The Downfall of the GOP Brand. Why?

There's been much talk of the GOP being the party of 'old white men'--though majority of white women voted for Romney, but MSM is committed to feminist spin--and how it lost the 2012 election by failing to win over the Hispanic or brown vote. While the Hispanic vote may be a time-bomb for the GOP--if current demographic trends continue--, the brown vote was not decisive in the 2012 election. Romney lost because he failed to win over sufficient number of white voters, especially in the Northern states. Also, the huge swing among Asian-Americans toward Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections undermines the MSM narrative that GOP loses elections because if it favors privilege. Asian-Americans are more 'privileged' than most white gentiles in education and jobs. If the GOP is the party of wealth, privilege, and success, the majority of Asian-Americans(and Jewish-Americans) should have voted for the GOP.

So, why did the GOP fail among so many voters who should be its constituents according to the MSM narrative? Before we delve into that, consider what had long been the winning themes of the GOP.
Republican's pro-business position used to win over the superrich and the affluent. Republican's theme of patriotism used to work well among blue collar whites. Republican theme of suburban middle class values and solid small town values used to win over the white middle class. Republican theme of the Great White Man and the American Dream won it respect among aspiring immigrants who wanted to melt into the world of the Great White Man. There was also the issue of crime, mostly black crime.

The end of the Cold War meant the loss of the patriotic theme for Republicans. Though 9/11 and 'Muslim Terrorism' trope worked for awhile for the GOP, Bush loused up the War on Terror as badly as Johnson messed up Vietnam. Also, as time passed, even the staunchest conservative Americans began to wonder if the Muslim Threat was all that it was cooked up to be. And if indeed there was a Clash of Civilizations, why did Bush say Islam is a religion of peace, and only a handful of radical Muslims are causing all the trouble? On foreign policy, many conservatives came to prefer Ron Paul's 'isolationism' to Bush's 'interventionism', and when Romney the chickenhawk rattled his saber about more wars, it turned a lot of white blue collar people off--as many have friends and relatives whose sons died or were crippled in the seemingly senseless War on Terror; especially for Ron Paul Republicans, such saber-rattling means 'kissing Zionist ass'.
In the late 70s and early 80s, many blue collar whites did vote for Reagan out of patriotic reasons. They never forgot how liberals 'stabbed the American military in the back' in the Vietnam War, and they were shocked by how nation after nation fell to communism around the world following the fall of Saigon: Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc. And Carter seemed especially pathetic with the Iran Hostage Crisis. And of course, there was the problem of inflation.
But that was then, this is now. There really isn't any patriotic issue to get all worked up about. There is the theme of Obama the mulatto globalist puppet of International Jews, but as mainstream media and the GOP are dominated by Jews, it's impossible for the GOP to go into 'racist' and 'antisemitic' mode. GOP can foam at the mouth about 'Russkies', 'Muzzies', 'Chinks', and Hugo Chavez, but it cannot call out on domestic enemies at home. Indeed, the liberal Jewish media, through their control of news and Hollywood movies, have encouraged white conservatives to channel their bottled-up rage at foreign 'enemies'. So, if whites are angry about black crime, they must keep mum on the issue and channel their rage by fuming about all those Muslim Terrorists killing 'white Jews' in Israel. Thus, 'muzzies' serve as surrogate blacks in the white conservative mind. Whites must project their domestic frustrations on foreign targets(and Jews encourage this since without such outlets for white rage, it may eventually come around to fixing on the real enemy of whites: the Jews. Why have liberal Jews in Hollywood made anti-Muslim movies like TAKEN? Why is liberal Jewish Hollywood remaking RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn?). Whites cannot discuss Jewish power, and so their suppressed rage is diverted at Global Terrorist Muslims, International Hindus, and International Chinese--away from the International Jew. Even so, there's nothing like the Evil Empire(of the Cold War) or Imperial Japan(of WWII) anymore to rile up the white American blue collar patriots.

GOP also used to have a winning formula in appealing to suburban voters. This was especially useful in the 60s and 70s when White Flight from black urban blight and crime reached its peak. Back then, white fear of black crime was fresh on many white suburbanites. But since then, successive generations of whites have grown in the safe suburbs, and they don't feel this fear of blacks. And their parents didn't say much about white flight since it sounds 'racist'. And suburban schools, no less than urban schools, are filled with politically correct propaganda. And white kids enjoy black culture from a safe distance: rap music, sports, and even interracist porn with the explosion of the internet.
At one time, white suburbs were seen as a refuge from black crime. Today, many white suburbanites just see the suburbs as an extension of gentrifying downtown areas of big cities. Many white suburbs have been yuppified and SWPL-ized, what their Starbucks cafes and other cosmopolitanisms.
Suburbs used to model themselves on small towns; indeed they were like small towns surrounding the big city. Today, most wealthy suburbs model themselves on downtown gentrified living. They have become far more liberalized. This SWPL-ization of the suburbs needs further research and looking into. (Of course, the fact that many affluent white suburbanites were indoctrinated in politically correct colleges also account for the big shift. In a way, conservatism is a victim of its own success, i.e. many successful white conservative sent their kids to good colleges, and those colleges turned their kids into supporters of 'gay marriage' and 'diversity'. Also, since conservatism favors respect for authority, conservatively raised children may paradoxically be more receptive to authority figures in higher education. This is surely the case among Asians: they are from an authoritarian/conservative tradition/culture, but their emphasis on respect for authority makes them perfect teacher's pets of political correctness.)
GOP used to have the Cold War to win over many patriotic blue collar white Americans and the Crime War to win over many white suburban voters. But especially when Clinton adopted harsh anti-crime policies and threw a whole bunch of blacks into the slammer--and drastically reduced crime rates--, the Crime War became less of an issue for many white suburbanites. Again, conservatives were the victim of their own success. They lost the suburbs partly because Clinton the New Democrat adopted many conservative policies.

