0 comment Saturday, May 10, 2014 | admin
At Free Republic, the FReepers are discussing an AP story about the new chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele.
Which is more discouraging: the fact that the GOP is trying desperately to compete with the Democrats in the diversity sweepstakes, and to out-pander the Dems, or the fact that the FReepers mostly think this is a wonderful step for the GOP, and that Steele is a fine conservative?
Leaving aside Steele's questionable 'conservative' credentials, such as his pro-affirmative action stance, and his softness on the Second Amendment, abortion, and gay 'marriage', I think, despite what the FReepers say, that race does matter here.
The FReepers blithely mention Colin Powell and Condi Rice, as if either of them proved to be conservative exemplars. It seems there are some short attention spans among the Republican diehards; have they forgotten Powell's decision to vote along racial lines in the recent election?
I suppose the fact that some of the FReepers (see post 58) are under the misapprehension that ''MLK was one of us'' tells the tale. Colorblindness, or just plain old blindness?
Race matters for many reasons; for one, in that symbolism is important. I seem to be alone in this opinion, but it subliminally conditions people to see blacks in positions of leadership and prominence; why else are we bombarded with ads and movies featuring blacks and other minorities in the role of the hero or the leader? That kind of conditioning is partly why we now have a black president, and why the Republicans are stampeding to pick leaders ''of color''. In a way, it looks like a childish kind of 'me-too-ism', an effort to keep up with or be one-up on the Democrats. But it is further conditioning us to accept a submissive and subservient role in the society our forefathers made. It further establishes precedents that will be hard to break; if we ever have a White president or RNC chairman again, it will be the cause of no end of lamentations about it being a 'giant step backward.' Once a position is occupied by a black (or a woman) it becomes seen as their territory, their due. This is just a bad precedent for us. From here, this kind of thing will only gain momentum. It looks as though the Republican faithful will be fully on board with the multiculturalizing of the GOP; they will cheer it on, if the FReepers' reactions are any indication.
Just after the fateful election last November, this editorial, 'Memo to the Republican Party' appeared at Occidental Observer:
The message is clear: An unambiguous assertion that the Democrats are the party of the ethnic minorities draws a greater percentage of minority votes.
Of course, the globalists and neocons urge the Republicans to solve their problem by trying to appeal to minorities. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute writes, "If the Republican Party cannot make significant, lasting inroads into � minority voting populations, it has a long-term disaster on its hands."
Apart from the fact that such a strategy amounts to surrender for European America, the problem with this is that it�s really hard to see how the Republicans could have reached out to minorities any more than they did.
[...]
So what more are Republicans supposed to do? The simple fact is that the coalition of minorities in a powerful Democratic Party is their best strategy for achieving their dream of a post-European America, and there is nothing that the Republicans can do to change that.
The only long term choice that makes any sense for the Republicans is to acknowledge that they are a party of European-Americans and that the purpose of their party is to further the interests of European-Americans.
[...]
The Republicans would certainly lose some of their constituencies if they did this. The neocons would be in high dudgeon, although they are nothing if not pragmatic in pursuing their main goal of helping Israel. And the globalists might leave. But neither of these constituencies is numerically significant.
And on the plus side, the new Republican Party would doubtless gain the allegiance of a lot of European-Americans who voted for the Democrats in 2008 while holding their noses.
Of course, the Republicans won�t do this. Not for nothing did Sam Francis call them the Stupid Party.''
And they are stupid in this instance because, as the op-ed writer says, the party will not survive with their current wrong-headed strategy. Why they can't see this is a mystery to me.
Personally, I think they deserve to be extinct as a party because they are no longer conservative; they no longer serve our interests.
Just as R.L. Dabney said so many years ago, as I've quoted him before on this blog
American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.''
Let the GOP, the party of the blind leading the blind, fall into the ditch. Let it be replaced by a party that represents real Americans, and a party which preserves the existing American people. Any party which fails to do that is useless, and worse than useless.
