The New GOP: Whites need not apply

[Jeanfromfillmore]

What countries are the most successful? Are they the countries where these minorities have come from? Those countries that are failures seem to be the ones where these 'new demographics' are coming from and it isn't like it's some sort of secret. If they were so great at deciding who should be in charge back were they came from, then why are the countries such failures? Sure you can point at one thing or another, but the overall problem was that they were making the decisions and their culture. But to point that out here in the US is being racist to the illiterate and indoctrinated that now control the ballot box.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

What countries are the most successful? Are they the countries where these minorities have come from? Those countries that are failures seem to be the ones where these 'new demographics' are coming from and it isn't like it's some sort of secret. If they were so great at deciding who should be in charge back were they came from, then why are the countries such failures? Sure you can point at one thing or another, but the overall problem was that they were making the decisions and their culture. But to point that out here in the US is being racist to the illiterate and indoctrinated that now control the ballot box.

I don't know that all those countries are failures. They may not have chosen the same path to alleged success as the US, Germany, Switzerland and what have you. You'd have to look at what would be considered success. The American Indians were pretty successful in their own right before the settlers came along and set the bar in a whole different place. They previously had lots of time on their hands, no taxes, no-drive-by shootings, and plenty to eat if you were willing to work. Now their success is measured by the standards of the invading hordes from Europe. We, our so-called enlightened society judges them by how well they adapt to science, mathematics, and finance. Lots of them did not adapt that well. Likewise, guatemalans and other latin Americans were fine in their own yards from their perspective, They ate very basically, and lived in very spartan homes. When they hit civilizations like the US, they too were not suited for a speedy adaptation. The rich foods of the north have turned on them, and the ample exposure to alcohol and other mind tempering substances has been taking a toll on all of us. The way I see it, they weren't so bad off where they were, living in what we consider lesser civilized lifestyles. Their respective countries don't export a lot, or contribute much to technology, but those success have come with a heavy price tag for us. We have little or no time with our families, our open range and open lands are often far from usable reach for us, and the free food supply, hunting, fishing, gathering, etc., are disappearing. Success costs a lot in human terms.

Anyway, overall, the encouraged immigration/migration is happening too quickly for both host and guest to profit from. At least at our level/ But that wasn't the plan for us anyways. The orchestrators and architects of the migration/immigration scheme are the profiteers.

And for your benefit Don, I don't know that the GOP is nearly as filled with enthusiam over non-whites as the democrats are. But they do seem to be succumbing to it a little at a time. I wouldn't blame the republican party faithful for that as much as I would the heirarchy, and whatever forces that have been manipulating the situation for a couple decades or more. They may be sticking their toe in to see what will happen. Unfortunately the heirarchy are politicians more than they are believers, and they may find that their new masters hand is more rewarding than the hands of their existing base. If that happens, the title of this thread will be more accurate. As it sits right now, it's a bit premature

[wetibbe]

By all conventional wisdom and expert analysis that was accurate 100% of the time Mitt should have won handily ?

Talk about the main stream media !!!! What main stream. 30 of the nations newspapers endorsed Mitt at the last minute. Even some that had been traditionally Democrat supporters.

It just doesn't add up ???? How did so many of the savants, odds makers analysts get to be so wrong in predicting a landslide for mitt - popular vote, and 325 delegate votes. *( Personally was very confident that Mitt would take it ).

This President is far worse than Jimmy Carter and should have lost big time.
Jews apparently don't care that much about Israel !
Blacks don't seem to mind over 15% unemployment overall and 50% in the inner Cities.
Young people apparently don't care if they can't find a job after college.

So what are the media, and pundits, saying? They are blaming the loss on everything from the Frankenstorm Sandy to Chris Christie complimenting Obama for helping New Jersey to Santa Claus.

So here's my take:

71% of Hispanics voted for Obama.
73% of Jews voted for him.
90% of blacks voted for him.
Apparently large numbers of young people voted for Obama.

