Whatever the details of their demands, the fundamental cause of the recent protests in Wisconsin is the growing recognition among the American Middle that the lifestyle to which they are accustomed—think a house in the ‘burbs, a reliable pension or 401k, and the ability to live it up on easy credit—is vanishing before their eyes.Yes, we were sold a bill of goods, told to buy houses - which of course never decline in value - told to load up the 401k with mutual funds that can't even beat the S&P 500 but produce a great stream of fees for investment companies, and some of us even thought that we were told to max out our credit cards. We can probably add most or all of these to our list of lies.
Spencer notes that the Tea Party and teacher's unions both are highly white, and that the Feds are refusing to bail out the states; yet the Feds have no problem with bailing out both Wall Street and the federal government itself. The federal government is NOT highly white.
In 2007, the advocacy group Adversity.net examined the racial hiring practices of Washington’s Executive Departments and Independent Agencies, from the Department of Education to NASA. The group discovered that with a very few exceptions, federal entities dramatically overfulfill their “Diversity” quotas. Indeed, the best agencies at hiring Blacks put the Post Office of lore to shame: the Controlled Substance Ordering System, the Government Printing Office, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, for instance, overhire Blacks at 800, 500, and 400 percent, respectively. Even the “worst” agency for employing African-Americans, über-nerdy NASA, overhires Blacks at a clip of 50 percent.John Derbyshire (quoted by Malcolm Pollack) makes a similar point:
In this line, government entities have increasingly dropped their mission of, well, governing in favor of the greater cause of minority outreach and empowerment. In America, one could lament, the Black man is either dead or in jail—or enjoying guaranteed benefits working at the State Department.
A teacher’s union meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, has the demographics of a screening of The English Patient. And however they might disagree on hot-button issues, the Tea Party and the Wisconsinites are essentially the same people.
We’re going to win these fights, listeners, and the public-sector unions, and the Democratic Party they nourish, are going to be humbled and brought low. Let’s just keep in mind the American tradition of magnanimity in victory. These are our neighbors, our friends, sometimes our family members; and we’re all Americans."We're all Americans" - if only we could get the teachers to see that.
We must also note the absence of cries from the Left accusing the Wisconsin unions of racism because they have so few minority members.
Perhaps the larger point is that neither teachers' unions nor Tea Party have understood how our masters in various levels of government have used mass immigration, AA, and "diversity" to undermine the white American middle class. Nor do they want to understand, because that's a hatefact.
We must also note the absence of cries from the Left accusing the Wisconsin unions of racism because they have so few minority members.
ReplyDeleteThat was the first thing I thought of when I saw you mention the Tea Party; that, and the fact that the media's got to find something else to talk about, since they can't accuse the Tea Party of racism, and they sure as hell can't give them any "credit" for going after a group as white as they are.
To paraphrase The Breakfast Club, I want to be a journalist; I figure, all I need is a lobotomy and a suit.
I was thinking about government employees the other day. I used to think of them as parasites, but that's not accurate, because when you identify a parasite, you simply remove it; try to cut government employees off from their food supply, and their co-parasites will employ their force monopoly against you.
So parasite is out. Then I thought vampire would make a good substitute; if you try to cut a vampire off from its food supply, it will simply force the issue. Perfect, right?
Wrong. Vampires usually understand the concept of apex predator - too many vampires, and the whole thing collapses. As a result, vampires usually don't create more vampires than the herd can support. But even this bit of good sense & realism is beyond government employees, who go nuts when you try to cut back enough to keep the herd alive. Given free rein, government employees will happily consume the herd altogether, and collapse the whole system.
So I'm back to the drawing board - "parasite" and "vampire" are just too kind.
Also, note that the lack of "racism" charges against the Tea Party are yet another example of the racism of the "racism" charge; the only way to evade it is to attack white folks.
ReplyDelete"Anti-racism" is racist to the core.
