The New GOP: Whites need not apply
 

Listening to the 870 AM "conservative" talk radio show host, Hugh Hewitt, in the aftermath of Mitt Romney's humiliating defeat to Obama and the "minority" hordes supporting his return to office.

Hewitt was discussing the minority demographic problem (after years of smearing anti-immigration patriots as "zenophobes, nativists, etc.) and said the GOP needs people of color to recruit other people of color to the GOP. This is called "minority outreach".

Hmmm...hiring people based on skin color? Isn't that illegal? Does this mean that "color blind conservatism" is dead in favor of new, racially aware, racially sensitive, racially discriminatory conservatism? Apparently so.

I called in to talk to "Hugh", but couldn't get past his call screener who angrily hung up on me. I have always suspected this weasel screens out callers who might embarrass him. How else does the smartest conservative talk radio show host on the air (he has said so himself) invariably get the dumbest callers?

I believe it was a vote by the national populace as a whole on the one hand over who frightens you the least as well as a "what's in it for me" concern on the other, and the incumbent usually has the edge in an election (the devil I know versus the one I don't).

With an election like this one, I don't believe there was any kind of a real public mandate for either candidate, and the government as a whole will be essentially the same as the last 4 years.

I personally just wanted Obama gone - for so many reasons - not the least my belief that he will ultimately destroy the country.

I conversed with a field biologist the other day. He was all hot to trot for Obama's reelection in a large part because there is a lot of money coming down Obama's federal pike for projects that both he and I work on. He believed that Romney would take it all away (and that we both would become permanently unemployed as a result). My view is that even though I have made a lot of money on these projects in the past, it will all ultimately be worthless if the nation is further degraded or even collapses.

As far as the "minority demographic problem" comment...

I might be wrong, and it was all in passing (wasn't paying full attention), but I saw a bunch of electronic charts being flipped by a white haired CNN weasel this afternoon (4:00 PM hour?), but if I'm not mistaken I believe that the charts made a reference to approximately 1/3 of the people called "Latino" who voted voting for Romney.

I'm not sure, might not have happened that way, but I believe the CNN weasel put forth that premise this afternoon.

I'm not familiar with talk radio. Do the very dumbest people actually make it onto the AM 870 radio program to comment, or do they in practice bring on the brightest of the dim bulbs and screen out the bottom feeders?

Don, I truly believe you have initiated a healthy discussion.
It is time that Republicans realize the changing demographics have doomed the GOP. I believe the Republican party is going the way of the Dodo, and it is going extinct because of this exact reason, our country's changing demographics.
I don't think we have any reason to hide or be ashamed of acknowledging this fact.

We need to understand this problem, and analyze it.

We should also realize that as the Republican party gravitates to permanent minority status our country will be mired in one party rule for the in-defendant future.

After the recent election I have come to the conclusion that because of our countries demographic shift I think the days of a Republican president are history. I believe the demographic shift has permanently altered the political landscape and we as a country have crossed the point of no return. No amount of pandering, posturing or vote purchasing will change this fact.

The Republican party was pretty much the ONLY one that rejected racial politics on its' face. I hope the party platform and agenda doesn't give in to such shallow ideals, especially so just to win political races and perpetuate its' existence.If the party does that, the democrats will have succeded in marginalizing those of us that do still reject that agenda, and will thereby weaken the republican party even more by driving many of us farther from it.
Of course there are those who believe in the institution of the party more than they believe in its' ideals.

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

Almost incomprehensible - but not quite.
 

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.

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.

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

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.