The Miracle in Masschusettes, as great & crucial as it is now & in the near term isn't gonna stave of the long term decline of the GOP by demographics

BELOW IS PERHAPS, JUST MAYBE, THE MOST INTELLIGENT & IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRITING ABOUT THE SCOTT BROWN VICTORY:

FOR THOSE WHO WANT THE STRAIGHT DOPE OF THE FOLLOWING WITH FOOT-NOTES LIKE SPEED, HERE IS A ABSTRACT FOR THE BELOW ARTICLE (aka my facebook status):

Brown's upset was great but the insuing euphoria must be balanced by the realization on the part of Republicans that while the Masschusettes triumph on January 19th is crucial in the near term its all but irrelevant in the long term for the GOP. No longer will how Republicans do in regard to current issues (such as Obamacare) decide the GOP ultimate electoral fate. That was true in 1954 when America was almost entirely white. Today, whether we like it or not, voting lines are, more or less, inseprable from racial lines in America. Latinos, who are very often, it must be mentioned, more loyal to Mexico (or other "indigenous" latin nations) than America, will and are voting most of the time on the basis of what will most benefit there own burgenoing racial group not America (and unfornutaly as we see with the issue of wheather or not 20 million illegal aliens should recieve free non-emergency health care, whats good for latinos is very often incredibly bad for the US. Even if Republicans make clear just how bad mass illegal (for that matter, mass 3rd world legal immigration) is for America, latinos will still vote on mass for open borders, increased benefits for illegals, amnesty and in order to do these things, vote for liberals down the line, for the simply reason that all those policies will help dramaticly increase the size of the latino population in the US, making latinos a more powerful voting bloc, son on and so fourth. Simply put, as far as America becomes less white the GOP will claim less and less of the elocrate. And have no doubt this correlation is not the results of the GOP being "racist"-which it isn't-or because it hasn't tried to attract non-white voters. But the GOP shouldn't be concerned by our broken boreders merely because its bad for the GOP. It just so happens that unsecured borders is bad for the GOP and catrosrophic for America in every sense (whether your concern is the economny, education, nationality unity, or so on. The fate of the GOP & of America is being decided on the Rio Grande. If we don't secure our porous border it wont matter if we on the right have finer policies & better arguments, the GOP & America will live or die by demographics.

FULL ARTICLE:

The male model Republican (Scott Brown) has beaten/trounced the obnoxious Martha Stokely in the race for the worst America politician in American history, the nation killer, Ted Kennedy's Massuchsettes Senate seat, which Kennedy basically owned for over half a century, since 1952 to be precise. This has crucially weakned the Democartic majority in the Senate and has scared the shit out the Democrats (who hopeful will heed the people's message(s) & not so things (so unpopylar among Americans in general) like push for amnesty for 20+ million illegals at a time when 20+ million Americans are unemployed for instance. Keith Oblerman condemned this handsome Republican as a "bigot" for saying that two women having a baby "wasn't normal". So if you pretend don't think/say that 2 women having a baby is normal your a "bigot". This is why I call liberals like Keith O. "polite liars". Oblerman then goes on to say that racism is the real reason the tea partyers protest against the Democrats. (cause in Oblermann world, how could anyone oppose Obama for substanitive reasons?)

If you had any doubt about the message from the GOP victories in the Virgina and New Jersey governor races, Scott Brown's victory should make it undeniably clear that the majority of Americans (they are whites almost entirely) are saying that they didn't like Bush but Obama is even worse. Bush was embarsingly inarticulate. fine. He had a dumb liberal wilsonian foreign policy. Fine. He spent too much money. Fine. But Obama is bad to whole 'nother degree. Unlike with Bush in office, one doesn't feel confident that Obama is looking out for us when he does something. It is more than dubious whether he acts out of national intrest. Indeed, millions of patriotic Americans who actually pay attention to what is going on (many of whome voted for Obama-not knowing who he was), realize that judging Obama purely on his actions as President he is clearly aPresident who sees issues through a prism utterly devoid of patriotism also known as nationalism/nation intrest. Obama's motivatations when he ignores/neglects our porous borders, pushs for amnesty and so fourth is less clear but it certainly seems to be atleast tinged by a duty on Obama's part to act to benefit of blacks (and perhaps non whites in general) even if the relevent action (like amnesty) happens to be terrible for America writ large (or actively harmful or unjust to other groups he cares less about like whites).

Many Americans much older than me have been remarking that the Scott Brown victory is the biggest upset they've ever seen in there entire lives.