Conservatives also used to have the economic war and culture war card. Economic War won over the superrich. When top tax rates used to be over 70%, many rich folks went with GOP for the simple reason of not wanting to be bled dry  by the government. But once Reagan reduced tax rates and New Democrats more or less accepted the bargain--along with 'free trade' and financial deregulation--, there was less urgency for the rich to side with the GOP. After all, the rich are vain and narcissistic, and it's much more fun to culturally hang around 'creative', 'innovative', and 'expressive' liberals than with 'square' 'whitebread' conservatives.  Again, the GOP was a victim of its own success.

And then, there was the Culture War which pitted decent Americans against the freaks and decadents. This used to win over many middle class people to the GOP, especially when freaks and radicals of all kinds went crazy in the late 60s  and 70s. But consider the sudden shift in the style of the radicals and freaks. Gays used to act really freako and turn off many people. But the new gay style is very conservative, respectable, and more 'middle class than middle class'. So, gays no longer come across freaks but as the new Ozzie and Harriet(or Ozzie and Harry as the case may be). And if Jewish radicals used to turn off many white conservatives with their nasty and virulent personalities and outrages, most liberal Jews tend to be very respectable and 'bourgeois' in style. There aren't a lot of Abbie Hoffman or Andrea Dworkin types anymore telling people to 'steal this book' or howling 'all sex is rape'.
The face of the New Jew is David Remnick. And even the so-called socialist Naomi Klein looks like a total yuppess than some crazy leftist radical talking crazy in the 60s.
And feminism abandoned its overalls and handkerchiefs and embraced femininity and sexuality. Though feminists reviled Camille Paglia when she appeared on the scene, Paglia-ism has won.  Feminism used to divide the generations. Young girls in the 80s and 90s wanted to be attractive and were pissed off with first generation feminists who were telling them it's wrong to be a 'sex symbol'. Today, feminists of all stripes have embrace sexiness, and even hook-up culture is seen as 'empowerment'. Such sexual sensibilities and attitudes may not be conservative, but in making peace with the biological fact of sexual differences--women wanna look good and sexy--, feminism became less of a turn-off for many women, even anti-liberal women.

Anyway, since liberals and leftists adopted the conservative look and style, it became more difficult for the GOP to frame the Culture War as one between respectable decent folks and outrageous freaks. When gays put on corporate suits and diligently work in office buildings, they come across as more respectable than many white conservatives with ass tattoos and body piercings. When gays and liberal Jews are more likely to listen to classical music and read Shakespeare than white conservatives, what does it mean to be culturally conservative? And when liberal women now wanna be sexy, the old conservative trope of feminism as 'movement of big fat ugly Jewish women' no longer works.
Some might say this has all been a Saul Alinskite plan of the Left to use 'conservative respectability' to worm into the heart of Americana and change it from within. And I'm sure some leftists really flatter themselves that they are doing just this. But, it seems most liberals, leftists, and gays just got sick of the whole radical ugliness of the 60s and early 70s. They 'grew up' and matured, and they got 'corrupted' by the material privileges that comes with taking part in capitalism and wealth-creation.

The GOP also lost the immigrant vote. Among some groups, this could be understood simply in terms of poor Third World immigrants wanting more freebies from Big Government. Given the voting pattern of Mexican-Americans and Central-American-Americans, this is no surprise. The more interesting data of the 2008 and 2012 elections concerns the massive shift of the Asian and young Cuban vote from the GOP to the Democrats. Not all immigrants are the same, and indeed Asian-Americans(especially East Asians and Hindu-Asians) are very different in their mind-set, sensibilities, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes from Mexican-Americans and the like. If the GOP is the party of success and middle class values, why would so many Asian-Americans vote for the Democrats?
It's because America today isn't America 20 yrs ago and because the image of the Great White Man isn't so great.

Among immigrants, ability and aspirations matter in how they think and vote.  Mexican-Americans, rather low in their abilities, don't have much in the way of aspiration. Many Mexican-Americans instinctively feel that they aren't going to rise very high, and so they stick with the party of more handouts. But Asian-Americans, like earlier waves of European-Americans, have both the ability and aspiration to rise higher. Many European immigrants in the early part of the 20th century held the Anglo-American White Man in awe and aspired to use their abilities to enter Anglo-American society--and even to become Anglo-Americans themselves. There was a time when Asian-Americans held the Great White Man with great respect and fear(and with fear comes respect). In their home countries, they likely got their image of American from news reels of General Douglas MacArthur and John Wayne & Charlton Heston movies. White Man Big and Tall and Great and Awesome! White American Man Big Superpower and Victor over Japan and Protector of Free Asia from Bad Commies!
Unlike Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans knew that they had the ability to join white society, the World of the Great White Man. Their abilities matched their aspirations.
So... what happened?

