December 2, 2017

Steinle's killer let in by Reagan / Bush, supported by GOP employers

In all of the partisan shrieking about Kate Steinle's murder, it has escaped everyone's notice that her killer was let into the country by a Republican President, deported more often by Democrat than by Republican Presidents afterward, and was economically supported by employers in sectors that control the GOP rather than the Democrat party.

Here is an LA Times article from 2015, when the murder was still fresh, with as much biographical information on Jose Garcia Zarate as I've been able to find on the internet. He was illegally brought over the Mexican border sometime before 1991, as a juvenile (a DREAMer!), and presumably after 1981 -- otherwise he would've been covered by the 1986 amnesty. That means it was either Reagan or Bush Sr. who let him in.

We keep hearing that he was "deported 5 times" -- three times under Clinton (in '94, '97, and '98), once by Bush Jr. (in '03), and finally by Obama (in '09). During the 25 years he was here from his first red flag -- a drug conviction in 1991 -- to 2015 when he killed Steinle, Democrats were President for 3/5 of the time. Yet they executed 4/5 of his deportations.

Hardly asleep at the wheel -- if anything, that would have been the Bush Jr. administration, or the Reagan / Bush team for letting him in way back when (and for issuing the amnesty that triggered further illegal immigration from Mexico, including Zarate's parents).

How did he earn a living here in El Norte? The only info I can find is from the LAT article, which describes him as having been "an itinerant laborer in four states". He came through Texas and Arizona, presumably California is in there, and some other state in the Southwest. That is mostly red state country.

And in which sectors of the economy does an "itinerant laborer" work? Probably not those that make up the Democrat coalition of informational sector industries -- finance, tech, and media -- nor presumably from lesser members of their coalition like the education sector or any labor union (scab labor go home). Those sectors, especially the major members, have hardly any jobs at all, and they all require a verbal person who speaks English.

No, we can be sure he was hired by Republican material sectors -- agriculture, "small business" (some shitty food shack in a suburban strip center), union-busting contractors, etc.

Democrat sectors of the economy are not labor-intensive and do not rely on cheap labor to boost profits. GOP sectors are labor-intensive, and do rely on cheap labor. Therefore, that's who hired him and everyone else like him -- not the local public school, unionized factory, bank, newspaper, web programmer, or other Democrat workplace. Not necessarily because Democrats are more moral or civic-minded, but because their material interests do not benefit from cheap labor that speaks no English.

Without the Republican sectors turning to cheap labor to boost their profits, Zarate and all the other itinerant laborers would never have been able to earn a living here, and would not have been induced to immigrate here with the hopes of stealing a labor-intensive job.

"But they would've received welfare" is a lame excuse to try to pin this back on Democrats. Republicans have already gutted welfare so that it cannot support someone who has to pay American prices for housing, food, etc. Immigrants may collect welfare, but that does not sustain them -- they do that by stealing jobs from Americans in labor-intensive sectors.

The same goes for blaming sanctuary city policies on Democrats. They flourished during all eight years of Bush Jr's presidency, and what the hell did his administration ever do about it? They were more lenient than the Clinton administration on illegals.

And now that the GOP controls the executive branch again, where the hell is the destruction of these sanctuary policies? Remember that pseudo-AG Sessions' plan to "de-fund" sanctuary cities only amounted to withholding one-half of 1% of their federal funding! Those cities must be shaking in their boots at these typical Republican levels of grandstanding.

Democrats take the blame for sanctuary city policies to the extent that they are an urban-oriented party that controls the large cities where these policies are enforced. But that doesn't let the state and federal GOP off the hook -- they should have crippled the mayors and police chiefs in these cities decades ago. Send in the federal military like Eisenhower did to clear out the illegals -- somehow I don't think the San Francisco Police Department is going to win a fight against the US Army, especially when they're defying federal immigration laws.

All the Republicans do is whine about sanctuary cities to win over nationalist voters, without doing anything about them in order to appease the cheap labor-seeking economic sectors that control their party.

And of course today's globalist military elites would never dream of sending in the troops to kick foreign invaders out of our country -- why, those illegals may end up serving in our military like any other interchangeable cog residing on our magic American soil, no matter where they came from!