However, there is a danger in dwelling mindlessly in the euphoria of Brown's upset win tonight (over a real liberal bitch, lets be honest). One must balance this very good news with the unforunate reality that the game of poltics in America has changed for worse, as i have mentioned, it is no longer the case today, as it was in 1845, 1934 or even as late as 1987 in America that the fortunes of the Republican or Democrat party will be decided by things like the succes of liberal or conservative policies. Yes, the Republicans, as the Scott Brown triumph shows will and are benefitting from the current set of issues (etc.) but only in the short term . In the long term, however the succes or failure or decline or ascendency of the GOP will be determined by what happens at the Rio Grande and the southern border of the United States. If the porous southern border is not secured soon (and they're is only a certain window of time inwhich that will be able to be done by Republicans). This is because, whether we like it or not, today and increasingly from now on, voting lines corelates with racial lines in America. Blacks almost all vote liberal, the overwhelming majority of latinos vot liberal and whites increasingly are voting and will vote more and more Republican. Thus as the US gets less white & more latino and a solidly liberal black-latino poltical colaition (on the left) grows the GOP will decline. The watering-down of America's founding stock (Britons-Scots/Europeans) will correlate exactly with the decline of the Republican party (as it will correlate with the decline of America in general, as the US gets less wealthy, less united, more violent, less among other things, intelligent (IQ-wise)).
Unforunatly the above message which should be the colloroy to celebrating the Brown win is virtually unsayable in the Mainstream Media today thanks to Poltical Correctness. (By the way, this is a prime example of why i believe the rise of poltical correctness to be the sole culprit in the death of America-for it has stopped the most important issues (immigration, etc.) and arguments from being mentioned for fear of being too un-PC. One cannot say that it will hurt America if the nation gets less-white. You simply can't if you want to wake up tommorow with the same Senate seat or TV host job you had the night before. Thus Americans are not being told, even, that the US will have white minority around 2040 or 2050 let alone what the (catosphoric) consquences of that demographic transformation will be. When i mention this fact about 2050 and what America will look like, people think i'm joking or spewing "right wing propganda" or lies. This is why i believe white Amer icans will be so inscenced and enraged when they do discover (not by being told, but by simply observing changes with there own eyes) that they, white Americans, are being demographicly being dispossosed of a nation, America, that they grew up assuming was there's (unquestionably) forever and ever.

To conclude, let me briefly add one final important point that few if any at all will even touch upon in responding to the Brown victory: The Republican talking point right now is in responce to the Brown triumph that the upset shows the people don't want obamacare and the Democrats should heed there call and stop going against those they claim to reprsent. This is the wrong point not to mention it opens the right up to charges of hypocrisy considering that a plurality of Americans wanted/want out of both the Iraqi and Afgan wars and the GOP is not inturn advocating withdrawl (but most liberals aren't smart enough to even make that argument). Republicans should point out that the Brown upset shows that the left needs to stop to completly ignore the consesus views of the people and stop showing contempt for the clear policy positions of Americans left and right and stop doing things like making a (essentially treasonist) push for amnesty for 20 million plus illegals which the overwhelming majority of Americans, left & right, despise more than merely oppose. There are not consesus views on the part of a overwhelming majority of Americans (left & right) about every issue but there are a discernable and identfiable set of policies that this overwhelming majoriity i speak of oppose (and usually downright despise as i said). These (which the overwhelming majority of Americans, left and right, oppose/hate) include:

1. Amnesty= In other words, granting citizenship (aka free access to trillions in free welfare, healhtcare, education, etc & the ability for each to bring in dozens of there relatives from abroad), over night, to 20 million people who broke our laws often more than once, in breaching our borders, identity theft, faking and stealing Social Security numbers (which will put citizens if caught in jail for years if not decades) and who are overwhelmingly poor, illiterate, non-english speaking Mexicans/latinos who have 1. usually never seen the inside of a high school 2. often been in jail or arrested in the past, 3. have hardly any work skills, and are and will always be low wage workers and who 4. are only in America to make more money and have no desire to become Americans or to switch there allegiance from Mexico to America (primarily because they perceive America, correctly, as the white man, the conquerors nation/artfice/creation and 5. a shockingly large propition of them (e.g. illegal aliens) see themselves as the footsolidiers of Reconquestidora, taking back land (namely the southwest) that is rightly theres as the decdents of the native peoples and/or, by implication, the true property of an de facto "indigenous" nation-state such as Mexico.