Asians, who are mad about success and upper mobility, discovered that the Great White Man was not so great. Many Asians found themselves getting better grades and going to better schools than whites. So, incrementally, Asian-Americans came to feel more like Jews. Instead of seeing White America as awesome, they saw it as something they rise above. An element of contempt crept into their feelings toward whites. Also, Asian-Americans discovered that among whites, liberal and Jewish ones were smarter than mediocre conservative whites who are into Creationism, gun hoarding, Nascar, Rush Limbaugh, and ass tattoos. So, if the Great White Man trope still existed for Asian-Americans, the new Great White Man was the urban liberal white or the Jew.

Another factor was the slow but steady decline of the white middle class(as the backbone of the American Dream). When America used to be defined by the solid white middle class as the hallmark of Americanism, most Asian-Americans wanted to belong to that class, especially as many had memories of poverty back home. But as the white middle class began to shrink and Asian-Americans strove for higher success, the ideal of the American Dream in the form of White Middle Class-ness began to lose its appeal.  The new objective for aspiring Asian-Americans to strive for and emulate was the urban SWPL global 'creative class'. Very liberal and Democratic.
Even 20 yrs ago, an Asian-American might have thought a good life in America was having a steady job and affording a home in the suburbs. But with Section 8 Housing and easy credits handing out home loans to every dumbass, the suburban ideal lost its appeal. The newly and truly affluent and privileged were found to be concentrated in the 'Europeanizing' big blue cities.
But what led to the demise of the White Middle Class? Free trade and globalism and 'ownership society' that cheapened the ideal of the American Dream. Again, the GOP was the victims of its own success.

In this Age of Decadence, Is Liberalism For Real or Just an Affectation?

We tend to see American society in terms of conservatives and liberals. But how deep is liberalism among liberals? And what exactly is liberalism in an age when the biggest struggle for justice involves cross-dressing transvestites? Ever since the demise of economic Marxism, many commentators have noted the rise of 'cultural Marxism'. Could it be that economic liberalism is over and has been supplanted by 'cultural liberalism'? Sure, there is big government, but it seems to exist mainly to collude with and bail out Wall Street and big corporations that provide most of the funds for politicians  of both parties. In terms of economic policy, there may be no great difference between the two parties. Republicans did little to curtail big government. GOP used to talk of term limits but when they took Congress in the 90s, they dropped it like a hot potato. Both parties are for Wall Street, free trade, rich getting richer, meritocracy, and etc.  If GOP is the party of the rich, how come the richest areas in America--the downtowns of big cities--are totally blue and Democratic? How come Silicon Valley is almost entirely Democratic? How come Facebook and Google gave 99% of their donations to Democrats?

Of course, liberals are aware of this. Especially since the Clinton presidency, the 'New Democrat' policy of the Democratic Party has favored free trade globalist business and entrepreneurs over the blue collar working class. The new Democratic elite saw the white working class as unreliable--many were Reagan Democrats, 'racist' in Archie Bunker fashion, and overly 'patriotic'. The Unions were also  seen as arrogant, corrupt, and etc.  If Jewish elites supported Obama to tame the Negroes, Jewish elites in the 90s supported Clinton to tame the Unions. Clinton and Gore gave us NAFTA, and the great sucking sound was heard across the nation. But Democrat elites didn't mind stabbing the white working class in the back since GOP was even more globalist and free-trader and wouldn't be able to attract them either(and the 2012 election proved it). The liberal Silicon Valley kings of the 90s wanted globalism. They wanted to work the entire world to rake in their profits. They didn't want to get entangled in fights with unions in American factories. Much better to build factories in China, India, Vietnam, and Puerto Rico. And Hollywood wanted to expand its franchise all over the world, and globalism was key. Hollywood liberals say they love diversity, but they sure don't care about 'cultural imperialism' and 'cultural genocide' carried out by (Jewish-controlled)American culture around the world.

Liberal elites, not 'rich conservatives', were the main beneficiaries of globalism and stabbing white working class in the back. (To be sure, unions were indeed corrupt and rotten and deserved some kind of butt-spanking. In order to survive, unions too have become globalized. No longer patriotic and pro-white, it now panders to illegal workers in America.) These facts are pretty dire. The fact is globalist liberals have been getting richer and richer while others have gotten poorer and poorer. NY has one of the biggest wealth gaps in the world. It's a city of financial lords and professionals and.. waiters and cabbies. If Americans woke up to this fact, the globalist liberals--many of them Jews and liberal wasp turncoats--could be in trouble. The fact is 'economic liberalism' is dead. Unions are dead unless they are government unions. But when push comes to shove, even government unions are coming under pressure in blue states like NY, Michigan, and Illinois. And though Democratic elites publicly howled about the Republican governor of Wisconsin, they were secretly happy with his policies. They were happy to have a 'conservative' do the dirty work for them. Easier to shift the blame.
Also, 'affirmative action' is really a war waged by rich white liberals on poor whites. It's not rich white/Jewish lawyers or rich white/Jewish doctors or rich white/Jewish computer engineers who are being hurt by 'affirmative action'. It's 'working class' white firemen and police men and other whites working at the lower rungs of society. Liberal elites wasps and Jews satisfy black demands by sacrificing lower-rung white jobs to blacks while the elite jobs are mostly kept by rich white/Jewish liberals. Notice that the Jewish share of the economic pie at the top keeps expanding while the white working class and middle class share of the pie keeps shrinking. This is the new economy of the liberal elites.