Dennis, of course only "conservative" or Right-leaning groups have to be diverse. And diverse means what?
ReplyDeleteIf out of 100 people in a conservative group, there are 80 Whites, 10 blacks and 10 Mexicans, it is not diverse.
If out of 100 people in a Liberal/Left-leaning group, there are 80 blacks, 10 Whites and 10 Hispanics, it is diverse.
Diversity has nothing to do with actual numbers. It has to do with the general ideology of the particular group at hand. Everyone reading your blog already knows this, but, I think I put it quite simply here.
The Left would say that the Tea Partiers are racists for wanting to maintain any part of what's left of white America. What they wouldn't say is that (the overwhelming majority of) the unionists are the sort of whites who hate whites, or as they might put it "whiteness", it isn't the color of the skin that defines the demonstrators but their attitude toward white people. In that the Left is being ideologically consistent - they embrace anyone or group who is antagonistic to whites. However, in this case I think their attitude is mostly motivated by pure politics and love of big government.
ReplyDeleteSo what. The teacher's unions are populated by quislings who bought into the cultural marxist meme. They weren't smart enough to figure out that cultural marxism was targeting THEM and their own KIND! So they became the enforcers of cultural marxism. Now the joke is on them! Look into it more, and I'm sure you'll find that white women are overrepresented in the teacher's unions. White women can be some of the biggest traitors. After all, they were those one aborting white babies all along! I say the state has been propping up pampered white princesses too long. Anything that gives white men more power vis-a-vis their women I'm all for - more power to men more white babies.
ReplyDeleteAnd however they might disagree on hot-button issues, the Tea Party and the Wisconsinites are essentially the same people.
ReplyDeleteApart from the minor fact that they have dramatically different views of the world, they're basically the same!
The Wisconsin teachers are hard-core leftists. They're not our allies.
Both Spencer and Steve Sailer have the idea that because unionized government employees are mostly white, we should support them. To which I say so f***ing what? A person can easily be of your own ethnic group and be your mortal enemy; it's the people close to you who have the most opportunity to hurt and betray you, so it's actually quite likely.
ReplyDeleteLet's not pretend it's not ugly. The arrogance and sense of entitlement of the unionized public employees is of Latin American proportions. For the left, the kingdom, the power, and the glory are theirs.
A teacher’s union meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, has the demographics of a screening of The English Patient. And however they might disagree on hot-button issues, the Tea Party and the Wisconsinites are essentially the same people.
ReplyDeleteThat all depends on what you mean by "people" now doesn't it?
Hopefully though, the impatient, English speaking Wisconsinites realize they are us before it is too late for us...
I think Richard Spencer is right on target. These two groups share the same neighborhoods, lifestyles, and are part of the same socioeconomic group (aka the white middle class). The difference being that the private sector tea party members have been subjected to the forces of globalization over the last 20+ years and have seen their standard of living drop due to outsourcing, offshoring, etc. Meanwhile the public sector union workers have been protected from those forces up until now, which is why public sector jobs are now more attractive than private sector jobs with better pay and benefits. The realignment is now taking place. Public sector workers are supported in large part by the tax revenues taken from the private sector workers. The lowering of the living standard of private sector workers invariably means that the public sector standard of living will have to be lowered to reflect the reality on the ground. The elite are probably rubbing their hands together in glee watching these two groups go at each other when they should be joining forces against the elite.
ReplyDeleteAnyone having trouble getting onto Alternativeright? Has the site been 'dissappeared'?
ReplyDeleteSo the real issue here is the betrayal of the people by the elites and their seeking to place into government sundry NAMs and others beholden to them.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, of course, the NAMs will be simply unable to run the government, and it should be possible to cause it to collapse by placing demands on it that the NAM occupants of these favored positions will be unable to handle, and unable to recognize that the intent of these disparate demands is to take down the government.
