The New GOP: Whites need not apply

[Don]

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?

[ilbegone]

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?

[Greg in LA]

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

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.

[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

[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.