The numbers of Hispanics have increased from 15% to 17%.
Blacks from 11% to 13%.
Jews are apparently still in relatively small numbers overall.
Over 100 million have been added to the population in the last couple of decades, 200 million to 300 million.

So was racism a factor? - ABSOLUTELY yes.
42 million on food stamps, a huge increase.
Amnesty - the dream act.
Free cell phones.

The people that - want stuff - now outnumber the people who want success, jobs, lower taxes, adequate defense, secure borders. 49% of the population is now on some sort of public assistance !!!!!!!!!!

So where do we go from here? What does the future hold ?

In the long term, by mid century, whites will be in the minority. It does appear that America is headed down the road of South Africa. The minorities will rule.

[ilbegone]

You can't point at a brown guy and say that he voted for Obama any more than you can point at a white guy and say the he voted for Romney.

People who vote are going to vote primarily on their short term self interest.

My white biologist acquaintance is an example. My perception of him is that he's in a field he truly enjoys, but most of the employment for his particular degree would be in government employ - and there are only so many slots available with the Forest Service and the BLM.

The mind boggling environmental (and often very silly) requirements for the "green" projects pushed by Obama and ultimately financed by the taxpayer provide him with employment opportunity which just wasn't there 20 years ago. The biologist voted for Obama and is of the opinion that "diversity" as defined by "educators" is a positive.

So, what is the "Latino" vote about as compared to the "white" vote?

Some months ago the primary concern for both races was the economy, with immigration issues lagging behind a number of other issues.

So, "what's in it for me?"

There are any number of personal variables. A multi-generational with no current family ties to Latin America might think different than a 14th amendment citizen with both parents here illegally and older siblings born elsewhere. After all, the newcomers crowd American Latinos out of work too.

There are those among both the newly arrived and the long established who consider that anyone who proclaims "the white man is keeping me down" is making excuses for personal failure, that the notion is just so much horse shit.

Mexican derived Californians might have a whole different perception of issues than Cuban derived Floridians and Puerto Rican derived New Yorkers might diverge from both.

Then there's welfare and other social services. A significant portion of welfare recipients are unemployable due to drug and alcohol addiction, others scam the system and there are those who genuinely need a helping hand through no fault of their own. As well, there has been a sharp increase in disability claims probably due to people who would normally be gainfully employed in a good economy despite their aches and pains but are now unemployed and can't get a job because they're slower, older, or both. Which candidate would appear more likely to maintain and even expand the status quo?

On the other hand someone who works hard for his money is probably going to be resentful of the taxman regardless of personal pigmentation.

How about the social security in which the 12% combined "contribution" (employers and employees) collected in 1969 is practically worthless now? Which candidate is perceived as more likely to support continuing to send out social security payments and which one will likely hack on the program?

And there's the concept of race and perception of white racial animosity. A significant number of Latinos have had it hammered into their heads that the white man is out to get them, and there are any number of brown racists who make a living fomenting racial animosity and make themselves political spokesmen for everyone else who has a brown skin and Spanish last name. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and even I've heard both far left and far right white political pundits talk as if everyone who can be termed a "Latino" as essentially being the same person.

Not everyone is exactly alike, and most people who act as if it were so are either willful liars or ignorant dupes.

There are political realities, but the electorate votes individually for what's perceived to be in it for themselves.

Including Jews who vote in support of a Democrat party comprised of people who generally seem to me to virulently hate Jews - something's personally perceived to be in it for them.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by wetibbe

In the long term, by mid century, whites will be in the minority. It does appear that America is headed down the road of South Africa. The minorities will rule.