Since liberal elites are economically no different from pro-rich Republican elites, the only way to maintain liberalism is as a 'culture', and so there is 'cultural liberalism'.  Since liberal elites are rich and getting richer, they can only prove their 'progressive' worth by cooking up stuff like 'diversity' and 'gay marriage' and 'green' consciousness and 'slut pride' and other nonsense.
In a way, liberals have become the new conservatives in their appeal to cultural issues. Remember how rich conservative used to win over a lot of non-rich people through cultural conservatism? School prayer, pledge of allegiance, family values, and etc?  Yeah, like George H.W. Bush really cared about the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. Since economic conservatism had little to offer to many non-rich folks, the appeal was to affectations of culture.

Now, liberal elites, the richest people in America, pull the same thing. And so, we have one hysteria after another about 'homophobia' and 'war against women'.  While it may seem that liberalism is triumphant, it is actually in big danger. Beware when everything seems to be going your way; one can easily mistake dusk for dawn. When the tidal wave reaches its peak, it's about to tumble and crash. The end of the Reagan presidency and the election of George H.W. Bush and the fall of the communism seemed as though conservatism was triumphant. But in fact, it was a time when American conservatism was in most danger. It lost its greatest and most useful foe: the Evil Empire. It was badly losing the Culture War, and the New Economy was being created by liberal boomers like Steve Jobs.
The moment when conservatives seemed most victorious was really just a swan song, especially since without the great enemy of communism, conservatism just got gutless with Bush and Quayle or mean and nasty with Gingrich(or bland and dull with Dole).
Similarly, 2012 is not a good time for Dems. It doesn't matter if they'll win all future national elections. Without the GOP as the Evil Foe, Dems will have to bear all the blame. And the divisions within the Democratic party will start to widen, especially as Democratic Party is really owned by superrich Jews and privileged gays. Blacks, browns, and others will start wondering why Jews and gays got so much while they got so little. With the demise of 'evil white man', it won't be so easy for Jews and gays to lay all the blame on 'evil greedy nasty racist mean-spirited toxic odious noxious conservative white guy' for all social problems. What will become plain for all to see is that the Democratic Party is the party of the superrich. It's the party of rich Jews and gays who used 'diversity' to defeat white wasp conservatism. Blacks and browns have been USED by the Democratic elites. They never owned the party. Obama has been a useful cover for Jewish power. And Jewish elites in the Democrats will of course keep on using cultural liberal gimmicks like the 'historic first female president', the 'historic first Hispanic president',  and etc.  But as each president sucks up to superrich globalist Jews, it will become evident that all these politicians are puppets of rich globalist Zionist Jewish power. If white conservatism can play one role in the future, it is to exploit this division within the Democrats. Even if white conservatives can no longer win national elections, they can get revenge against Jews. Another thing white conservatives can do is support Palestinian rights, just like Jews supported black rights in South Africa under apartheid. Eye for an eye.
Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter yammer about 'takers' and Hispanics, but if they had real courage, they would admit, "Jews did this."  And neocon moles in the GOP likely colluded with liberal Jews to undermine white gentile power.

Since economic liberalism is pretty much dead, the new liberalism survives as cultural or symbolic liberalism. Same thing in China. Economic communism is dead and in its stead there is cultural or symbolic communism: Maoist symbolism to shroud the 'culture of greed'. Since the Jewish-black alliance has been weakening over the decades, there is the symbolic alliance via the mulatto Obama who was totally the creation of Jewish money and power.

Paradoxically, it could be that so many privileged liberals are culturally liberal because they are behaviorally and economically conservative, the corollary being it could be so many underprivileged conservatives are culturally conservative because they are behaviorally and economically so liberal.

To clarify this, what do we mean by 'liberal' and 'conservative'.
In this case, 'conservative' means hard-working, success-driven, concentrated and focused, intelligent, disciplined, family-oriented, responsible, community-oriented, and trustworthy.
And 'liberal' means fast and loose, unstable, reckless, easy-going, immature, self-indulgent, hedonistic, self-centered, and etc.

Now, there are many trashy liberals, but elite liberals are behaviorally very 'conservative' as defined above. They were good little kids, did their homework, focused on success, responsible and trustworthy, mindful of others, and later become responsible parents. For them, such habitual 'conservatism' is second nature. They take it for granted since it's in their behavioral blood. They don't wax about conservative values since they have so much of conservative behavioral instinct in them. If you're responsible by nature, you don't have to think constantly about the value of responsible behavior. People without legs think about having legs. People with legs just use them and walk around to do other stuff; they don't think about legs. Elite liberals, being behaviorally conservative nature, don't think much about 'conservative' values since it defines their behavior every moment of every day. Having conservative habits is enough. They don't need the habit turned into a 'value'. (In contrast, many unsuccessful and irresponsible conservatives cling to 'conservative values' since it serves as some kind of compass in their topsy-turvy unstable lives.) Just like people with legs don't walk just to walk, those with conservative habits don't use them just be conservative. People walk to go to places. And elite liberals use their conservative habits to liberally venture into new ideas and possibilities.
This may be where Jews have a decisive advantage over East Asians. Jews have conservative habits but use them for liberal venturousness. East Asians have lionized conservative habits as the highest virtue. So, if Jews study hard to think new thoughts and do new things, East Asians study hard to maintain the old virtues. Jews have conservative habits but liberal attitudes. East Asians have conservative habits and conservative attitudes. It may be changing in the US as East Asians become Americanized, but it seems more like they are bowing before the new boss: the Jews. As such, Asians will always be followers than leaders.

