> > Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

> > Kevin MacDonald

> > My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> > glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> > very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> > they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> > around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> > doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

> > The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> > the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> > year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of
> > course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> > classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> > identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> > Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> > didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical
> > component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> > by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> > Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> > partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> > electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> > Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.

> > Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama–80% on average. Asians have
> > become like Jews in their voting—focused not on their economic
> > position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> > Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> > Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).

> > Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> > voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> > youngest age category (18–29 years)–those most influenced by Sumner
> > Redstone’s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> > pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> > audiences–voted Republican (51% to 41%).

> > So the Republican Party is the White people’s party. The media is
> > screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> > competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> > is very unlikely to work.

> > It’s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> > majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> > party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> > base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> > article (“California’s Greek Tragedy“), two Stanford professors,
> > Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that

> > from the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10
> > million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> > paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> > swelled by 115,000. … With 12% of America’s population, California has
> > one third of the nation’s welfare recipients. (see here)

> > And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> > majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> > as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> > Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> > light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> > will look like soon.

> > So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> > agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> > taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> > even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> > would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> > research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> > goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It’s going to make for a
> > very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.

> > And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> > and Asians—they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> > party of non-White America independent of social class.

> > White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> > continue to decline. It’s no accident that stocks of gun companies
> > soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> > took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> > traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> > White’ category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> > disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> > population. That’s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> > these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> > campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> > elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> > because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> > continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.

> > This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> > this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> > But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> > deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> > O’Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> > secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> > futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> > other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> > history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.