2. Free unlimited non-emergency healthcare for illegal immigrants. In other words: this is a policy of giving away trillions (more) of Americans tax payers money to millions of illegals (in the form of free millions in presciption drugs like OxyCottin, Zanax & Adderal (aka non-emergency healthcare)) who already as it is recieve billions of our tax dollars in the free education (17,000 a year for 1 student & there are well over atleast 5 million illegals attending public schools from kindergarten till college), college scholarships, welfare, social services & emergency healthcare (the cost of which, accounts for the majority of most hospitals deficits & has literally lead to the bankruptcy of tons of hospitals). This means, again in other words, free aderall presciptions for the 8 illegal children of a illegal family (the cost of a Aderall prescpition for one kid per year being over 3 grand atleast. By the way, as with almost all these policy listed (that relate to illegal immigrants to be precise) this policy of giving 20 million illegals free non-emergency healthcare is really only supported by illegals and there treasonist protectors such as the Hispanic Caucus and LA RAZA (spanish for "The Race"). 1 final note: Republicans must not let liberals get away with saying that they support giving just "healthcare" to illegals as they say. We must make sure America realize that illegals already receive billions in free emergency healthcare which, in itself, bankrupts hospitals all the time (hospitls must by law provide legals with millions of dollars of treatment no matter what and usually have to beg/bribe illegals to accept the plane tickets they purchase for them to fly back to there nation of orgin. The Democrats support giving illegals full non-emergency health care, we SIMPLY MUST point out (as we have failed to do).

3. Staying in the Iraq and Afgan wars of choice and charity for another 2-3 years or more. These nearly decade long wars that have cost us, some estimate, around 4 or 5 trillion dollars have nothing to do with our national intrest and are a total waste for us, a nation 12 trillion in debt and counting.

4. Continuing to hand out billions (we don't have) to almost every nation on earth in foreign aid as we have for decades without any regard to being 12 trillion in debt.

5. Imposing Cap & trade, which would be the largest tax/transfer of wealth from indivuals to goverment in our history. A de facto tax on not just business that emit carbon but the whole population who will pay much higher prices for products such as energy (e.g. electrcity) as a consquence at a time, nonetheless, when 21 million Americans are unemployed and many Americans have smaller incomes and only part time jobs. In othe words cap & trade would tax more of the smaller amount of wealth Americans have. It would also, as no one seriously denies, lead to the shipping away of hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of jobs as tons of companys who won't be able to afford doing business in America as a result of Cap & trade will and will, inturn, move to other more business friendly and less tax heavy nations and take there millions of jobs with them. So Cap & Trade will surely increase unemployment at a time, again, when 21 mil. Americans are unemployed already. These consquences ofcourse are all less than an after thought to the liberals who want Cap & trade since they are the types, liberals, who have never even contemplated the idea that corporations (which they villify so much) can even leave America in the first place. And contrary to what naive liberals like Barak Obama claim, the millions made unemployed by Cap & Trade will not all find jobs in the mythical green industrys that Obama talks so much about and claims will replace fossil fuels and nuclear power as our nations primary energy source (although it costs over 10 times as much as fossil fuels and nuclear power. And so what would we get for all these sacrficies? The left claims we would save the world. Thats a lie. Cap & Trade would have no effect on the climate for, as more honest leftists like Ralph Nader have remarked, Cap & Trade while it will surely cut alot of jobs and companys from the US economy, it won't cut any substantial amount of co2. The neglible amount it will cut will be easily canceled out and effectivly nullfied by the very co2 the coal plants China and India will build this year will emit. Ofcourse, we could cut back on co2 to a far far greater degree and not kill the economy and ship away jobs if we got more of our energy from nuclear power plants but the left doesn't care. No honest climatolgists believes Cap & Trade will have any real effect on the climate. The truth is that even if one assumes Al Gore computer model predictions of climate change are dead on (although we now know much of it was faked) even if the US and all of the EU made massive cutbacks in Co2 and imposed far more onerous carbon taxes, even that would have no serious effect. It is hubris in the to think America and a tiny cadre of EU nations making neglible co2 cutbacks that will be nullfied by the emissions of Russia, China, India, Brazil and the rest of thedevolping world will have any effect in changing the climate changes. Changing the wheather is harder than the lefts thinks.

6. Racial Qoutas, Dispirate Impact, bogus discrimination suits against Fire & Police Departments for the crime of not merely having what a certain group such as the EEOC or the SPLC deems enough African American Capitains or whatnot (even though the Departments, as is the case today, never discriminated against any race or group). These patently absurd suits which base claims, as i touched upon before, not on any actual proof of "discrimation" (ofcourse it would be in a Police Department favor in this cases if it was discovored that they had discrimnated against an un-protected race such as whites or christians). Fire Departments are onstantly sued succefully for "discrimination against African Americans" without the entrace exam for the said Fire Dpartment being shown to have "racially biased" questions. Instead, the results themselves of such exams (that are not discriminatory) if not the way the Judge desires are used as proof. This would mean that everyday public school or perhaps every college in the nation would be legally guilty of discrimination against blacks because of how blacks continually do much worse than whites on every big test. The one of insidious effects these bogus cases is, as some of us became aware this year, that hard working guys like Frank Ricci don't get the promotion they undeniably unearned on the basis not of discrimination but clearly on the back of there own hard work and indivual merit simply because they are white and none of the black testtakers got a good enough score to earn a promotion. These suits also force Police and Fire Departments in fear of future lawsuites to discriminate against whites (inwhich case they never get sued for discrimination) and are given the impetus to achieve the right racial "balance" by cutting corners or employing dubious and often illegal tricks behind the scenes with civil service exams.