While dumb and trashy liberals, lacking conservative habits, indulge in stupid liberalism--like Lindsey Lohan among others--, liberal elites work with a higher form of liberalism. Having conservative habits, liberal elites went to good schools, worked very hard, are very dedicated and committed, very serious and sober in their thoughts. For them, liberal freedom doesn't mean obeying the lusts of guts and groins as the case is with trashy liberals. It means using higher freedom to find things of higher value and deeper meaning. There's a world of difference between a trashy liberal whose culture revolves around video games or gossip magazines and higher liberal whose culture revolves around classical music, serious literature, and intellectual stuff.
The difference is the higher liberal has conservative habits--plus of course higher intelligence--that drive him or her to freedoms of higher value. There's a big difference between readers of People magazine and the New Yorker.

Consider the author of BATTLE HYMN OF TIGER MOTHER, Amy Chua. She's a liberal but a habitual conservative. And though her husband may be easier-going than she is, he too is a habitual conservative as he's focused on studying, going to top schools, being a responsible father and husband, and etc. If you were to just look at their habits, they are very conservative. And though Chua says her friends were shocked by her hard parenting ways, the fact is most high liberal parents are also into success, hard work, stable relations, and drive their kids to make the social climb.
Most Jews are habitually conservative, and it's because their habitual conservatism comes so naturally that they don't bother with conservative values but instead on using conservative habits to find, discover, and conquer new things.
A values conservative looks at the hammer and waxes about its importance as a tool. A habits conservative--or higher liberal--just uses the hammer to hit the nails; he thinks of the hammer not as the end but as a means to other ends.

It is no wonder then that so many Jews, elite wasps, and East Asians have become liberals. They mostly take their habitual conservatism for granted. Why think conservative when conservative habits are a part of your very being? Why not use conservative habits to be liberal and adventurous in thought? Also, even as conservative habits are very useful, they are kinda boring, 'lame', and square. Especially in America where everyone is supposed to be marked by his individualist 'difference', it's not enough to be a model citizen with responsible conservative 'bourgeois' habits. One has to have some spice, some pizzazz, and that comes with liberal affectations. So, if you're a habitual conservative who went to good school, has a good job, a loving family, and etc, it's all very nice but it's 'boring' and 'lame'. You want to be 'different'. And so, there is the affectation of 'cultural liberalism'. So, in the areas of habits, you could really be as conservative as a Mormon, but by going to art galleries and praising some post-modern art or by espousing 'gay marriage', you can come across as 'different', 'special', 'radical', 'rebellious', or whatever. Or, if you're a successful Hollywood producer, you might win some 'culturally eccentric' points by having a Che Guevara poster in your office. But these are mostly affectations. Do higher liberals really want to live in a social order run by the likes of Che Guevara? Do higher liberals really want to live next to poor blacks in the name of equality? Do higher liberals really want elite institutions to look like America? For the sake of fairness, do Jews really want Wall Street to be only 2% Jewish? Does Amy Chua and her husband really want to live in a 'diverse' community with too many blacks and browns? Chris Matthews says he lives in diverse Washington DC but his neighborhood is actually almost entirely white. And notice how Hyde Park is closed off from the rest of the black community in the South Side of Chicago. So, much of liberalism is really an affectation than a form of real-life practice. And so much fuss of this affectation is made because it diverts our attention from the sheer phoniness of elite liberal reality.

For most Christians, Jesus is just a symbol or affectation worn as a golden necklace. Cultural liberalism has the same kind of appeal. That way, higher liberals can live the good life of stability and privilege but put on airs of 'social justice' and 'being radical'.

The Problem for GOP with Hispanics Is Legalism, Not Nativism.

There's a lot of noise that GOP's failure to win over Hispanics owes to white conservative nativism. While it's true that there are 'nativist' elements in the GOP, American conservatism hasn't been ruled by nativism as a principle for a long time. After all, Reagan gave us amnesty, and the GOP has been open to all races. Nixon went for the Southern Strategy, but he went out of his way to court Hispanic votes, especially by expanding 'affirmative action' to the Hispanic community.

As long as I can remember, I don't recall the GOP calling for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion against non-whites.  Despite the existence of certain nativist types in the GOP, the official line and policy of the GOP have been anything but. And especially with the rise of Neocons in the 90s, the nativist elements have been all but eliminated from the mainstream conservative movement. Pat Buchanan was sidelined in the 90s. Steve Sailer was no longer welcome to contribute as writer to mainstream conservative publications or serve as the spokesman of conservatism on TV. Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor were purged from the National Review while mainstream conservatism cozied up to figures like Linda Chavez.