Which is more discouraging: the fact that the GOP is trying desperately to compete with the Democrats in the diversity sweepstakes, and to out-pander the Dems, or the fact that the FReepers mostly think this is a wonderful step for the GOP, and that Steele is a fine conservative?
Leaving aside Steele's questionable 'conservative' credentials, such as his pro-affirmative action stance, and his softness on the Second Amendment, abortion, and gay 'marriage', I think, despite what the FReepers say, that race does matter here.
The FReepers blithely mention Colin Powell and Condi Rice, as if either of them proved to be conservative exemplars. It seems there are some short attention spans among the Republican diehards; have they forgotten Powell's decision to vote along racial lines in the recent election?
I suppose the fact that some of the FReepers (see post 58) are under the misapprehension that ''MLK was one of us'' tells the tale. Colorblindness, or just plain old blindness?
Race matters for many reasons; for one, in that symbolism is important. I seem to be alone in this opinion, but it subliminally conditions people to see blacks in positions of leadership and prominence; why else are we bombarded with ads and movies featuring blacks and other minorities in the role of the hero or the leader? That kind of conditioning is partly why we now have a black president, and why the Republicans are stampeding to pick leaders ''of color''. In a way, it looks like a childish kind of 'me-too-ism', an effort to keep up with or be one-up on the Democrats. But it is further conditioning us to accept a submissive and subservient role in the society our forefathers made. It further establishes precedents that will be hard to break; if we ever have a White president or RNC chairman again, it will be the cause of no end of lamentations about it being a 'giant step backward.' Once a position is occupied by a black (or a woman) it becomes seen as their territory, their due. This is just a bad precedent for us. From here, this kind of thing will only gain momentum. It looks as though the Republican faithful will be fully on board with the multiculturalizing of the GOP; they will cheer it on, if the FReepers' reactions are any indication.
Just after the fateful election last November, this editorial, 'Memo to the Republican Party' appeared at Occidental Observer:
The message is clear: An unambiguous assertion that the Democrats are the party of the ethnic minorities draws a greater percentage of minority votes.
Of course, the globalists and neocons urge the Republicans to solve their problem by trying to appeal to minorities. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute writes, "If the Republican Party cannot make significant, lasting inroads into � minority voting populations, it has a long-term disaster on its hands."
Apart from the fact that such a strategy amounts to surrender for European America, the problem with this is that it�s really hard to see how the Republicans could have reached out to minorities any more than they did.
[...]
So what more are Republicans supposed to do? The simple fact is that the coalition of minorities in a powerful Democratic Party is their best strategy for achieving their dream of a post-European America, and there is nothing that the Republicans can do to change that.
The only long term choice that makes any sense for the Republicans is to acknowledge that they are a party of European-Americans and that the purpose of their party is to further the interests of European-Americans.
[...]
The Republicans would certainly lose some of their constituencies if they did this. The neocons would be in high dudgeon, although they are nothing if not pragmatic in pursuing their main goal of helping Israel. And the globalists might leave. But neither of these constituencies is numerically significant.
And on the plus side, the new Republican Party would doubtless gain the allegiance of a lot of European-Americans who voted for the Democrats in 2008 while holding their noses.
Of course, the Republicans won�t do this. Not for nothing did Sam Francis call them the Stupid Party.''
And they are stupid in this instance because, as the op-ed writer says, the party will not survive with their current wrong-headed strategy. Why they can't see this is a mystery to me.
Personally, I think they deserve to be extinct as a party because they are no longer conservative; they no longer serve our interests.
Just as R.L. Dabney said so many years ago, as I've quoted him before on this blog
American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.''
Let the GOP, the party of the blind leading the blind, fall into the ditch. Let it be replaced by a party that represents real Americans, and a party which preserves the existing American people. Any party which fails to do that is useless, and worse than useless.
Labels: Conservatism, Diversity, Gop, Identity Politics, Multiculturalism, Pandering, Political Correctness, Republicans