent.

If you consider that most Jews live in the USA, they are right to be worried if they want to maintain their ethno-religious heritage. I think we have the right to similar concerns too.

Anonymous said...

that's what Jews mean by "intermarriage"; Jews marrying white people

Not so. Observant Jews don't want other Jews to marry anyone who isn't an observant Jew. If a white gentile were to convert to Orthodox Judaism, the modern Orthodox at least would have no problem with him. The ultra-Orthodox and hasidim prefer that their children marry someone from a solid "frum" family background, so there might still be a stigma. But they apply the same stigma to non-observant Jews who become ultra-Orthodox (baal teshuvah) as well. A baal teshuvah will almost certainly be matched with another baal teshuvah. He or she would not be permitted to marry into the "best" religious families despite being ethnically Jewish.

Anonymous said...

But I do agree with Whiskey that Jewish girls love the black guys.

If true, it's another sign that Jews are not all of one mind about interdating and intermarriage. The Orthodox have an abiding concern with preservation of the religion. The ethnicity is secondary to them. Secular Jews, or at least the women in your view, don't care about preserving either. They are eager to appear enlightened and tolerant (and perhaps to shock Mom and Dad and test their liberal bona fides).

Anonymous said...

Since people seem to interested in the topic of Jewish intermarriage rates:

"Since 1985, the rate of increase in intermarriages has slowed as intermarriage levels have stabilized in the mid-40% range. Among Jews whose marriages started in 1985-90, the intermarriage rate is 43%. The intermarriage rate is also 43% for Jews whose marriages began in 1991-95. Jews who have married since 1996 have an intermarriage rate of 47%.

Table 14. Intermarriage by year marriage began.

Year marriage began
Percent intermarried
Before 1970
13
1970-1979
28
1980-1984
38
1985-1990
43
1991-1995
43
1996-2001
47

Anonymous said...

Here is some data on the children in interfaith marriages:

"In-married and intermarried Jews differ dramatically in the extent to which they raise their children as Jews. Nearly all children (96%) in households with two Jewish spouses are being raised Jewish, compared to a third (33%) of the children in households with one non-Jewish spouse. How the children of intermarriages will identify themselves when they grow up is unknown now. However, it is noteworthy that children of intermarriages are being exposed to less intense forms of engagement with Jewish life through their parents than children of in-married Jews."

Discard said...

Support for homosexual marriage is very shallow. Who'd even heard of it ten years ago? For most people, it's just a means of demonstrating their intrinsic superiority to those they imagine are their social inferiors. Let the media spend five years telling the people that homosexuals are low status losers and hopelessly out of fashion, disgustingly effeminate and prone to weird diseases, and they'll be back in the closet.

DaveinHackensack said...

"Rush actually brings up the GOP's track record with Hispanics and details how the GOP lost Hispanics even after the 1986 amnesty."

Rush has been against amnesty for years. And he has correctly noted the Santa Claus appeal of the Democratic Party. His one blind spot is that, as a tremendously successful, self-made entrepreneur, he doesn't grok that most Americans -- Republicans included -- really want economic security, rather than a shot at getting really rich.

That doesn't mean that the GOP should compete with the Dems in offering a more generous (and more unsustainable) welfare state; it means the GOP ought to promote policies that make it possible for more Americans to achieve economic security in the private sector.

The Reagan Democrats voted for Reagan for cultural reasons because their economic security was covered by unionized manufacturing jobs with good pay and benefits.

ben tillman said...

At the racial level, there is not nearly as much intermarriage (e.g. whites with blacks, Asians, etc.). By contrast, Jewish out-marriage rate is about 50%.

Allegedly. It was 14% in 1989, so that seems awfully high.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11/19/22 9:22 PM and 9:30 PM,

Your data doesn't provide any information after 2001, and I'm guessing its source is an old NJPS study. Is there anything more recent?

Anonymous said...

"Let the media spend five years telling the people that homosexuals are low status losers and hopelessly out of fashion, disgustingly effeminate and prone to weird diseases, and they'll be back in the closet."

Sure, but who owns the media?

Svigor said...

Only if you define intermarriage for white people as between different ethnicities of white people. The genetic distance between many white ethnicities is not great, either.

Which is how I defined it: the way Jews do.

At the racial level, there is not nearly as much intermarriage (e.g. whites with blacks, Asians, etc.). By contrast, Jewish out-marriage rate is about 50%. The percentage of whites who marry black or Asian is not nearly equivalent.

So, what you're saying is, I shouldn't be comparing apples to apples; I should compare apples to oranges instead.

What's the Jewish rate of interracial marriage? Oh, wait, never mind, you don't know. Nobody knows, because the numbers are so low they'd be a scandal (that everyone would be too afraid to acknowledge) if ever released to the public.

Since people seem to interested in the topic of Jewish intermarriage rates

More data:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_immune_to_demographics/#c68319

Anonymous said...

I doubt any of us here, Jews like myself included, believe that inter-racial marriage should be encouraged by the media. But it matters no more what like-minded Jews think than what you think. None of us has any influence.

Anonymous said...

pmhlm [url=http://www.getcanadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose[/url] qhedhu http://www.getcanadagooseoutlet.com ueejc [url=http://www.pick-canadagoose.com]canada goose[/url] ruiedo http://www.pick-canadagoose.com gexwy [url=http://www.pickupcanadagoose.com]canada goose sale[/url] rkzfhd http://www.pickupcanadagoose.com wkug [url=http://www.pay-canadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose[/url] iimpmi http://www.pay-canadagooseoutlet.com vgxse [url=http://www.yescanadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose jacket[/url] ugmwdv http://www.yescanadagooseoutlet.com lanwp [url=http://www.online-canadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose jacket[/url] ltxbmj http://www.online-canadagooseoutlet.com pvlc

Anonymous said...

vjmzi [url=http://www.getcanadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose outlet[/url] zstxer http://www.getcanadagooseoutlet.com incct [url=http://www.pick-canadagoose.com]canada goose jacket[/url] unjpso http://www.pick-canadagoose.com eugjv [url=http://www.pickupcanadagoose.com]canada goose outlet[/url] siyzcc http://www.pickupcanadagoose.com fbwj [url=http://www.pay-canadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose outlet[/url] ffwndg http://www.pay-canadagooseoutlet.com qpnar [url=http://www.yescanadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose[/url] ueavst http://www.yescanadagooseoutlet.com muccw [url=http://www.online-canadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose outlet[/url] ipgfcd http://www.online-canadagooseoutlet.com cpqi

Anonymous said...

bblys [url=http://www.getcanadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose[/url] hrcgzf http://www.getcanadagooseoutlet.com hcfle [url=http://www.pick-canadagoose.com]canada goose[/url] tucxyo http://www.pick-canadagoose.com ohafh [url=http://www.pickupcanadagoose.com]canada goose sale[/url] heqtel http://www.pickupcanadagoose.com nvsy [url=http://www.pay-canadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose[/url] nghvkk http://www.pay-canadagooseoutlet.com vriit [url=http://www.yescanadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose outlet[/url] xzmlbw http://www.yescanadagooseoutlet.com jmhso [url=http://www.online-canadagooseoutlet.com]canada goose jacket[/url] uoyggm http://www.online-canadagooseoutlet.com yrzm