George W. Bush was very pro-Hispanic and even promoted Hispanics in the military and justice department. And Bush went out of his way to make his Cabinet even more 'diverse' than Clinton's. The message the GOP was sending in the 90s and under Bush II was, "our party is open to everyone, and we especially want and welcome non-whites."  While most nativists voted for the GOP--as the 'lesser of two evils'--, the GOP establishment and mainstream conservatism was NOT promoting or pushing nativism. Rudy Giuliani ran NY as a sanctuary city. McCain has been a notorious advocate of 'amnesty'. And Romney has been a 'moderate' conservative all his life, even something closer to a liberal. Even Southern conservatives were eager to hire and use ilegal Mexican labor. And if the GOP has really been so Waspy and Anglo-nativist, just how did it hand over its keys to neocon Jews even though most neocons are ex-Trotskyites who harbor negative feelings toward traditional conservatism, aka Paleoconservatism?

What really turns off Hispanics to the GOP is legalism, not nativism. GOP has more than amply demonstrated that it's willing to welcome and embrace Hispanics. So, why won't Hispanics take the bite? It's because GOP insists on legalism as opposed to illegalism. GOP expects Hispanics to live, act, and behave according to the same rules, laws, values, and standards as whites.  This means legal Hispanics should side with legal non-Hispanics against illegal Hispanics. It means Hispanics shouldn't expect legal favoritism via 'affirmative action' and 'disparate impact' programs. THIS is what Hispanics don't like about the GOP.
GOP is not dominated by minutemen types guarding the US-Mexican border. It's dominated by corporations, compassionate-conservative Christians, Catholics, and Neocons who want to broaden the base of the party. But the GOP, at least more than the Democrats, insist on Constitutional principles to be upheld by all: Since US is united by rule of law, it won't do to favor certain groups over others.  Conservatives even construe the legacy of MLK as one of color-blind equality under the law(though MLK was politically socialist and for programs like 'affirmative action'.)  Hispanics want special/preferential treatment from the government than equality with whites, and THAT element of illegalism or extra-legalism is what prevents them from joining the GOP. Democrats don't merely offer equality. They offer special favors, or more-equal-than-others-ism. So, an illegal alien would be made a legal citizen. So, illegals get access to all sorts of benefits in the US. And all Hispanics, legal or illegal, are to offered the full spectrum of preferential treatment via 'affirmative action', section 8 housing, and 'disparate housing' decrees.  Hispanics are drawn to the Democratic party because it offers goodies and freebies on the basis of illegalism.

In our sick age, homos are presented as angels while illegal aliens are associated with the 'dream'. Thus, the American Dream no longer means the opportunity of legal citizens to have good jobs and afford homes. It means instant citizenship to illegals who came here by breaking the law. And it gives a whole new meaning to MLK's cry of 'I have a dream'.  It no longer means the American Dream of equality for all races but special preferential dream of illegalism and extra-legalism for non-whites.

This doesn't mean there isn't an element of nativism or white racial consciousness in the GOP. But then, immigration-ism among non-whites is also a form of racial consciousness. Would most American Hispanics be for illegal immigration if most illegals were non-Hispanic Hindus, Chinese, or Muslims who come to take away jobs from Mexican-Americans or Mexicans in America? No, Hispanics are for illegalism because it means more power to their own kind. They think and act racially but then accuse white conservatives of doing so, even though most white conservatives insist only on equality for all under the same set of laws.
Would most Asians be for immigration if it didn't mean MORE of their kind in the US? Mexicans and Asians are for 'diversity' for the sake of their own racial power.  They are acting racially, and in their own nations, they are far more 'nativist' than conservative whites are in America.
Also, Jews want to increase diversity not out of the goodness of their heart but because more diversity means more opportunity for Jewish elites to play divide-and-rule among gentiles. Thus, the pro-immigration stance among Jews is also a form of racial/tribal consciousness. Jews in Israel sure don't call for non-Jewish immigration since Jews are the majority over there, no more than Mexicans tolerate non-Mexican immigration into Mexico and Asians tolerate much of non-Asian immigration to Asia.

The Hispanic Vote: Can Republicans Compete with the Illegalism of Democrats?

Some commentators say that the GOP must appeal to the Hispanic(and black) votes in order to win future elections. The problem is the only way to appeal to Hispanics is via Illegalism. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is anti-Hispanic. GOP welcomes Hispanics and wants Hispanics to succeed in America. GOP doesn't call for discrimination against Hispanics of any kind. Under rules of legality, GOP is a pro-Hispanic party.

What commentators mean when they say the GOP must appeal to Hispanics is it must be done on Illegalist terms. In other words, GOP mustn't only be equally welcome to Hispanics but must favor (even illegal)Hispanics over the legal white constituents who support the GOP; the GOP must favor illegal aliens over legal citizens and favor 'affirmative action' for Hispanics over non-Hispanic whites who are the mainstay of the GOP.
In a nutshell, it's not enough for the GOP to offer equality of law and opportunity to Hispanics; instead, Hispanics must be treated to extralegal privileges--such as 'amnesty' and 'affirmative action' over whites.  So, even though more than 70% of Hispanics go with Democrats, the GOP must offer better terms to Hispanics than to its loyal white supporters. (Extralegal privileges used to be the tool of European imperialists in non-white lands. Today, it is the tool employed by Jewish Supremacists to favor non-whites over whites in majority white lands.)

Democrats use terms like 'inclusion' and 'diversity', but their means of winning Hispanic vote has been through sheer favoritism and bribery. Hispanics are offered favors and things that should be illegal under the American Constitution. Illegal aliens are called 'undocumented immigrants' and showered with all sorts of benefits--though many of them don't even pay taxes. In other words, Democrats buy Hispanic votes. Worse, these votes are bought largely with white money. Whites pay bulk of the taxes, but liberals control most of the governments and bureaucracies--and courts--, and so Democrats get to decide how white tax-payer money is used. And it is used to bribe Hispanics to vote for Democrats.

