In the GOP primary for governor of Georgia, a Trump-supporting candidate is driving around a "Deportation bus" as a publicity stunt to cater to voters who want illegal immigrants gone.
It's not a bad meme, but as usual for conservatives, it's focused on symptoms rather than causes. It's the employers of cheap labor who bring the immigrants into our country, along with their slumlord partners who enjoy higher housing prices with the higher demand that immigrants represent.
So it should be these greedy employers and slumlords who get targeted by political publicity stunts. Re-brand it as the "Traitor bus" that will arrest those who are illegally employing the illegals, and who are illegally housing the illegals -- to the detriment of Americans, who see their wages driven down, and housing prices jacked up as a result.
In more liberal or moderate areas of the not-so-red state, re-brand it as the "Exploiter bus" going after those who bring in hordes of third-world peasants to work in slave-like conditions for bum pay.
That is what a new generation of re-aligned populist-nationalist Republicans would do -- so of course they won't do any of this. But just as a lesson to any aspiring Gen Z GOP-ers, who will be working within the populist boundaries established by the upcoming Bernie revolution.
We know Williams has no intention to deport illegals because he shills for cheap immigrant labor for latter-day plantation owners right on his website. Naturally during this climate of failed re-alignment, there are no populist platform items, but there is one on agriculture: "Work with the Trump administration to reduce federal regulations that are burdening our farmers." Nudge nudge, wink wink. How many more millions of immigrants do these plantation owners need to widen their corporate profit margins, instead of hiring Americans at higher wages?
Williams is also a Mormon, the most globalist of religions in America these days.
Overall, a halfway decent attempt to gin up enthusiasm on the immigration issue before the mid-terms, but the voters need to hear promises of populism, not the stale old Reaganite framework that they rejected in the 2016 primary.
Giving America back to the Americans was always meant as a way to improve the American people's lot in life overall, by attacking America's own elite class. They're the ones who hauled in tens of millions of illegals, not to mention the legal immigrants, and they're the ones who have melted down the once prosperous economy-for-everybody -- both actions in order to enrich themselves and make the common people pay the costs.
It's not the '80s or '90s anymore -- give us populism or give us death.
Related: Use ICE to target employers and slumlords who cater to illegals, not the illegals themselves, to efficiently dry up the pool of immigrants.
"A similar trend can be seen in Pew data: In 2014, 41 percent of Democrats agreed that racial discrimination was the main reason black people couldn’t get ahead, a number that rose to 64 percent in 2017. … In 1994, 65 percent of Democrats supported decreased immigration (67 percent of white Democrats), a share that fell to 29 percent in 2016 (30 percent of white Democrats)."
ReplyDeleteHate to rain on the parade, but it looks as if decades of campus Marxism and declining crime rates, and rampant growth of the parasite class, have inculcated a full-on we're the goodwhites, "You" are the badwhites mentality among Gen X and Millennial white liberals. The 1994 survey would've been dominated by Boomers, with some Silents and a few X-ers along for the ride. The last 25 years of declining danger and growth of cultural communism appear to have seriously fubard our discourse and ability to reach any good faith debate and compromise/consensus.
It looks as if a full on economic collapse is going to be necessary to break white liberals from their hatred of traditionalist whites, who are deemed so disgusting that they ought to have their own culture displaced by foreigners and as each generation is less white the remaining whites will be more and more SWPLy.
And I'm reminded once again that it really is whites who are in the driver's seat. You can't really explain the Left's obvious hostility towards whites and and native proles by just saying that it's the POC who are fervently pushing it. Earnestly caring about the cultural and economic concerns of prole natives is obviously not a prime concern for current Democrats, who resolutely would NOT be so pro-immigration if they actually gave a shit about us.
Absent dropping the ugly and alienating pro-immigration dreck, it's going to be hard for Dems to inspire white proles. Granted, I'm not saying the GOP is any better at it, but someone's got to pick up the slack sooner or later. Might be a lot later. To put things in perspective, the last big immigration crackdown was in 1924....BEFORE the Great Depression. Sigh.
