“Get things started”! The collapse of California is well advanced. It is hard to know what the trade-off would be in California if Bustamante wins. There might be a silver lining if the Mechista Bustamante’s presiding over California’s collapse and mexicanization energizes the non-hispanic electorate to demand change. The other possibility is that the Mechista governor might so energize California’s Mexican population (lack of citizenship - even of legal status - is no barrier to voting, as Loretta Sanchez proves) that the place will be gone for good. HRS

If Guzzardi is not the contender that McClintock is and if McClintock is a committed immigration reformer, then California needs extraordinary support from people at this site and other immigration reform sites. I propose that if my ifs are accurate, then every single reformist get on the ball right at this moment and support McClintock to the extent possible. Do not take counsel from your fears that all is lost, for as long as there is life, there is hope. Washington’s Valley Forge is in the realm of difficult; our chores are, well, quite insignificant relatively. So we could use military-like intelligence to make our decisions. Can anyone add to our intelligence?

Action need not be traveling to California to hoof it for an immigration reform contender. This will be what I will do despite a reasonable but low chance of success. Sending money is another alternative. Writing your federal representatives and asking them to support the contender is another method.

If things seem overwhelming, take one small step at a time. Day 1: determine whether there is a possibility the reform candidate has a chance (which need not be a high probability) of success. For even if you lose this battle, you and your like-minded friends will take notice that you have overcome the major obstacle to political change, inertia; therefore, your friends will be more likely to follow your example. Day 2: look up your representatives’ addresses or telephone numbers. Day 3: have dinner with your neglected wife, husband, or dating partner. Day 4: ask your representatives to speak in favor of reform. Days later: spend effort, spend effort, and spend effort. These are not hard and fast instructions to be slavishly followed. They merely illustrate how accomplishment occurs Avoid following in the footsteps of those that think their efforts have have no chance; those negative prophecies are usually self-fulfilling.

So, realize that you cannot win the ballgame unless you suit up. Of course, pray to Jesus your goal will be fulfilled.

I tend to agree with the idea of bringing on Bustamonte. It has the Leninist appeal of “the worse the better”. But those of us who live in California have to live with the consequences. California is so far gone already that the only thing left is for Bustamonte to hand us over to Mexico. It’s easy enough for others to say that this state should be allowed to sink, and that anyone truly sane should move elsewhere, but having family here (esp. aged parents) makes that a poor option.

Gracián wrote, “California is so far gone already that the only thing left is for Bustamante to hand us over to Mexico.”

How about this: don’t struggle any more against the Dems or the Bushites. Let MECHA take California. It probably won’t hand it back to Mexico, but will likely form it into an independent country, “Aztlan.”

When that happens, construct a fence all along the Aztlan border with the U.S. to prevent the liberal California whites who brought this about from quietly slipping back into the U.S., which is exactly what they will attempt to do on the sly.

They wanted it? Then let them live with it.

I refer to the die-hard white liberal Dem voters like the weirdo Marin County family of “Taliban John” Walker Lindh or the rich Hollywood lefties in Malibu, Brentwood, and elsewhere.

Californians, my heart goes out to you and I wouldn’t presume to tell you how to vote. Allow me to remind everybody else, though, that “As California goes, so goes the nation…”
What we see in California is the future of us all, IF present trends continue.

I asked a well-known writer on immigration about this subject a few weeks ago. He said, “The US government can’t give up California because of the numerous military installations it has there.” He added that what might happen is “California being completely dominated by Mexicans but still being nominally US territory.”

I might add that Mexicans in California are happy to sponge off US taxpayers. Would they still be supported in this fashion if they reverted to Mexico or became Atzlan? GWB (or most any other American politician) might arrange American tax noney to go to Mexico, one supposes.

It’s really irrelevant what country California is officially a part of, if it’s really the Mexicans who are calling the shots - which seems to be the direction things are going.

Which powerful American with the means to single-handedly stop what’s going on stands to gain from the complete Mexicanization of California? Check out the following Steve Sailer piece, which I thought brilliant the minute I read it. It’s appended to the end of a (very good) Howard Sutherland piece entitled, “GOP HISPANO-PANDER FAILING — EXCEPT MAYBE FOR BUSH DYNASTY,” here:

http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/pander_failing.htm

(to read the Sailer addendum, scroll down to where it says, “Steve Sailer adds:”)

Read the piece, those who are wondering what must be going on in W’s brain. It sounds far-fetched, I know … but think about it. Think about Sailer’s concluding paragraph:

“This, then, is the only logical explanation why George W. has spent so much effort on a wedge issue that threatens to split his own party. He thinks the long-run fate of his dynasty demands a new, improved Republican Party – and a new, debased America.”

It’s the best explanation I’ve seen of what must be going on in this president’s mind in regard to excessive Mexican immigration — the best explanation of why he so strongly favors it and repeatedly stands in the way of efforts at reforming it: he sees it and himself as laying the foundation for his family’s future dynasty.

If this is true, he won’t be content with Mexicanizing just California. In a second term, look for him to accelerate the process in as many other states as he possibly can.