7. Make free education, non-emergency healthcare, scholarships, and welfare legally available for illegal immigrants. The cost of this policy which the terrible liberal Supreme Court of the 1990's decided was unconstuinial for a state to curtail as California did when its citizens voted en masse in the 1990's to bar illegal aliens from receiving tax payer dollars (via free education and so fourth). Needless to say such a desicion is hogwash with no Constuinial legs to stand on but than against liberal jurisprudence is hogwash in general. Today the overwhelmingly majority of Americans atleast want to curtail the amount of goverment money illegals receive because we are 12 trillion dollars in debt and the Democrats are determined to make it to 15 trillion by months end it seems. Most Democrats would find even the idea of cutting any of these billion/trillion? dollar entitlments for illegals (because partially weak-chinned Republicans wont even press them on the issue) which shows what rubbish it is when they claim to be "extremly concerned" about the debt they are racking up with unholy abandon (on rubbish). However Democratic politicians probably don't touch the billions of free services illegal receive as a result of there being in the tank for the hispanic pressure groups (not wanting to jeporadize the Democratic monopoly on the latino vote). However tens perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans who voted Democratic would agree with millions on the right that, at the very least, the trillions(?) illegals receive in entitlments should be curtailed if not outright eliminated both as a means of cutting back on spending and as measure of reducing insenstives (a concept liberals need to be introduced to someday) for Mexicans to come to America illegally and for illegals here already. Cutting back or eliminating the trillions in services illegal aliens receive (the department of welfare seeks illegals out even!) would undeniable lead many illegals to go back home and make living here harder for illegals and less attractive to potential illegals in Latin America.

8. The Court overruling states which have referendums to decide whether to have gay marriage or whether illegal immigrants should receive tax payers money when the populous votes for what the Supreme Court deems to be the wrong way (e.g. against gay marriage, for tax payer money going to only citizens). I say that the Supreme Court deems"wrong" rather than "uncontuitional" because, unlike many cowardly legal scholars, i have enough honesty and gusto to point out that a liberal court (or judge) is veering utterly from the Constuition when a liberal court (or judge) obviously veers utterly from the Constuition. On what conceivable grounds could one argue that it is unconstuinial for a referendum on gay marriage in Connieticut to be held and for the populous to come out against gay marriage and for keeping the definition of marriage as "between a man and a women" (like almost every state that has dealt with the issue thus far i might add)? Would Thomas Jefferson or James Madison look on such a excercise in direct self goverment at the state level and say "Oh no, this isn't what we meant at all! In fact, we wanted to make sure in the Constuition that this kind of thing be outlawed. You see we thought that gay marriage was a absolute human right and a basic Constuitional right which we, for some reason forgot to mention, even though gay marriage existed nowhere i America in our life time and no one ever deemed that a violatation of gay American's rights."? Let's be honest, all the Supreme Court did in overruling these completly constuinal and reasonable state referendums was impose not the law or the will of the Founders but there own will/opinion(s). The liberal justices that at these moments ruled the Court had deemed gay marriage a basic constuinal right because they deemed it so and this is there job since they claim it is there job to modernize the concept of "basic rights" to this new age. To translate: we have no law, it doesn't matter that gay marriage was not a set down as a right of citizens in the Constuition or for that matter that the 14th Amendment didn't outlaw school segrgation.

Californian Warning: The Perils of Diversity in Democracies

The fact that California is falling apart at the seems and so deep in debt that its now pleading for a federal bailout, should be taken as a warning of the perils of allowing our southern border to be over run by millions of Mexicans who, our own goverment goes out of it's way to give free welfare money to (not to mention free education, scholarships, health care & public services). Its not just perilous to our debt and to bankrupted hospitals but to our very democracy. Democracy cannot work if a large chunk of it's participants hold allegiances to another country entirely. The electrate at the mininum has to share some general intrest in the prosperity of America as opposed to, say, Peru or Somalia. For instance, in California everyone knows the obvious solution to the debt crisis, namely stop giving illegal immigrants trillions of tax payer money. Why don't they do it? Why does Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Micheal Bloomberg of California), pretend and the whole state assembly pretend they cant save any money or make any more cuts? Because California is now over half latino & to tell the truth is poltical sucide because half the population are Mexicans who could give a damn about America's debt as long as they and there illegal immigrant brothers and sisters get there spoils.