Also, in Europe, where generation turnover has never been as important and people tend not to be affected as much by corporate schlock about diversity and Growth, in most countries that have recently been impacted by the foreign scourge populist parties have surged with much more evidence of actual action and concern about these matters. Of course, that's not true of the U.K. (the second biggest neo-liberal whore after the US), and France and Germany are still iffy, but the other countries look like they're taking more steps to not be swamped by foreigners.
That shift in Dem attitudes toward immigration reflects GOP failures as much as it does an internal Dem-specific shift.
ReplyDeleteBefore, when Dems were more on board with reducing immigration, it had a large class / economic / populist component. Cesar Chavez, leader of the United Farm Workers union, didn't want scabs crossing the border to undercut American workers' wages.
"Give us your poor," etc. -- sounds like they're going to undercut our wages and drive us into poverty. No thanks!
But as the culture war erupted, the conservatives turned it into an issue about race and ethnicity, or sometimes about national origin (civic nationalists). Since the liberals were already against that kind of argument *before* the 1990s, of course they were going to react against it after the '90s.
As the conservatives hijacked a formerly bipartisan issue, and made it as politically toxic as possible for Independents or Democrats, well no shit nobody signs onto immigration reduction anymore.
That is partisan suicide on the conservatives' part, since there was such a strong bipartisan consensus before-hand. And it lasted on the Dems' part into the '90s -- Clinton deported more than W. Bush did, and more than Trump will. Harry Reid, Feinstein, Barbara Jordan -- all were anti-immigration in the '90s.
Some was their attempt to be more culturally conservative to appeal to Reaganite voters when Reaganism was still a really hot thing. But it was just as much an appeal to their own labor-oriented base.
The conservatives and GOP have no one to blame but themselves for that shift in opinion poll responses.
But it doesn't matter whether libs overtly say they do / don't want to reduce immigration, now that the conservative culture war has hijacked the formerly bipartisan issue into one based on race and ethnicity (and maybe national origin).
ReplyDeleteOK, so then the fight against immigration must take a different and indirect route, not the direct one that says "Vote for me and immigration will go down."
First, the party that says that, never delivers. Second, their material interests are aligned with MORE immigration, not less -- plantation owners in Kansas, owners of shitty small businesses that are labor-intensive, overfed yuppies who want cheap domestic help, military / police recruiters looking for desperate youngsters to enlist, etc.
That is the root cause of higher immigration -- greedy elites in labor-intensive sectors of society that want to boost profit margins by slashing labor costs, importing cheap foreigners to replace costly Americans. It's one example of the broader pattern of the neoliberal / Reaganite era -- "profits over people".
So, solving this root problem will solve the surface-level symptoms. Send the Bernie revolution to control the government, and soon it will be inverted to "people over profits". Once that happens, bye-bye to cheap labor, therefore bye-bye to immigration.
So, there's no need for doom and gloom on demographic replacement -- there's only doom and gloom if the retarded conservatives keep fixating on the issue per se and making appeals directly on the issue, despite it rarely winning with voters these days, and even when it does, the party that makes the direct appeal is materially driven to never deliver on it.
Luckily we don't have to depend on retarded conservatives winning appeals to the majority -- we're going to rely on the Bernie revolution winning on a seemingly entirely different platform -- "people over profits" -- that will solve the immigration problem indirectly. Nice!
The 1924 shutdown of immigration was in response to mass chaos circa 1920, give or take a few years. That was far more destabilizing than the Great Depression, which was very peaceful, and whose main victims were the top.
ReplyDeleteThe Great Depression cut off the head, and narrowed inequality that way -- no more bubbles to inflate the head off into outer space. The elites had to do real productive honest work for a change, and that doesn't pay as stratospherically as borrowing money to gamble in the stock market. And no more hauling in poor immigrants to lower the wages you pay.
That backlash against the Gilded Age, circa 1920, struck the entire Western world and even parts of the East -- the Russian Revolution, the Yugoslav Revolution, the Young Turk Revolution, on and on. Actually most of the Middle East, as they overthrew the Ottomans.
At any rate, it'll take something that big to shut the doors for good in an overt way. Hopefully we don't need another WWI in order to do so directly, and we can just vote for the Bernie people and solve the immigration problem indirectly by abolishing cheap labor.