He does not see whites supporting his family’s dynastic future. He sees Mexicans doing that.

The Sailer thesis of Bush’s motivations is thought provoking and may have something to it, but is wholly inadequate as a theory. Lots of politicians who do not have half-Mexican nephews support the same policies that Bush supports. To understand America’s rush to suicide, we need to look at the general dynamics of liberalism which dominate our whole society. That is what is sinking us, not the particular motivations of individuals.

Almost all of the men of this generation in leadership positions have this liberal mindset. You can mention Bush, Mueller, Clinton, Cheney, Clark, on and on. The schools that produce those in leadership positions in politics, business, law, and last but not least, the military, develop people with these attitudes. This may be part of James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution. I know academic and managerial types with similar views.

I agree with Mr. Auster. I don’t think GWB supports all out Hispanic immigration because he has half-Mexican relatives. The men I mentioned above do so as well, along with feminism and whatever else becomes trendy.

We have seen for some time that GOP politicians (including so-called conservatives) support affirmative action, feminism, open borders, etc. There is, as of now, no answer to this situation. I don’t have one.

Those who say that President Bush’s behavior is only representative of the general surrender of supine white liberals to any non-white pressure group are right. Nevertheless, with respect to Mexicans one should not dismiss the Sailer Theory, as appended to my VDare article, so readily. Liberal Republicans have long been race panderers, it’s true. Still, GW Bush’s fixation on Mexicans is unusual. The willingness to propose what almost certainly would not succeed legislatively, an illegal alien amnesty for Mexicans only as opposed to one for all invaders, is strange. Keeping that wrong-headed proposal alive even after the September 11th attacks and in the face of well-documented opposition as reflected in polls is strange. His determination to keep mexi-pandering alive even though there is ample evidence of the damage it does to his party is strange. Something more than the reflexive submission of the guilty white liberal to any shrieking minority with a grievance is needed to explain it.

The Sailer Theory focuses on an electoral calculus to enable more Bushes to get elected to national office (the presidency, ideally): following GW comes brother Jeb, who is to be followed by his son George P, who is half-Mexican. There is another aspect, though. My impression is that GW Bush is an emotional man. I suspect he loves his elegant, well-to-do Mexican in-laws dearly, even idealizes them. (If you are unfamiliar with upper class Mexicans, trust me that many are very elegant, articulate and charming people, who speak far better English than GWB.) He doesn’t wish to hurt his in-laws’ feelings and wants the sort of Mexican he and Poppy Bush go hunting with to like him. He is unable or unwilling (probably both) to distinguish between the charming university-educated elite Mexicans he knows and the reality (semi-literate mestizo and Indian peons) of the Mexican invasion of the United States. He really sees nothing wrong with the influx and, based on his social experience of upper class Mexicans, catastrophically misunderstands it. He cannot understand how Mexico’s oligarchs are taking him, and our country, for a ride. It is our collective loss that his obsession with Mexicans leaves him utterly unfit to confront the greatest current threat to the social and cultural cohesion of the United States: our repopulation, on a massive scale, by Mexican peasants who will not stop being Mexicans in order to become Americans.

None of this is to excuse President Bush, only to attempt to understand his bizarre behavior vis-a-vis Mexico and Mexicans. In our day and with the challenges we face (I believe the Mexican challenge is ultimately more dangerous to the United States as a nation than the Arab one), President Bush is incompetent to hold his office. As a number of us have said in assorted threads on this site, no matter who might succeed him, Bush must go. HRS

I’ve been debating immigration on Mark Shea’s blog. Does anyone have statistics on how non-Hispanic immigrants vote? Are second and third genaration Hispanics any more socially conservative than whites?

I sent some information to Mr. Jackson privately, as it would have taken up too much space in this discussion.

Mr. Auster,

Thanks for the information. People had been posting about the large numbers of Hispanics at pro-life demonstrations, their pro-life buddy the Catholic cabby from the Sudan with a large family, etc.

This “conservative Hispanics” argument is one of the biggest traps there are. Conservative groups acquire a few “conservative Hispanics,” and then they don’t want to hear any criticism of immigration at all, because it would mean insulting these wonderful “conservative Hispanics” they have in their midst. The argument used by the “conservative Hispanics” themselves amounts to saying that it’s wrong to criticize Hispanic immigrants, because they’re conservative. What many of the “conservative Hispanics” really believe in is just increasing the numbers of Hispanics in America, including illegals. No one—at least among the mainstream conservatives—ever calls them on this.

Also, it’s another example of the Hegelian mambo. Hispanics (or rather, _some_ Hispanics) show up at a pro-life rally, and American conservatives are so overjoyed at this that they’re virtually ready to throw aside our nation’s sovereignty.

Needless to say, any Hispanics who are real Conservatives are not in support of radical transformation of American through mass immigration.

But the idea that mass Hispanic immigration will help pro-Life activists or that it will make America more Christian is a real argument that needs to be answered. I have not given it much thought, but I do not think that the trends among recent Hispanic immigrants are hopeful. The pro-Life Hispanics bring along with them a number of pro-Choice companions (or companions at least willing to vote Democratic despite the issue).