It's obvious latinos, as a whole, are competly indifferent to the plight of non-latino Americans. They look out for there own. Are you to tell me the reason LA RAZA is the only group advocating for exsplicit non-emergency free goverment funding health care for 20 million illegals is because they think that it would be bad for America if 20 million illegals couldn't get free surgerys and aderall presciptions on the tab of the American tax payer? No, the reason latino groups are always the ones standing up to protest efforts to enforce our immigration laws, to use e-verify to make sure illegals aren't taking Americans jobs, is that latino groups and latino polticians are looking out for latinos not Americans. How will amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants at a time when almost 20 million Americans are unemployed be good for America? I have yet to get one liberal to answer that question. But i can tell you how amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants will be good for 20 million illegal immigrants. That's easy.


This is all fucking obvious, any honest, rational person can see the truth about LA RAZA and latino-Americans, in general. There not bad people, there not inferiour. No, there simply disloyal to America. If you need even more evidence of what is right before our eyes, then i direct you to the slew of polls and studies that all show the same disloyality of Mexican-Americans time and time again. Ofcourse, i should make something of a exception for Cubans.

And the fact that we can't call it like it is, the fact that we cannot say what has been shown to be true about Mexican immigrants will be the downfall of this nation. In effect, the poltically correct police will not allow any person of promience to even identify the threat of immigration. We are not allowed to even warn the public of the consquences of open borders and mass immigration and inturn ofcourse the public will not pay attention.

What will make or break the new American economy

I must admit, this i suspect what i'm about to say could be uttered by an liberal but believe me i don't say this out of anti-wall street, anti-captilist agenda. With no futher ado....

Let me begin by direct your mind toward the captilism of that beatiful world depicted in "Atlas Shrugged" Ayn Rand's masterpiece and the greatest gateway drug to life on the right (with William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" coming in a close second). I suspect that part of the reason for the current Randian revial sweeping America has to do with, besides the hardcover's great evocative cover (painted by Frank O'Connor, Ayn Rand's devoted male wife), the type of captilism the book depicts which is one of tangible, manly industries of steel mills (Rearden Metal), rail roads (Taggart Rail), oil fields (the Wyatt Oil Fields) which is altogether more attractive and inspiring then the digital, largely invisible and abstract American economy of which today's John Galt's make there fortunes in. The captilist as inventor of a new better metal is more inspirational than the captilist as Pimpco bond trader who spends his day in front of 4 computer screen trading loans and bonds made up things he doesn't really know. And Ellis Wyatt is more awe-inspiring than, Jamie Diamond, because Ellis Wyatt seems to deserve his wealth more than bank CEO's, for Ellis Wyatt was a progidy who invented things while Jamie Diamond and Bernie Madoff, just had to go to elite schools and find clever ways of redirecting money (not to say options traders don't deserve there profits).

If the tycoons of the new American captilism are less attractive than the old Henry Ford's or Herbert Hoovers or Hank Rearden's, the stoic-everyman worker of the new American economy is even less glamorous than. We have lost our manafucturing economy, in exchange for a service sector, fincial sector hybrid economny. Certainly, life is better, despite all the downsides, today than in the 40's. But for the everyman, working in the coal mines or the railroad has it's charm compared to feminizing service sector jobs working at Verizon Wireless stores, in a ugly uniform polo, having to go up to every customer, put on a fake smile and say "can i help you with anything today, ma'm?". The new service sector eceonomy is largely more female oriented. Women are good at fake smiles, fake laughs and acting nice out of girlish etiquette.

But let me get to my main point which is this: could be that having Wall Street as the destinatation for the best young minds that talent is being subsquently wasted analyzing tedious data points when such minds could (perhaps in the old US economy) have been put to use inventing, stuff like, a better oil tanker, more strong steel, etc.?

Economists do not talk enough about the great dilemma of free trade and tarrifs and are all too often caught up in the eternal domestic battles between partisans pf high taxes/more regulation/more goverment control /high debt and partisans of low taxes/fiscal discpline/ less regulation/etc. which is unfortunate because that economic debate/question is far easier to solve: the true conservatives are right about domestic economic issues (almost always), raising taxes does not get economies out of slumps, China won't buy up our debt forever and so fourth. But less energy is focused on the question of free trade and tarrifs. It seems as if no one besides the few free thinkers like Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer and the Vdare.com collective agiates for erecting trade tarrifs. The left, which doesn't ncare about economics, only has the Unions arguing for tarrifs and no one wants to hear what they have to say because they have such a dog in that race is comprmises there objectivity.