But with a moribund elite with nothing left to lose, and aware of their own near-term extinction -- maybe they'll plunge us into another WWI to make sure *we* don't get to enjoy the future either, when they're already near the end of their lifespan.
But as the culture war erupted, the conservatives turned it into an issue about race and ethnicity, or sometimes about national origin (civic nationalists). Since the liberals were already against that kind of argument *before* the 1990s, of course they were going to react against it after the '90s."
ReplyDeleteTed Kennedy swore that the '65 immigration act wouldn't change the ethnicity of America or it's culture. To be fair, in the early 60's the assumption was that people would be building evermore suburbs as future generations of Old Americans continued to have lots of kids. Then in 1972 the birth rate per 1,000 people fell below 17, and has yet to ever return to 17 or above in subsequent years.
It's only been in the "recent" demographic shifts (that were set in motion in 1968 but were masked for decades by pre-1970 births being large cohorts that were monolithically white), that have now been understood since the mid-2000's, that Democrats are now so arrogantly dismissive of the idea that America has been a WHITE country and as such the interests of whites are as important as anyone else's. In the 1980's you wouldn't see anyone, up to and including people like Nancy Pelosi, on the mainstream Left telling white people that they ought to accept and enjoy becoming a shrinking demographic in the country they founded. In California in 1980, whites were still over 60% of the population; what kind of moron is going tell white people to explicity reject the notion that America can and should remain their country demographically and thus politically/culturally?
Leftists (including whites) have gotten more comfortable pushing utopian diversity BS only because they understand that Millennials and Gen Z are by far the least white generations in Western history. AKA it's pandering. We can't turn back the clock to 1994 when Leftist politicians drew immigration down and gutted welfare to appease white Boomers (a 78% white generation). I'll believe a new Leftist immigration crackdown in the English speaking countries when I see it; regardless, if and whenever that should happen, the die is already cast. Sweden, America, Canada, France, Belgium, the UK, the Netherlands are all going to be 50-70% white in several decades.
I don't foresee a a full restoration of the New Deal consensus, not when many Western countries have no resemblance to the racial demos of that era.
"But with a moribund elite with nothing left to lose, and aware of their own near-term extinction -- maybe they'll plunge us into another WWI to make sure *we* don't get to enjoy the future either, when they're already near the end of their lifespan."
ReplyDeleteWell, the Boomers have been bitter that they never got to win a big fight, and you wonder how intent they are in taking sides in an epic clash (or should that be, a Stand as Stephen King called it in 1979) to once and for all "purify" the Earth and it's inhabitants of corruption. Creative Destruction, as Neil Howe pointed out, is something that has long fascinated the Boomers.
Epic struggles between Good and Evil, and scenarios of desolation, have all been a fixture of pop culture since the late 70's. With Boomers George Lucas, George Miller, and King all being part of the early wave; Silents like Stanley Kubrick and Ridley Scott usually gave their stories and characters more nuance, and didn't succumb to this child-like tendency to reduce everything to a neat box of good and a neat box of evil.
The apocalypse porn of the Boomers is like a child becoming frustrated that they didn't get the exact toys they wanted, and then gleefully taking them and smashing them onto the ground, not having any appreciation for what their value is or who made them.
If Boomers out there still believe that "the world is more dangerous than ever", or that "we go too easy on criminals", than what else should we expect from them at this point?
"Accessibility to home ownership for Americans under 45 years has fallen dramatically from 24% in 2006 to 14% in 2017."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.unz.com/jpetras/imperial-recovery-and-disappearing-workers/
I tell ya, if we limited voting to people born after 1971 we'd really see progress. I already know from the GSS that people born around 1972 and thereafter are less likely to be married, less likely to have kids, and less likely to self-ID as middle or upper class. Plus, these people are less likely to strongly support the GOP (not that their extremely Dem either, but younger people had little to no benefit derived from the "Boom" of the 80's-2000's which was based on conservative econ. principles and we know what a flimflam it all is, unlike the neo-liberal jihadis born before the 70's).