No less importantly, the GOP cannot compete with Democrats even in the bribery game because the Democrats will always offer more. If GOP goes for amnesty, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration, Democrats will up the ante with amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration + even more benefits. GOP can only hope to win over Hispanics if it can offer MORE goodies and freebies to Hispanics, but Democrats will always offer more free stuff to Hispanics(and to blacks).
And if the GOP goes whole hog and tries to match the Democrats on everything, it might as well be the Democratic Party.

Ideally, the GOP should appeal to Hispanics according to principles and not with payoffs. The principle should be EQUALITY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. But, as it stands, America has gotten into the habit of winning over minority votes with bribes and special favors, something that began in the 60s with the Civil Rights Movement. Originally meant help blacks, it is now used to win minority votes across the board. Though the Nixon administration may have supported 'affirmative action' program for Hispanics in order to pit 'browns' against blacks to fight for welfare spoils, what it ended up doing is creating an alliance of blacks and 'browns'.

Anyway, as long as Illegalism is the mode of politics in winning minority votes, the GOP cannot win.

We Must Call the Media Out as Controlled-by-Jews

It’s not enough to talk about the LIBERAL MEDIA. We all know that MSM is liberal-biased. What is truly dangerous is not so much that the media is dominated by liberals but that it is mostly owned and dominated by liberal and leftist JEWS. If we accuse MSM of harboring generic liberalism, powerful media Jews can hide behind non-Jewish liberals(who happen to be far less powerful than the Jews)comprising most liberals. (Though most Jews are liberal, most liberals are non-Jewish). It makes little sense to blame most liberals for media bias since most liberals–non-Jews–have little or no stake or power in the media. How many Catholic Polish-American or Italian-American media moguls or editors do you know? We must be specific in our attack of media bias.
Suppose Mormons had the kind of power that Jews had in the media. Would it make sense to say that the media is controlled by Christian Right? Most Christian Right folks are not Mormon. Thus, powerful Mormons would be able to hide behind Southern Baptists, McChurch freaks, Catholic conservatives, and other such people with little or no control of the media. Mormons are mostly right-wing Christians, but most right-wing Christians are NOT Mormon. So, if indeed Mormons controlled most or much of the media and if we wanted to pressure them to be fairer in their handling of the media, we would need to stress the fact that MORMONS–not all of the Christian Right–are very powerful in the media. If we accuse all of the Christian Right, Mormons can hide among other conservative Christians among whom the blame would be spread wide and thin. Why did we lose sight of Alqaeda and Osama Bin Laden? Because in our fight against terrorism, we broadened our targets to Saddam Hussein and the entire Muslim world. Scattershot approach is for the birds.

So, when we consider the nature of the media, we must remind ourselves that it isn’t so much controlled by liberals–how many powerful Mexican-American liberals in the media?–as it is controlled by liberal Jews. Just look at Hollywood. How many Greek-American liberals run Hollywood? How many Arab-American liberals run Hollywood? No, the truth is Jewish liberals run Hollywood. Indeed, I would dare say conservative Jews–though a minority within the Jewish community–are more powerful in the media than any other group except for Jewish liberals. A whole bunch of conservative talk radio hosts are Jewish. And most conservative journals or magazines are neo-con-ish, published, edited, and mostly written by Jews.
This indicates that Jews of all stripes are very smart, energetic, engaged, passionate, and involved with cultural and political matters, and this is something we should all emulate. That said, power has a corrupting influence. Oftentimes, this corruption isn’t intentional or conscious but insidious, seeping into the hearts and minds of those with great power. All people have a sense of right and wrong, a desired agenda. People with power realize they can do a lot to further their values, ideas, and agendas than other people. With all the power they have, they sense a quasi-divine right to control the destinies of entire societies. They gradually grow impatient with people who disagree with them. They become ever more eager to use their formidable levers of power and influence to get things their way.
This is why people at NY Times are blind to their own corruption. Their sense of righteousness makes them feel entitled to the power that they have. Though they exert huge influence on our society, they feel they don’t have enough power since they don’t have total power to push forth and implement ALL the agendas they believe are crucial to society. Remember Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane? He began as an idealistic newspaper publisher, but the power slowly corrupted him, even as–or especially because–he clung to ‘lofty’ ideals. His righteousness morphed into the Divine Rightness of the Publisher.

We need to specify the Jewishness of the liberals and leftists in charge of the media because not all liberals are alike. Same is true of sports. Most blacks are ‘liberal’, at least in supporting the Democratic Party. Sports are dominated by black athletes who define the nature of the sports with their attitude, style, behavior, and antics, much of which is childish, rude, and obnoxious. So, if we were to criticize the development of sports culture, we need to focus on blacks in sports. Would it make sense to argue that sports culture has gotten ugly because it’s dominated by liberals(on the basis that most blacks are Democratic)? Where are the Mexican, Salvadorian, Chinese, Hindu, or Armenian American liberals in the NFL? If the NFL were dominated by non-black liberals, sports culture could be very different as peoples differ greatly by race, sex, ethnicity, nationality, etc even if they share certain common ideological assumptions. A Jewish liberal is different from a black liberal who is different from a Mexican-American liberal who is different from an Asian-American liberal. Sports culture and pop music cultures have turned to crap in the US because they are dominated by rude, obnoxious, aggressive, and crazy black ‘liberals’. So, it would make little sense to focus on ALL liberals to explain why so many athletes and musical celebrities are disgusting and offensive. We need to look at blackness.