Long ago the White public sector workers took a silent bargain: support the destruction of your fellow Whites, and in return be protected from globalization.
ReplyDeleteThey delivered on their side of the bargain, especially the teachers.
But they won't get the protection they expected. I don't think that deal was ever made in good faith. In any case, the money is gone.
It's up to them to internalize a lesson from that.
If they won't, and there's no sign that they will, there's no common cause.
- Daybreaker
Something QE-like, e.g. similar to the BAB program, will be put together for states and localities. It'll have IMF-like stringency provisions. But it's inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I'd like to point out to you that you fought each other to make slaves citizens, which is pretty much betraying your progeny with us by giving up a part of their political sway. After that, you actually expect loyalty? And this is just one of the first betrayals. If we are to point fingers, it can go both ways in a brilliant manner.
ReplyDeleteMatt G, the people in the private sector have been hit by globalization because of the parasites that protest in the streets - they're the ones who drive business away.
Dennis, I'm having your cousin Dick, whom you met at a wedding in WI a quarter century or more ago, and his wife as guest from WI for a few days at the moment. Both are teachers, he is a parochial school and she a retired public school teacher. They disagreed with each other and my brother is more conservative, if anything, than I, so you'd think we'd be going at it hammer and tongs. However, Wisconsinites may be crusty and whatever, but they are very civilized. You can bet that the union thugs and goons on TV infesting Madison and hitting Fox News types are bussed in from out-of-state, either Illinois where the egregious scofflaw Senators are holed up, or from the two Left Coast. BTW, one of your CA cousins was here last year and was very nice, except for his ca-raaazy politics, which makes me wonder what's in the water out there. Seems that almost all the extended clans' members from CA are to the left of center, and a few are moonbat whackos...!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as long as the Packers rule, the state will retain its essential equilibrium and my teacher sister-in-law was disedified by the NYC's "rubber rooms," where teachers are paid full wages and accumulate pension money even while refusing to teach---the unions won't allow them to be fired. She WAS open-minded enuf to admit that was outrageously wrong. No rubber rooms in WI...! Not yet anyway...
Ive used the term "Sophisticated Welfare" to describe many government jobs for a while now.
ReplyDeleteIts also a way for the left to practically employ activists who will reliably show up at various protests, and act as missionaries to spread their leftism with the public.
No one has spoken about how these public school teachers have been the shock troops in indoctrinating white children with an anti-white belief system. I wish the governor would out-souce public education to the private sector and screw all these quislings! Public schooling has always been government enforced indoctrination, so why should any of us support it? Dewey and Bismarck cooked it up to get women to compete with men and in general make the populace easier to rule. I hope it collapses across the nation. You also know that the teacher's unions are behind the push for immigration because of student demographics. Shrinking population - less students - less teachers - less democratic party campaign contributions - so lets FLOOD the US with all kinds of third worlders just so white female teachers can keep their cushy jobs! Cue Charlton Heston quote from planet of the apes!
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE WI teachers are "mainly" white, but the minority percentage in the Socialist teachers union far outrepresents minority population in the state.
ReplyDeleteWI is a precursor: the REAL battle is in NY and CA.
Where minority "teachas" ARE THE RULERS.
I'm glad at least someone noted the racial connotations of all this. Obama probably gets a big kick seeing whites shafting other whites, breaking up into antagonistic factions with all this shrill rhetoric being tossed around. It's a white thing, he figures, let them fight while he fiddles.
ReplyDeleteNAMs are a joke. They're no threat at all - this is a group with a low average IQ and low impulse control. The most important ability that NAMs have is that they are equal at the ballot box - everyone's vote counts once. Even when they become the majority they will be too short-sighted and impulsive to actually rule. What they will be able to do is provide the votes for another group to rule in their names. The fact that they are low IQ and inarticulate is actually a bonus.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion? The actual real enemy is the teachers unions, the state workers, the federal workers, national and international corporations that are isolated from competition via regulation, academia, the press, etc. All of those groups use NAMs as puppets.