Besides, we need an answer to modernity and its assorted ills that is something beyond giving up and letting others put up a fight in our place.

There is nothing more contemptible (and false) than the argument, “The immigrants are strengthening [choose one or more of the following] conservatism, Christianity, the Republican party, capitalism, traditional values, family.” This argument assumes that we the American people are no longer able to handle our own problems, and so need endless floods of foreigners to handle them for us—as though immigrants could handle that which we can’t handle ourselves. Anyone who makes such an argument has already given up on America, and shows that he never cared about it in the first place.

Some claimed that the fact that Mexican Americans have twice the rate of out-of-wedlock births as explainable by the alleged fact that they have abortions at a lower rate. I doubt this is true, but I can’t imagine that it explains the fact that the out-of-wedlock rate is twice that of whites.

Believe me, as a resident of Mexico, I can assure you that every social/moral problem you find in the U.S., you can find here in Mexico. Abortion is generally prohibited, but widely practiced (the law is not enforced).
Premarital sex, divorce and single-parent families are on the rise. The “gay-rights movement” is gaining strength. Plus, the existence of a strong secular government tradition has trained Mexicans to resist religious influence on political and social issues. Just recently, some Catholic clergy stepped out of bounds by condemning abortion and gay marriage - in Mexico, clergymen are not supposed to opine on political subjects.

Mr. Sutherland I think explains at least two of Bush’s motivations: he has adopted upper-class Mexican culture and he has a politician who forever keeps his ear to the ground and is betting that his pandering will succeed for him. Mr. Auster provides a third: liberal brainwashing.

So we know there is a long row to hoe, and the best place to start is right at home. Appreciate and foster our own culture.

Another possible means of defense is sponsoring a white immigrant from Europe if the immigrant at least promises to help fight the invasion. Since the benefits for immigrants are already here against our will, use them to fight fire with fire; of course, the benefits should be opposed. (It has always seemed Russians and other slavs would be a good source since they seem to value their culture more than other Europeans.)

Back to the California vote, a poll published in the San Diego Union Tribune puts Schwarzenegger in the lead even if McClintock stays in:

——
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday had 63 percent of probable voters saying they would vote “yes” on the recall question, and 35 percent voting “no.”

Schwarzenegger was the choice of 40 percent, Bustamante 25 percent and Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock 18 percent of those surveyed – suggesting Schwarzenegger could become governor even if Republicans split their vote. If a majority of California voters decide to oust Davis, whichever replacement candidate gets the most votes becomes governor.
——

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/recall/20030928-1309-davisrecall.html

Pace Mr. Murgos: We do not need to import European immigrants to counter Mexican ones. We need to end, nay reverse, the Latin American (and Asian, and African, and Middle Eastern, and Eastern European…) invasion, and let Americans get on with our lives in our own country. The United States is basically full-up at our current population and all net population growth today is attributable to post-1970 immigration. We need to end essentially all immigration for a bare minimum of a decade while actively encouraging repatriation of immigrants who are not assimilating and succeeding here, beginning with deporting all illegal aliens and those legal resident aliens who become public charges. I could go on…

Traditional conservatives, I think, want to preserve the good in their societies. Russians may be admirable; Mexicans are admirable in their way. Nevertheless, I am an American and I want an American America for my family to live in, a country whose people know their country’s history and most of whom have some roots in her. If I wanted a Russian life, I would move to Russia (if the Russians would have me). I have already lived in Mexico. There was much I liked about it. I have also lived in France, England, Canada and Japan. Still, home is America, and I’m selfish enough to want her to feel like my home. She does so a little less every day.

The solution to America’s cultural crisis, if there is one, will be American. No foreign deus-ex-machina will do it for us, and the price of trying that short-cut would be the continued de-Americanizing of the United States. I cannot support that, anymore than I can repeat my stupid 2000 vote for Governor Bush.

One thought about Arnold Schwarzenegger, now it seems that he may be California’s next governor: That would be a disaster for traditional conservatism, and not only because of Schwarzenegger’s well-documented libertinism. Our media and political culture craves evidence of diversity and diversity success stories. Schwarzenegger, even though he is a white man from a nation - Austria - that liberals condemn as congenitally anti-Semitic, is an immigrant. That will be enough to make him a propaganda poster child for the immigration enthusiasts should he be elected, and enough to set off another round of proselytising by The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The Weekly Standard and all the other mouths of neoconservatism (maybe not Commentary this time, given Schwarzenegger’s ethnic taint) for eliminating the constitutional provision making the foreign-born ineligible for the presidency. His would be a Republican victory at a terribly high price for conservatives, and I say that without even considering how likely it is that he will fall on his face in addressing California’s crushing social problems. HRS

I took a look at the blog Mr. Jackson mentioned. Many of the posters use every “huddled cliche” as Mr. Auster would say. They keep babbling, “We must welcome the immigrants. Republicans aren’t welcoming them.” What do they think GWB is doing? Guarding the borders?