Like the other labor-intensive sectors, the military / police / etc. expand their operations only when they get more bodies into their workforce. And if American bodies are unwilling -- wages are too low on farms, don't want to risk death just to defend jihadist kingdoms -- then they have no trouble bringing in foreign bodies to take their place.

Degenerate empires have a knack for relying on foreign mercenaries, whether hired abroad or imported as immigrants. Nothing could go wrong from the Roman army becoming staffed entirely by Germanic tribesmen -- could it?

So let's cut the crap about blaming the urban death and decay wrought by immigrants on municipal-level Democrats, when state and national-level Republicans have refused to rein in any of it whenever they have had control over the executive branch. That's what national-level stewards are supposed to do -- swoop in when there's a failure at a lower level. But no, they'd rather fiddle while Rome burns, and by the way collect higher profits from all the cheap labor that these immigrants bring to GOP economic sectors.

When it comes to crime prevention and law enforcement, Democrats are like the clueless child saying "I'll do whatever I want, I don't have to follow your rules, DAD." Yeah, well where are that child's parents, the supposedly more mature and disciplinarian party when it comes to crime?

The Republican party is 100% OK with immigrants raising crime rates -- not only because they're trading that in exchange for cheap labor and higher profits, but because they won't bear any of the costs. Republican elites may rely on cheap laborers from the city, but they live in the suburbs. When their day laborers go driving drunk around their own neighborhood, or shoot up pedestrians at their local convenience store, that will be urban Democrat residents paying the cost -- not suburban or rural Republicans.

As in every other case that angers nationalists, this comes down to "I'm actually more disappointed in the Republicans," as Trump kept saying during the campaign. In order for the nationalist movement to grow, the Republican party must shrink.


  1. Thoughts On Power12/2/17, 2:09 AM

    It's interesting to read this. Increasingly it seems that the powers that be are revealed in all truth. It's amazing how convoluted and innately twisted things are. The claim is one way, the lure for the votes is one way, the reality is the other. It's what Christians call Satanic.

    When you think on this the question must arise how to do better, what to do better. Yet what answers does history provide? None. Just variations on tired themes.

    This is a time of impending collapse.

    One aspect of this collapse is the realization that politics can do no more. It's over not just for parties but for politics as a system as we have known it. Right now in today's world this cannot be grasped, yet it's right around the corner.

    Where is the focus for societal transformation? And rule?

    In times of collapse there can be only one answer: that which provides Order amid the Chaos.

  2. It does seem like status-striving conservatives have the cruelest ideology. It comes from that Ayn-Randian philosophy that life is a brutal struggle, etc.

  3. On the contrary, conservative ideology is linked to the view that life is so easy-peasy, and where everyone gets along with each other so well.

    Why would we need anything like a social safety net? Beyond what a family or neighborhood or church could provide, that is.

    Why would we need to keep out foreigners?

    Why should there be any sorts of regulations whatsoever?

    People are so well behaved and trustworthy, in their view. And that's the persona they cultivate for their voters -- that they're nicer and fit in better into this utopia of ours where everybody is nice, whereas the other party is mean and ruthless and only focused on winning political battles.

    Guess which party wins, then? It's so pathetic.

    The obliviousness and callousness of conservatism is more a form of ignorance -- not being aware that everything is not so peachy keen, and that few people and few groups are getting along with each other nowadays.

    It's not a deliberate cruelty like the Ayn Rand people -- those are libertarians.

    Libertarians are like liberals in coming from a K-selected ecology -- urban metro, high population density, scarce resources per capita, high inequality, etc. And like liberals they are in verbal BS jobs in Democrat-aligned sectors -- mainly higher ed, some in the media / entertainment.

    So they know damn well what's wrong with the world, but they are adamant about not doing anything to make it better.

    In the r-selected ecology of conservatives, they don't have so many of these problems, or to such a glaring degree. So it's more "out of sight, out of mind". Except for their elected politicians, who exploit the conservative views of their voters in order to push through libertarian policies that are about material interests rather than values anyway.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."