Well, same applies to the Jewish domination of the media. Jewish liberals are different from other liberals. First, no liberal is a pure liberal, and no leftist is a total leftist. Everyone is a tribalist to some degree. So, a Jewish liberal is very much involved in Jewish interests such as Zionism and Jewish American power. Just look at Jewish liberals, and they’ve donated lavishly to specifically JEWISH causes. If they are perfect liberals, they wouldn’t favor Jewish causes nor interests above others. They would be cosmopolitan universalists. But, we know that Jewish liberals care a great deal more about Jewish issues, interests, and agendas. And, we know that black ‘liberals’ care a great deal about BLACK POWER. (Indeed, I use quotes around LIBERAL when I refer to blacks because most blacks are allied with white liberals than truly liberal themselves. They want white liberals to hand over more money, power, and clout over to blacks purely for the sake of BLACK POWER.) And, we know Mexican-American liberals have their agendas and interests. Compare Jewish liberals with Asian-American liberals. Not only are Jewish liberals more intelligent, better organized, more ruthless, more abrasive, and more creative, they have a thing called chutzpah. So, we cannot pretend that ALL liberals dominate the media, nor can we assume that the media would be what they are today IF they were controlled by Mexican-American liberals or Asian-American liberals. The media are what they are because they are controlled by JEWISH liberals. So, all this talk of LIBERAL CONTROL of the media misses the bull’s eye. If we want to pressure the media to be more fair, we have to frighten the actual people who have the power, not scattershot at most liberals who have no control over the media. Most liberals of most ethnic or racial background have little control of the media. It is the Jewish liberals who own and control much of the media. If we accuse ALL liberals of controlling the media, the Jewish liberal bunny can hide among the various other liberal targets of our ire. Our chance of hitting the Jewish liberal bunny is greatly reduced if we accuse ALL liberals.
Indeed, it must also be understood that the reason why so many non-Jews have become liberal is because of the JEWISH CONTROL OF THE MEDIA. Liberal Jews, with their control of history, entertainment, culture, arts, news, and publishing have shaped and molded the minds of ‘the best and brightest’ among all ethnic and racial groups.
The problem is that Jews are the smartest people in the world and also the most liberal. Formidable Jewish smarts serve the interests of liberalism. If United States had no Jews, there would be more media balance because gentiles–liberal or conservative–tend to be of the roughly same intelligence. A conservative wasp competing with a liberal wasp for Ivy League position or media ownership would have a much better chance than a conservative wasp competing with a liberal Jew. A liberal wasp isn’t likely to be all that much smarter than a conservative wasp whereas a liberal Jew is likely to be much smarter. If most Jews were conservative, US would have a solidly conservative media. The most successful, influential, and powerful people in this country would be conservative Jews. But, that is not the case. Most Jews are indeed very liberal.

So, let’s at least get our facts straight. To make a real difference in the media war–in order to really pressure and shame those with REAL media power–, we must spell out who really controls the media. Not liberals of all stripes but Jewish liberals. It’s because Jewish liberals control the media that so many gentiles have been led down the liberal path. It’s because Jewish liberals control the media that so many dimwit gentile liberals have been hired and promoted up the media ranks. Liberal Jews are more likely to hire a dimwit liberal Negro, liberal Mexican-American, or a liberal Asian-American running dog than an intelligent conservative and no-nonsense white conservative(or a conservative black guy, conservative Asian-American guy, a conservative Mexican-American guy).

Finally, it must be up to the Alternative Right to blow the whistle on Jewish Media Control. As Jews–both liberal and conservative–are very powerful, no mainstream conservative media, political, or business figure can survive if he dares to criticize Jewish power. Mainstream figures on the right must play kiss-ass for the time being. We must confront Jewish power step-by-step. We need to think like Saul Alinsky. Gradualism is the smartest policy. We need to inject the topic of Jewish control of the media into the popular discussion, and this must be done by the Alternative Right. It must spread by word of mouth, ear to ear, until there’s a groundswell of awareness of how the media are truly owned and operated in this country and why. Only then will mainstream conservatives be able to pick up on what seems to be the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE and discuss it as a mainstream issue.

Of course, Jewish control of the media is not an original idea, but unfortunately, those who’ve tended to blow the whistle on it have been extreme white right types who go overboard with their Alex Jones-ishness or worse, Hitler apologia or worship. Jewish liberals love Nazi flag-waving, Holocaust Denying, and Hitler worshiping clods because their silly extremist antics discredit whatever ideas or arguments they may have. If people associate criticism of Jewish media power with Holocaust Denial and Hitler apologia, they will consider it radioactive and will not touch it–for good reason. We need an Alternative Right, not a looney right.

Time to lay GOP to rest.

GOP served its useful purpose. Now, it's time for it to go. When a horse's leg is broken, you put it out of its misery. You don't let it slowly die in pain. It's truer with an elephant. An injured elephant is useless. It must go. It's time to put a bullet through its head. Not out of hate, but out of love.