Should the GOP have welcomed and embraced Mexicans and Immigrants in California and Texas? A Response to Ron Unz’s Racial Politics in America and in California

http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california

Most Mexicans and Central Americans in the US are not criminals. If anything, it could be that there are problems with excessive organized crime & violence in Mexico because too many people are overly nice and passive. Too many passive Guillermos and not enough Wild Bills to take a stand against the bad guys. So, bad guys run free and kill freely... like in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN where the bandits push around the overly nice villagers, that is until white gringos arrive to protect them.

Still, even if most Mexicans in the US are not criminal and tend to be reasonably law-abiding(perhaps even more than 'white trash' elements), their increasing presence tend toward social mediocrity and cultural lethargy. (Indeed, this seems to be Steve Sailer's main gripe about Too Many Mexicans. They don't turn LA into Detroit but nevertheless turn it into Guillermopolis.) Much of Mexican-areas in the Southwest may be stable, but it's also so humdrum and 'lame'. Is it good to have such a large mass of passive people without agency(except for leaving Mexico to live in the US)? Having lots of Mexican neighbors may be okay -- and not dangerous like having black neighbors -- , but it also means social and economic stasis. Mexicans follow but don't lead. Also, even if these Mexicans don't commit crime, the fact that many of them do depend on government assistance of some kind will have a long-term depressive effect on society. White Flight from black is due to violence and mayhem. Whites generally don't run from browns on those grounds. But when Too Many Browns make for a depressed economy with low wages, many whites will leave just the same. The reason why white share of California population went down was not only because of mass immigration but mass flight to other states. So, obviously, the dramatic increase in Diversity meant something went wrong for many whites. It made them want to move out.

Could the GOP have earned the loyalty of Mexicans if it weren't anti-immigration in California under Pete Wilson? I doubt this. Even if GOP weren't 'anti-Mexican' -- these days, the mere opposition to more immigration is 'xenophobic' and 'racist' -- , the fact is Democrats will always offer more in terms of government benefits and holy victim pokemon points. At most, GOP can offer Mexicans an equal playing field and chance to be good fellow Americans. In contrast, Democrats offer them more government aid, favorable affirmative action, and elevated status as a 'victim group'. (Even though CA got rid of Affirmative Action, it lives on through many 'holistic' methods.) Of course, the majority of Mexicans will take the latter. It's the same thing with Jews. GOP is even more pro-Israel than the Democratic Party. The likes of Bush and McCain were more brazenly servile to Zionism than Clinton was. But the fact is Democratic Party is sufficiently pro-Zionist, and besides, Jewish elites prefer the immigration-diversity policy of the Democrats because it ensures Jewish domination in yrs to come: Turning whites into just another gentile minority is good for Jewish domination, or so the Jews think. Whites won't be able to politically or electorally gang up on Jewish power.

Now, let's suppose GOP could have won over tons of Mexicans by being Mex-friendly. Suppose Pete Wilson kissed brown babies all day long and suppose Texan GOP went full Jeb-Bush and hailed Mexicans and welcomed more brown immigrants. As a result, suppose the majority of Mexicans in Ca and Tx voted GOP, and in time, browns outnumbered whites.
But in the end, for many white American patriots, it's not about the Party but the Nation. What good is the GOP even if it wins elections IF it allows the browning of America? White patriots will take a white Democratic-ruled America over a brown Republican-ruled America. GOP is secondary to white patriotic interests. They support it because they see it as the less of two evils in the demographic transformation of America. If GOP was for mass-immigration and if Democrats were for preserving the racial composition of White America, most white patriots will go with Democrats. In the end, political parties are means to an end, not the end. It's like blacks went from voting Republican to voting Democratic because the latter offered them more stuff in programs and holy victim points.

