California: Polarization and Proposition 8

Activist Strikes Down Proposition 8

In California, an openly homosexual federal judge has struck down Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act which reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage. This comes in the wake of another federal judge striking down the Defense of Marriage Act last month.

In 2008, Proposition 8 was passed with the support of 52.24% of California voters. Barack Obama carried California with 60.9% of the popular vote to John McCain’s 37.3%.

Obama voters crossed over to support a flagship issue of social conservatism, but rejected the social moderate John McCain. California banned affirmative action over a decade ago.

We’ve seen this happen before.

In 2006, Michigan voters banned affirmative action, 58% to 42%. The Republicans were wiped out that year and lost control of Congress, but affirmative action went down to defeat.

Illegal immigration is another one of these issues. American voters regularly tell pollsters how much they dislike the Republican Party, but most of the same people strongly dislike illegal immigration, affirmative action, and gay marriage.

Judge Bolton gutted Arizona’s SB 1070 in July. There you have another recent example of an activist judge cavalierly tossing out a popular state law.

Combine this with the Justice Department refusing to prosecute the New Black Panthers for anti-White voter intimidation and the Department of Homeland Security looking for ways to pass a “stealth amnesty” without congressional authorization.

If that were not enough, as the cherry on top, build a mosque on Ground Zero as a monument to multiculturalism and political correctness. Crow about your moral superiority over the masses. Create a situation where even the most clueless conservative is frothing with rage at the establishment.

If Americans were convinced they were “losing their country” a year ago, what do you suppose they are thinking now?

If 62% of Americans thought the United States was in decline and 11% had “a lot” or “a great deal” of confidence in Congress before this happened, what do you suppose their reaction will be to this?

The utter contempt of the political class is being shown like never before. The sheer weight of oppression is now so heavy that millions of Americans are finally starting to realize that freedom and self government itself are at stake.

Which is great news.

The natural tendency of all human societies is social inertia. It is only when human societies are confronted with some existential crisis, emergency, or insoluble problem that “auto-pilot” disengages and the people wake up from their long slumber to notice and pay attention to what is going on.

That’s about where we are today. It is analogous to being rudely awakened in the morning, squinting your eyes, and trying to see clearly what is going on.

We’re not on “auto-pilot” anymore.

– 21% of Americans believe the federal government is operating with the consent of the governed, and 68% say no.

– 57% of Americans say the federal government is a “direct and immediate threat” to their own freedom.

The apolitical are becoming politicized.

About Hunter Wallace 9509 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

3 Comments

  1. “In fact, I myself would like more solid logic backing up negative statements about the Jewish group. ”

    There are “pros and cons” for everything. The worst “con” of the dimension that the Internet began taking several years ago when forums and comment sections more or less took the place of more scholarly type text is where you are at by stating the above. Such a situation is akin to when hillbillies describe complicated medical technology. They don’t much know what they are talking about, and generally screw it up. But nevertheless, the medical technology is sound and one can have it better described and a more solid understanding and acceptance will be the result. Likewise, someone who has studied mathematics for many years is apt to simply tell a first year student who asks that the first derivative of x squared is 2x and be done with it. What the long term professional has long since assumed known by his equals, however, will not be so well ingrained and “old hat” to the student.

    Many of us for many years read one detailed and excruciatingly annotated with example paper, article and book after the other that carefully explained and illustrated by name, place and date “The Jewish Question.” And most of the authors and lecturers of these pieces were were not only competent but often extremely erudite. To reinforce what we were reading, hearing and learning we were also able to see actual Jews in action and doing just what we were being told they do during some specific world event or happening being played out. This was just what William Pierce was good for with his weekly American Dissident Voices broadcasts, i.e, spotlighting a specific happening going on at right that time.

    But soon many of us, like the long term math professional I described above, began to assume everybody coming to the movement or at least reading or listening to us was familiar with the ground we were covering and what we had long since took as “old hat” and granted. And we will make a generalization or statement without long explanation or digression into detail, much like the math professional has long since simply wrote or asserted 2x as the first derivative of x squared, and without a long proof and QED.

    But just as there are many good calculus textbooks carefully going over the proofs and equations for derivatives and all, so too is there plenty of information like you seek, Bob. You don’t have to rely on a hillbillie’s description of how his nephew’s open heart surgery went to be able to ascertain whether or not such a procedure actually exists, and neither do you have to rely exclusively on forum board comments to satisfy yourself of the nature of “The Jewish Question.”

  2. Thanks, Brutus. I really see your point. But it doesn’t answer everything. The description “I’m from Missouri, show me” applies to me. And I often don’t see the solid logic yet. And I think there is a lot of tight solid logic out there that is not presented.

    I’ve read much of MacDonald’s books (and a number of his articles and some of his blog posts). But note this. MacDonald has a very powerful caveat, and he repeats it often. He is not talking about all people in the Jewish group. He is only saying that such and such people (and he describes them in his writing) in the Jewish group had signs of strong Jewish identity, and what these particular people did caused a lot of damage to the European derived people. Well, he’s saying something like that. That’s very different than saying the Jewish group as a whole (whatever that means, and what it means is part of the problem) has done lots of damage. By the way, just because MacDonald does not say X, X may still be true ( or it may be false).

    As for Pierce, I’ve basically rejected him, without having read any of his stuff. For some reason I have decided his is the same as the David Duke kind of talk – both of them discover facts and they present these facts in their writing, but what they make of these facts is sloppy.

    Now if someone gives me a specific page of Pierce on the internet, and if they are willing to listen to my comments on that page after I read it, then I guess I could go ahead and read the page and comment on my thoughts on the page.

  3. Brutus, let me clarify one sentence above. I wrote

    [MacDonald] is only saying that such and such people (and he describes them in his writing) in the Jewish group had signs of strong Jewish identity, and what these particular people did caused a lot of damage to the European derived people

    This sentence would be clearer if I had written it as

    MacDonald is only saying that certain individuals and certain individual groups (and he names them in his writing) have 1) strong Jewish identity, and 2) what they did (and that includes what they wrote and the social forces those writings put into effect) caused a lot of damage to the European derived people.

    Note also, this is just one sentence of what I wrote. The problem is, it is very hard to get these ideas into writing. And even if I did, I think the writing would be wasted among … well, quite a few people.

    We still all need to keep working, even though we don’t see each others viewpoints. And in some cases where we are able to advance our understanding of other viewpoints, that can be good. Or maybe it isn’t if we end up wasting time that could have been better spent elsewhere.

    There was a discussion thread where you got involved in an intense discussion with some pro-Christians. Sometimes I view some segments of the pro-Whites as having a thought system that has functional characteristics similar to the thought system of some of the intense fundamentalist Christians. There is some similarity there even though I would have to work pretty hard to say more as to what it was. My father, who grew up in rural America, used to say of the really strong fundamentalists, “it’s just that they’re so screwy.” I don’t want to say anything that strong about any of the pro-White segments, but maybe it’s getting at something. Still, as Heraclitus said around 500BC, we all do our work.

    The trouble is it is extremely hard to put into writing some of these ideas.

Comments are closed.