Happy 1st birthday to Alternative Right. Keep up the good work Richard!
ReplyDeleteNo one has spoken about how these public school teachers have been the shock troops in indoctrinating white children with an anti-white belief system. ... Public schooling has always been government enforced indoctrination, so why should any of us support it?
ReplyDeleteHave you taken a look at the curriculum of the private and Catholic schools lately? You won't find much difference from the public schools in terms of multicult indoctrination. In fact, public school texts are used as models for these other schools. Do you really think you get a different reading in the non-public schools on Martin Luther King and Black History Month, and the suffering of minorities, etc., etc.,?
The typical American parent who sends his kids to private/parochial schools does so only for the sake of better preparation in basic academics, the Three R's. It is not due to any dissatisfaction with cultural indoctrination. He's not even aware of such indoctrination. If he looks at a text book, he might consider some of the stuff in it a bit kooky, but otherwise he couldn't care less. That's why the propaganda succeeds.
You also know that the teacher's unions are behind the push for immigration because of student demographics. Shrinking population - less students
This is so true. I had a friend who taught Mathematics at the University of Minnesota and more than 20 years ago he told me that his classes were filled with Asian students and that he doubted there would even be a Math Department without this population. The die had already been cast that long ago.
We must also note the absence of cries from the Left accusing the Wisconsin unions of racism because they have so few minority members.
ReplyDeleteI think even "the Left" is smart enough to know that Wisconsin is one of the whitest states. In contrast, the Tea Party is a national movement, which leaves it open to such attacks.
Homeschool and be free.
ReplyDelete@Victoria: Your comments about catholic education are spot on. The only mistake you made was in thinking I was in some way "defending" current catholic education as a viable alternative. I wasn't.
ReplyDeleteCatholics foolishly adopted a Bismarckian model for educating their children. Why do I say it was foolish? Bismarck instituted coeducational public school to meld a German people from citizens of distinct German principalities. Dewey took the model and adapted it to meld a homogeneous population of "anti-racist" Americans. "Multiculturalists" if you will. Dewey was obviously foolish and not aware of the inherent intelligence differences between the races, and ignored the effect on students of more intelligent races of trying to educate them in a multi-ethnic environment along with students of less intelligent races. All it does is dumb the bright down. America has been subversive throughout the world in spreading this cult of multiculturalism.
Back to Catholic schooling. Why did I say Catholics were foolish? Bismarck instituted public schools with the intended purpose of WEAKENING institutions competing with the state - particularly religious institutions (the catholic church in Germany was the true target) and the family.
Bismarck knew that public education would be destructive of the family and tradition (and good for a ruler) because it persuaded women to compete with peer group males instead of cooperating with them. The more intelligent a woman, the more likely she would seek to compete in the male sphere instead of procreating.
So now we have a few generations experience with Catholic schooling. Parents who highly invest in their children send them to Catholic schools so that they can compete in the economy and hold onto their catholic faith.
The model of public schools is not Christian, though, because in its very form it does not teach female students to recognize fellow male students as future heads of the family, but as future enemy economic actors who must be competed with and defeated. Then you throw feminist cultural marxism in the mix, and allow fools within the ramparts to mix it with Catholic doctrine, and Catholics wonder why their daughters have left the faith in droves, even after 16 years or more of Catholic education.
Catholic leaders are either stupid and haven't figured this out, or tremble in fear at offending the dwindling numbers of women in the church and continue in perpetuating the melt-down. In any case, like their peers in the public schools they see enrollment down and want the state to import a new group of catholics whose daughters they can screw up.
Anonymous, Catholic leaders don't care because Catholicism right now is de facto a third world religion. So why should they care? Why wouldn't be in the interest of the church to meld all the people that follow it? Or it applies only to Bismark and not to the church?