Now, what is wrong with Ca and Tx turning majority brown IF most browns are nice-okay people? If the only priorities that mattered are social stability and economics, the browning of America might be tolerable. After all, large numbers of Mexicans may lead to some economic stagnation but nothing like the degradation in black areas of Baltimore or the jungles of Detroit. But white patriots have a historical and cultural view of what America is. It's not just about crime rates or economics. After all, Asians commit less crime than whites. So, if a white community were to become 60% Asian, it might have even lower crime. If the only thing that matters is crime rates, that would be ideal. But white patriots have a sense of connection to the land and its history. Now, amnesiac whites probably don't care. White Liberals and whites of Conservative Inc. don't have much in the way of memory and bond. But white patriots do have a sense of historical America, and they want to preserve it. And in a way, it is history that gives meaning to a people. History makes a person see a particular land in a special way. Surely, an American Indian looks upon the hills of South Dakota differently than a recent Chinese or Hindu immigrant does. The immigrant will look at the scenery and say, 'very nice'. But he has no sense of historical connection or claim to the land. But to the American Indian, there is more to the land than the land itself. It's a sense that this was the land of his ancestors who hunted, fought, died, and were buried. And surely a black in the South, if he has a sense of roots, has a different feeling about the land than a recent immigrant from Guatemala does. To the Guatemalan, some town in Georgia is just an economic zone to find a job. But to the Negro, it is the land where his folks were once slaves and picked cotton and sang coded songs that might have meant, "I'm gonna get even with whitey one day and whup his ass and hump his daughter." So, a Negro in the South feels a special attachment to the land. Or, take Jews and Israel/Palestine. Why did they feel this powerful need to choose THAT part of the world to create or recreate their homeland? Why not some piece of Africa or Siberia or North America? It was due to a deep historical sense that it was on that land that the founding stock of Jews received blessing from the Lord. Then, why wouldn't white patriots feel the same way about American history and territory? America wouldn't exist if not for white adventure, white conquest, white conception, and white creativity. Now, amnesiac whites don't care about the past. They just think of the here-and-now. And white PC-types see the past as one of 'guilt' and 'shame', so whites must welcome racial demise for atonement. But white patriots feel that white folks created something unique and great in the New World, and they should remain the dominant people on the land. This side of white patriotism cannot be appreciated with mere numbers on crime and wages.

Also, the danger of immigrants leading to Democratic domination has something to do with Jewish Power that has grown demented over the yrs. While non-whites supply the votes for the Democratic Party, they don't command the heights. They supply the coal for the ship's engine, but they don't get to steer the ship. Jews control the Democratic Party, and so, when Democrats win, Jews get to decide and steer the future of America. Indeed, I would be less worried IF the Democratic Party were controlled by Mexicans like Guillermo. He seems like a nice guy and have no agenda beyond saying, "hello Jimmy" and getting chubby on tacos. I wouldn't mind if Guillermo were governor, senator, or president. Or the head of Harvard or Yale. But the fact is Mexicans supply the votes but don't control the commanding heights. They supply the feet but not the brains of the Democratic Party. And even Mexican and non-white politicians who do get elected just become puppets of Jewish globalists. Look at the Ocasio character from NY. As a street activist, she used to be pro-Palestinian. But headed to DC, she is suddenly with the Zionists. Look at Elizabeth Warren, the pseudo-Indian. She is just a squaw whore when it comes to Jewish Power. And Negro Obama was supposed to be a socialist who cared about Main Street. As president, he did little but bail out Wall Street, push Homo-Worship, and wage more Wars for Israel.
Now, if Jewish Power was only moderately liberal, it'd be no big deal. But it's gone crazy. It's pushing Homo-Worship as replacement for Christianity. It is promoting all kinds of degeneracy. In the foreign policy field, it's more Cold War with Russia and more neo-liberal or neocon wars or subversion. I don't think most Mexicans are that crazy. But when they vote Democratic, they are not really voting for Mexican power. They are voting for Jewish power that is hellbent on pushing 'hate speech' laws, taking away guns, spreading anti-white hatred, and waging more Wars for Israel. As for Asians, they do better than Mexicans in climbing the ladder, but what do successful Asians in the Democratic Party do? They are like Sarah Jeong who serves as whore to Zion. And that Yuree Koh bitch at the Wall Street Journal who helped to shut down Alt Right Youtube channels like the Killstream. We have all this talk of the New People, but we don't see anything like the New Elite. Indeed, would Jews support mass-immigration IF they regarded yellows and browns are real threats to their hold on Elite Power? No, they just see browns as easy votes and yellows as easy toadies. There is no Elite Equality in the US. Now, suppose anti-Israeli Arab immigrants have higher IQ than Jews and, as immigrants, are poised to reach the top and take over elite power from Jews. Would Jews push for mass-immigration? I think not.

Anyway, even if most Mexicans don't commit lots of crime in California, they(and Asians) did totally change historic California. If one is amnesiac or purely materialistic, I suppose it doesn't really matter. (Indeed, it seems the problem with white Californians is they went from GRAPES OF WRATH mode to 'Good Vibrations' mode. Too much affluence and leisure robbed them of their worker-warrior spirit.) But if one has a sense of history, it is a great loss.
The same applies to the Palestinians. Under Jewish-Zionist rule, many Arabs have done pretty well in Israel. They are materially better off living with Jews than they would be otherwise under Arab rule. After all, Israel is a first world nation, and even Arabs have lots of opportunities there that Arabs in Arab-ruled nations don't have. So, if materialism and individual well-being are all that counts, many Palestinians(those allowed to stay in Israel) certainly benefited from the rise of the Jewish State. But if they have a sense of history, they feel the tragedy of how Palestine was wiped off the map and many of their brethren were expelled from the land. Palestinian individualist-materialists are happy to live in modern and prosperous Israel. But Palestinian patriots with a sense of history feel the pain over the fact that their homeland was taken by another people and that many of their brethren live under occupation in West Bank.