What's going to be in the minority is voters who respect the notion of propriety and self-reliance. There are some in every race, and although it was perceived as being inherently a white cultural trait, the reality is there were just more whites that were educated and coherent enough to practice it here because it was the accepted culture for so long. Now the numbers of whites who do are diminishing, at the same as non-whites that don't are increasing through immigration and procreation. You can blame it on race all you want, but that won't explain the sheer numbers of Obama voters in the nation and democrat voters in California who are white. While I'm sure that Don would like to bitch slap all the white obama voters as he meets them, the truth is he'd have a perpetual job because the numbers are showing that white voters are just as susceptible to idiocy as non-whites

[Don]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

While I'm sure that Don would like to bitch slap all the white obama voters as he meets them, the truth is he'd have a perpetual job because the numbers are showing that white voters are just as susceptible to idiocy as non-whites

As usual, you're wrong. I don't want to bitch slap anyone, nor would I if I could.

I do want an honest discussion of anti-white hatred and I would like for people to give their best argument for why white extinction is a good thing?

Race matters. Non-whites have an almost insect, ant-hill like instinctive loyalty to their species, unlike whites, a substantial portion of whom are pathologically self hating and who will actually celebrate their own demise

The problem is that non-whites can't create and sustain advanced civilization....which is why millions of them come to the USA from their own failed, dysfunctional countries, like Mexico.


The July 28, 2006 edition of the LA Times had a story about an illegal alien Mexican family that fled to a white community in Kentucky because Southern California was no longer suitable for human habitation, even for them. The Times reported that a family member wrote back from Kentucky the following:

"We're in a state where there's nothing but Americans [i.e. whites]. The police control the streets. It's clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico-everyone thinks like in Mexico. California's broken."

I did not write this. It was written by one of the "people" who came here illegally because their own "culture" is a filthy sink hole. They transformed California into Mexico.

Here's the link, read it for yourself.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...&track=tothtml


What are "minorities" going to do when all of the clean safe white communities to which they go for sanctuary are gone because the whites who created them are gone?

You s can call me a "racist" all you like, but you cannot refute the fact that non-whites flood into this white country because whites are capable of creating something that non-whites can't create: CIVILIZATION.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Don

As usual, you're wrong. I don't want to bitch slap anyone, nor would I if I could.

I do want an honest discussion of anti-white hatred and I would like for people to give their best argument for why white extinction is a good thing?

Why do you think the world will be a better place when whites are gone?

I'm certain that no one here believes that, in any sense, and anymore than non-whites should be. But I'm once again compelled to point out that we aren't a racially oriented organization, and thus try not to be overly focused on such.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Don

As usual, you're wrong. I don't want to bitch slap anyone, nor would I if I could.

I do want an honest discussion of anti-white hatred and I would like for people to give their best argument for why white extinction is a good thing?

Race matters. Non-whites have an almost insect, ant-hill like instinctive loyalty to their species, unlike whites, a substantial portion of whom are pathologically self hating and who will actually celebrate their own demise

The problem is that non-whites can't create and sustain advanced civilization....which is why millions of them come to the USA from their own failed, dysfunctional countries, like Mexico.


The July 28, 2006 edition of the LA Times had a story about an illegal alien Mexican family that fled to a white community in Kentucky because Southern California was no longer suitable for human habitation, even for them. The Times reported that a family member wrote back from Kentucky the following:

"We're in a state where there's nothing but Americans [i.e. whites]. The police control the streets. It's clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico-everyone thinks like in Mexico. California's broken."

I did not write this. It was written by one of the "people" who came here illegally because their own "culture" is a filthy sink hole. They transformed California into Mexico.

Here's the link, read it for yourself.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...&track=tothtml


What are "minorities" going to do when all of the clean safe white communities to which they go for sanctuary are gone because the whites who created them are gone?

You s can call me a "racist" all you like, but you cannot refute the fact that non-whites flood into this white country because whites are capable of creating something that non-whites can't create: CIVILIZATION.

Don,

You got your quote from Nazi website Stormfront:

"We're in a state where there's nothing but Americans [i.e. whites]. The police control the streets. It's clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico-everyone thinks like in Mexico. California's broken."

from Poster "Advocate" from 7/28/ 2006 http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t313888/

The 7/28/2006 LA times story you referenced from Stormfront doesn't work. Here's one which does: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul...-quadruplets28

Read the whole thing. Carefully. In some ways you're technically right, in others you're so frigging wrong.