ReplyDelete@tasty: Catholic pastors have a duty to be shepherds to their flock. That means they should not let alien ideologies infiltrate the church, subvert it and cause the faithful to leave the church. That includes shepherding lapsed catholics in the first world. And, there will always be a faithful remnant even in the first world. Heck, the latin mass is making a comeback in all its fullness and more traditional orders have experienced an increase in vocations! Praise God!
ReplyDeleteAllow me to post the most unpopular, politically incorrect, and most accurate comment yet: All this talk about the dangers of immigration would be moot if women were still getting married and having children. When historians look back at what did Western Civilization in, they'll likely conclude that giving women too much economic and social freedom leads to the death of any society. Giving women economic freedom made many women think of men as being useless and not worth marrying. Giving women too much social freedom allowed them to turn their bodies and sex from something sacred, into a commodity to be sold, bartered and (especially nowadays) given away. Large numbers of promiscuous women are far more dangerous than promiscuous men, because men gauge their behavior on what women demand of them. If too many women are pigs and whores, men will cease seeking committment and jump from woman to woman as they allow. Yes, the unfortunate tragedy that's slowly unfolding before our very eyes is a testament to the fact that women can't be given too much freedom, or a society will wither and die.
ReplyDeletePaul said:
ReplyDeleteYes, the unfortunate tragedy that's slowly unfolding before our very eyes is a testament to the fact that women can't be given too much freedom, or a society will wither and die.
And, one can also make a good case that society and all it contains is the creation of a small fraction of the men in it (probably less than 10%) albeit using the labor of much of the rest.
Women are just free riders.
Paul, it is ridiculous for your blood to have less freedom than men of other groups. Actually, all this talk about feminism would be moot if we'd have no immigration. Sweden with no immigrants would be 99% Swedish or so. ;)
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you on the main point that too much freedom for anyone is bad and this includes men.
I'm with Ms. Glamgirl. I'd much rather limit immigration than women's economic freedom*, and immigration restrictions are more politically acceptable to boot.
ReplyDelete* Lots of useless regs in favor of women's economic "freedom" (forced success) don't count. Title Whatever, AA, EEOC, need to go. On the other hand, I would steadfastly defend, say, female physicians, especially OB-GYNs. It's demanding work and plenty of them do it well.
Paul: Allow me to post the most unpopular, politically incorrect, and most accurate comment yet: All this talk about the dangers of immigration would be moot if women were still getting married and having children.
ReplyDeleteNo, it wouldn't, Paul. The idea that we must import massive numbers of aliens because of currently low fertility rates doesn't bear up under inspection. There's nothing "accurate" about conflating and thereby confusing issues, and in doing so you're aiding and abetting the acceptance of a whole lot of stupid propaganda from the bad guys about economics and population.
Fertility rates go up and fertility rates go down. From where does the myth come that large populations simply cannot survive or recover from a period of demographic overhang ("too many" old:young)? (See Europe, Black Death.) Or that a society, once entered into the generational Ponzi scheme of government-controlled social welfare, can never leave, and either has to die or let in gobs of migrants? Sure, it makes perfect sense, dispassionately examining the economic landscape of the last several decades, to believe that by golly we'd really be in bad shape if we didn't have all those immigrants keeping our fertility rate above replacement level. Whew! Thank God they're hear keeping everything afloat!
While it is true that a point can be reached in a small and shrinking population, with chronically low birth-rates, where finally numbers sufficient to defend one's territory are lacking, that is in no way the reason that our borders go undefended right now. Sorry, but it's sheer hysteria to claim that the recent sub-replacement fertility rate in the U.S. means we're just going to die out. Sans immigration, do you really believe that we'd just keep dwindling away? (Hey, my neighborhood is bursting at the seams with rug rats, and it's pretty much Ground Zero of non-vibrancy.) All said and done we don't have "too few" people - Third World countries have too goddamned many, and it's hardly the case that we're now too demographically enfeebled, in any material sense, to prevent them from visiting their own folly on us.