I predict that debate and anxiety will grow over free trade once the bombardment of non-stop leglistation and action from the Obama adminstration settles down (which may never happen until the menace is gone). I sence, i'm not the only one who finds Pat Buchanan's free trade arguments compelling but who is increasingly anxious about the rickety footing of a purely service sector economy anyway. And then again, people, especially males in there 20's and 30's are going to disapointed with the wages of service sector jobs and the belittling nature of many such service sector jobs have upon male pride compared to, say, factory work not to mention the like of job security in the service sector compared to manafucturing jobs.

Perhaps, free trade is the way to go and America could have prospered without it's one-time manafucturing base (though i find that uncertain looking at the kind of jobs that have replaced manafucturing jobs) but one thing is clear: in order for this huge transition from manafucturing economy to service sector economy to happen as smoothily as the most devotte free traders claim it will, America must remain the brains of the world, the hotbed of innovation and entrupnership and social mobility. However all of those traditional proud charcterstics of the America, we know and love, are fading as, quite simply, that America (the America ofRonald Reagan and Gary Cooper and Andrew Cargnigie) itself fades, waterdowned by the discnerible entity i call "the New America" which is more mexican than english in all the worst ways, it's the America of Barak Obama, of gansta rap and Rev. Wright). The New America is a majority latino-black America, whererin whites are minority, society is extremly stratsfied and divided geographically, culturally, educationally, etc. The New America will have the economic inuequalities of latin American nations, a de facto caste society, largely divided by IQ (straight out of the bell curve), where a minority master caste of whites and asians reign atop (though whites will start leaving in droves as they decline in poltical power and start to feel the onerous poltical repruccusion of losing electoral power as the Al Sharpton's ascend to unthinkable positions of poltical power (thanks to a much less relevant white voting bloc)). There will be far less social mobility. As we can predict with almost exact certainy, assuming societal patterns (e.i. educational achievement by race, racial voting habits) don't radically alter themselves, then worse and worse economic policies veering closer and closer to socialism will be in ecacted by a growing black-latino poltical coalition which whose policies will destroy the once fertile soil of enturpenership America possesed. The reckless immigration policies of today will also result in a massive population crises down the road in America. Besides sqaundering America's priceless natural habitat and wilderness, in the short run, as the population nearly doubles in just 35-40 years, classroom sizes will double, schools will grow much worse in part due to a lowering of the national IQ aswell. America will fall even further down in international rankings scholasticly, biting the dust of the Chinese, (perhaps the Indians) and european nations like Sweden and Iceland assuming they come to settle there muslim immigration problem.

America, in it's new conception as a economic power is supposed and likely has to be, the brains of the world, producing the best, most orginal, best networking and most entrupunerial labor force on earth. In this ideal conception of the new American economy, America may not produce the world's steel but will serve as the world's marketing agency, web designers, banking center, and not to mention the place where the best minds come to learn. I don't care how "bad" it sounds, I don't see a America that is 35% european, 2% asian and the rest latino-black being the brains of the world and i don't see how anyone can see it being such without ancipating the totally unprecedentted change in patterns among latinos and african americans as far as drop out, birth out of wedlock, crime and unemploment rates for those two groups are concerned. We have simply chosen, a absent-minded immigration policy that merey increases the size of America's underclass and inturn the amount of social problems that will increasingly hamper our society especially as a service sector economy which will increasingly relie on brain-power, ingenuinity and the indepdence and industry of a nations population. Europeans are more indepdent and social mobile than much more fuedal and stagnant African and latin american cultures which in America, atleast, have become used to sucking on the nipple of the state, reliying on the taxing of the productive parts of the economy(population) for a good deal of there livielhood, most especially in the case of Africa-Americans, millions of whom are out of school, unemployed, not looking for work and living off assortment of intractable welfare programs payed for by an ever-lessening and ever more tax burdened number of largely white and asian affluent Americans.

To put it simply, in all probablilty, the less white and asian America gets as a nation the less wealth we will be, the worse educational we will be, the higher and more stifling American tax rates and govermental regulations and prodocules will be, and the less attractive the US will be, in every sence, to business aswell as european-Americans (once know as simply Americans) who will be subject to greater affirmtive action type goverment discrimination not less over time.