Dump the race stuff, Don.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

What countries are the most successful? Are they the countries where these minorities have come from? Those countries that are failures seem to be the ones where these 'new demographics' are coming from and it isn't like it's some sort of secret. If they were so great at deciding who should be in charge back were they came from, then why are the countries such failures? Sure you can point at one thing or another, but the overall problem was that they were making the decisions and their culture. But to point that out here in the US is being racist to the illiterate and indoctrinated that now control the ballot box.

We assume too much that other people think like us and that they have access to democratic government such as ours. Most of the world is not like us. History and natural environment are often against other peoples.

Mexico of today was forged from a long historical background which extends far beyond when the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) was Muslim and meso American civilizations which were long gone by the time Columbus sailed from Spain. Mexico's ancestry has not been kind to Mexicans. To many there is no hope for change which positively addresses corruption and exploitation from the smallest village to Mexico City.

Central America has nothing but poor soil and dictators.

Bolivia might have mining and natural gas industries but Bolivia is to Argentina what Mexico is to the United States and China can dump goods in Bolivia even cheaper than Bolivians can domestically produce goods - even with all the poverty and extremely cheap labor.

Our nation, national creed, and industrious ethics were founded on dissenting (and often humorless) protestantism originating in England. Until the relatively recent effort to convert us to a socialist "multicultural" nation on the European model, we were a unique people and nation different from all others for all time.

Some of this I believe came from the larger northern European work ethic which dictated that one had best prepare for the coming winter now and party later, perhaps southern Europe could afford to put off until tomorrow what could be done today. There may have also been a difference which could be attributed to differences between protestantism and Catholic and orthodox faith, Catholics in 16th century England were far more inclined to be party minded and more socially looser than protestants.

We go out and push our ideals on other peoples and cultures where they might not work in practice. In theory, Mexicans have always had a vote. After independence in 1821, the nation was in constant political turmoil (practically a president or two every year and new coups plotted every week) and was essentially a disparate collection of villages rather than a nation until Benito Juarez' survival of the French in the 1860's. Porfirio Diaz consolidated power and essentially sold his country to foreigners by reelecting himself for 40 years or so (the power of the one vote that counts) until Madero let the tiger out of the cage in the form of the 1910 Mexican revolution. What transformed into the PRI held mock elections in which there was a public show of democracy, but the incoming president was chosen long before the election. Fox's election in the late 90's may have been the first genuinely democratic Mexican election ever held, but did it actually do anything positive for Mexico?

(For Don's benefit: The Mexican governments from Irtubide immediately after the revolution until President Benito Juarez' survival of the French intervention were all composed of whites - including Austrian Archduke Maximillian - and race is not indicative of either successful colonial rule or effective self government. Note that the memory of avid cock fighter Santa Anna, the ultimate "comeback kid" of a white man who, between forced exiles, lost Texas in 1836, the majority of the northern Mexican territorial claim in 1848, and presided over the 1853 Gadsen Purchase is hated in both Mexico and the US. Benito Juarez was a Zapotec Indian, Porfirio Diaz' father was white and his mother Indian, Madero was an idealistic white man not rooted in full reality)

Most people from third world countries have no idea of what our country and democracy are about, much less do they have the ability to exercise our not completely perfect direct access to government. And, after coming here and becoming citizens, they are going to vote on what affects their immediate interest without any idea of what that is doing to the nation. But on the other hand, we can lay all that to those in our government who are bent on changing our nation from what it has been as well as employers seeking cheap labor. The problems which are brought with these people from everywhere else are imported by Americans who do not have America's ultimate interest in heart - and that statement includes white Americans who damage our nation with immigration too vast to ensure assimilation to our national creed.

Our nation is being killed from within.