Cheap labor is in demand even when natives are already doing the work. Restrictive immigration laws weren't enacted in the past because employers told Congress, "Oh, we've got enough workers now, no need to let anybody else in."
If you want to expand on cultural problems and argue that a lack of will to maintain one's territory flows from them, fine. But don't confuse them with demographic patterns that do not in themselves constitute insoluble policy problems, much less societal death. And the curve plotting social decay, self-indulgence, and misuse of freedoms is no more linear than the fertility graph.
...because men gauge their behavior on what women demand of them.
Well that's you're problem right there, waiting around for the girlies to lead you out of Gomorrah. But that's another discussion. (Yes, I understand about females and sexual selection perfectly well, thank you. But your line of argument still boils down to "We're utterly helpless to do anything about our problems until the wimmins take the lead and decide to start behaving themselves!" Women don't lead.)
Actually, all this talk about feminism would be moot if we'd have no immigration.
ReplyDeleteEven without immigration, feminism would be problematic. Feminism is sufficient to cause the collapse of civilization.
The foundation of civilization is defense of agricultural territory of individuals in exchange for those individuals giving up their sovereignty. He submits his will to a “higher power."
In this contract the individual man is put at reproductive risk by the female’s instincts to mate with the strongest male in her environment, and a submissive man—the civilized man—is rejected so she can find the man causing other men to submit. The compromise therefore allowed the creation of a pseudo-natural environment within the family where the man could legally maintain dominance over the women.
If you want to maintain something resembling human beings, and if you want civilization, you have to have patriarchal strictures (ie: “the rule of thumb") that allow husbands to be seen as alpha males by their mates.
"and all it contains is the creation of a small fraction of the men in it (probably less than 10%) albeit using the labor of much of the rest.
ReplyDeleteWomen are just free riders."
Really? Who gave birth to, nursed, protected, died for, all those civilization-building men, while they were still helpless infants?
It was the denigration of motherhood that led women to embrace feminism. Young women thought, if being a "just a mom" is low-status, is not valued as an occupation, makes me a "free rider," okay, I'll go to college and be a doctor.
When you men invent artificial wombs, okay, at that point, maybe, women are free-riders.
Demanding right wing groups take in larger numbers of minorities for diversity's sake is an underhanded way to try to reduce group solidarity and force them to play within the rules that the left wants to box them into. If they start taking on more minorities, those minorities will start making demands of their own, including leadership positions.
ReplyDelete"It was the denigration of motherhood that led women to embrace feminism. Young women thought, if being a "just a mom" is low-status, is not valued as an occupation, makes me a "free rider," okay, I'll go to college and be a doctor."
ReplyDeleteThat's not true, it was the feminists who denigrated motherhood, claiming that men were forcing women to be homemakers and childbearers instead of workers. The more indoctrinated a woman is in feminism, the less likely she is to bear children. Perhaps in part by spraying a virtual can of man repellant all over herself. Which frankly is fine by me, artificial selection against those who are foolish enough to buy into the nonsense.
The west has historically placed a high value on women and motherhood, as evidenced by the writings of the Romans about the Germanic peoples and later, as evidenced by the Catholic church's veneration of Mary.
Samuel, you are wrong. The US government denigrated motherhood and stay at home women to get them to work in factories in WW2. They had propaganda like that men want women who can do more than just cook, like being a welder has anything to do with it. The posters of this crap are online, if you really want to see them.
ReplyDeleteRohan Swee, I love you. Ok, I love your comment, not you. It is dead on, both about demographics and women. Demographics are a problem only insofar as you want to maintain unproductive people like old farts who never had kids home. Let them work until they drop and things will be solved.
Anonymous, Sweden seems to be imploding because of immigration, not because their women are little sluts. Same with America. I never said that feminism isn't a problem though. It's just that it isn't our main problem.