Basically in 1965, we as a nation came to a fork in the road. America could choose to be either Switzerland or Brazil. We could have kept our traditional immigration quota system which was designed to maitain the basic ethnic make up of America (over 90% white) and become Switzerland which is to say, a nation with a slightly declining population/birth rate, that is extremly well educated, productive, efficient and entrupnerial, not to mention, a nation that would be united culturally, patriotic with great schools, contuiningly unprecdent social mobility, a large middle class and a very low amount of income inequality and, finally, a over all, extremly affluent population.
But instead thanks to Ted Kennedy and many lies, America decided to become Brazil and in 1965 reconfigure it's immigration system. Kennedy the 1965 Immigration Reform Act's legsliative shurpa, wheather on purpose or not, ended up being able to pass the bill by lying to the nation, promising that the bill wouldn't do everyhing the bill would do-which is to say Kennedy empathically promised that the bill would not inendudate American citys(ghettos) with millions of 3rd world immigrants creating unassmilated, crime-infested 3rd world ghetto enclaves in major cities nor would the reform act, the bill's sponsors promised dramatically alter the ethnic composistion of the nation over time. In fact that's exactly what the Immigration Reform Act of 65' did.
Thus the bill put us on the way to becoming Brazil which is to say a extremly diverse, multi-racial (balkanized) chaotic society divided by de facto racial castes, a minatature middle class, huge economy inequality, a far less educated population which is altogether less united and more prone to break downs of civil order, racial tension and govermental corruption. A nation that is far poor as a whole, with overcrowding and over population problems (especially in the already over-devloped south west) and massive crime as well as other huge social problems that come along with a vast menacing underclass dislocated from the rest of society.

On so we are on are way at the current rate to becoming Brazil though perhaps we can stop amnesty, impose a moratarium, cut off all free education and free non-emergency healthcare and welfare services to illegals as well derpive them of sanctuary citys, enable police to arrest illegals and ask for proof citizenship, punish employers who hiring illegals more and inturn cut the illegal population down to 1/3rd it's current size and then build a border for the cost of fighting the Iraq and Afgan wars for 1 month and save America from turning into Brazil.

But what we know FOR SURE is that immigration is absolutely central to the success of the "new American economy" which can be lost and shipped away faster than a manafucturing economy. Wheather we face the stark poltically incorrect facts of immigrations overall effects and the way inwhich we handle illegal and legal mass immigration will determine wheather our standarded of living in 20-30 years will be worse than in 1956 or better than it is today, wheather we are living a nightmare of our nation's former self.

Two Liberal Archetypes

I'd like to discuss two archetypes, two distincly new charcters now so common to life in the modern world (atleast familiar to modern American life). They belong to the yuppie sector of the left wing. There are two kinds of Democrats: there are people who vote Democratic but don't embrace the full liberal world view (of being a part time diversity enthusaist, a racist whistleblower, gay rights defender, all around activist, etc.) and then are true liberals who don't just vote liberal but live liberal 24/7. They can be described, as the Democrats who acatually are into poltics. There the more annoying the more informed Democrat. They are almost always white, yuppies, who drive Volkswagons and want to move to Berlin and could be mistaken for GAP manaquins at any given moment. you know the type, they all have useless sociology/english/women's studies degrees and work in fields like marketing, the media, and academia.

I'd like to discuss 2 odd aspects of this modern liberal archetype i have always found fascinating.

1. Of the two this is the most important and ultimately ironic liberal yuppie sub-type. This is the white male yuppie-bookish, timid, well-mannered, intellectually intrested, likes poltics and debate and reading and revels in high culture and high art. Yet he is completly devoid of any trace, as a good liberal, of the most basic and obvious self-intrest. Namely in the regard of immigration and demographic change. They are not indifferent, no, rather they are passionately, often hysterically, in defence of contuning mass 3rd world immigration. They don't, as all good liberals, think about immigration and certainly not demographic change (only when forced) for such subjects are for warped, xenuphones to car about. But if you bring up the subject of say how many predict 2050 to be the year whites become a minority in America they will recoil and/or grow hysterical at the fact that you even care about such change as if they are offended or disgusted that such things would even grab your attention. Let alone, come and out and say that we need a moratirium on immigration so that we can remain a majority European nation and then they start labeling you a sick "racist".
But you start to wonder, don't they even think about demographic change at all? Don't they see that they are crusading so belligerently on the part of policys that besides hurting the nation (which is not compelling to them anyways) is so clearly detrimental to them? Why is America become less white and more Mexican and black bad for the white "overeducated", "intellectual", yuppie liberals i speak of? Well because latino and black culture, which is largely hip hop culture, despite sharing the liberal yuppies love for Obama and welfarism, is the cultural antithesis of meek and mild, ultra-femnist, sensitive, anti-consumerist, liberal yuppie culture. White Starbucks yuppie-liberalism culture is all about sipping ethipian bean free-trade lattes and speaking about the new upcoming Wes Anderson film quitely and politely while chicano and black hip hop culture is about free style rapping "homophobic", "mysogonistic", "consumerist" rythms and making fun of each other very louidly while drinking 40's and rolling blunts and speaking broken english. The white yuppie thinks of himself as "with it" when it comes to everything third-world and non-white and non-traditional. He thinks he can connect if given the chance with the victimized and oppressed "proleteriate" cause he is there defender. The white liberal yuppie glorifies hip hop culture. The white yuppie teaches black teenage mothers slam poetry at goverment funded "poetry centers", they are the community organizer, the young idealist teacher in the ghetto classroom. But despite their efforts, and the white yuppie has tried very very hard to "connect" and "uplift" the black and latino ghetto youth culture, the two groups are simply far two different. But the white yuppie liberal doesn't critize anything non-white.While the black gantas and chicano teenage thugs laugh at the yuppie liberals and the hipsters as nerdy, the white yuppie restrains, monk -like, from any critqiue of latino and black hip hop culture, to do so would be to go conservative and to admit that racism isn't holding them down but there own culture.
But you still would think, doesn't the white yuppie ever realize that the society they want to live, a NPR-Terry Gross-Starbucks-Sava Darfur-Ani DiFranco-beat poetry-society is totally at odds with the society they are bringing about by arguing on behalf of mss immigration and open borders, which is an increasingly black and latino slum society, a Bitchz n' hoes-bling-bling-hyper-masculine-ultra-consumerist-low-culture-bad-TV-no-books-"whats NPR?"-society. But ofcourse to even ackowledge this conflict would be to be saying something bad about non-white culture and something implicitly good about white culture which is a no-no. And as one can tell reading liberal colmunist, what is a central source of liberal self esteem is there feeling that they are the white people marching with MLK, that they are in essence, "the good white people", they seem to have guilt problems, and they need to seperate themselves from other whites, to make clear to the world that they are the "enlightened white people", the "white people who know that white people are evil and holding you guys down". They're intertional soldiarity fetish gives them a fantasy self image as being united with the migrant worker, the black criminal (victim of white oppresion), the native american, the buddist, and not being just another "white guy or gal". There liberalism and there idiotic diversity fetish is not about poltics as much as it is about status. There left wing "i'm-more-proggesive-than-you!" poltics is a way of marking there status above other whites in a new age of globalization inwhich status heirachy is all a-jumble. Thats why i'm convisced that they don't even think about immigration, they just know that "good white people", people on the side of "progress" would be on the side of the illegal immigrant, thus they are, no thinking nesscary, they're stance on amnesty like so many other issues is set by default. When they adopted there all-encompassing white yuppie liberal identity as "good, proggesive, enlighned, compassionate white people" they adopted with it a social idenity and a whole bunch of default positions required of "good white people": which means, for instance, in order to keep your status as a good white person, you simply can't be concerned about immigration, because illegal immigration is just oppressed peoples getting revenge for years of repression, instead of caring about say a vile hip hop culture which embodies the "misogyny" and "consumerism" that they claim to disdain, they endorse hip hop and focus there faked scorn on Christianity and patriotism and calling people who care about Rev. Wright racist.
But can't they see what i and all sane people can see so clearly for just a milisecond, which is that the policy they support, with there donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center and CAIR and Media Matters will have them living in a 3rd world slum by the time there middle age and despite what they say, they would hate that more than anything. Just look at the white yuppies personal lives and the core hypocrisy of there bogus idenitity reveals itself: that being that they live and will always live as long as they can live in all-white/asian/jewish neigborhoods. They make damn sure to send there kids to schools with minimal numbers of latino and black kids. They secretly raise there disaprove and/or worry about there children having mostly black and/or latino friends (granted its not at a early age). Ofcourse they never would say a word admitting aprhension in this regard. (By the way, another less prounced hypocrictal aspect of these white yuppie types is the fact that they so often owe there livilehood and there lavish living conditions to the major corporations they work for in some capacity, the same corporations, they almost as an act of atonement, defame and slander through there poltical views.)
Part of me, can't wait for the copious amount of "i told you so" moment that await me and my white liberal yuppie friends and loved ones as we grow older and i am proven right and they grudgingly fall silent in admission of there foolishness. I warn the liberals who surround me in love and family and friendship that the policys they support in the area of immigration will have us both living under the thumb of a president Al Sharpton or House Speaker Louis Farrakhan soon enough and they skoff the suggestion of like science fiction (the way i, rightly, scoff of there predictions of San Frasico below the sea in 60 years).

2. The epcine "social justice" liberal yuppie male who gets teary-eyed passionate about gay rights and/or femnism. I find something so fundmentally gay or at the very least essentially effeminate about watch a male (presumably hetro) liberal gettin all verkilmept and girlishly passionate-irrational about "male shovenism" and "sexism" and "repressive gender roles" or "gay marriage as a human right!".