0 comment Friday, November 7, 2014 | admin
I don't even know where to begin with this piece.
It makes you feel as though you've gone through the looking-glass. Sure, the PC Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for a while, this playing of the race card, this ''who's the Real Racist'' game. But this is beyond that. Heaven knows the Democrats are low enough, but this bizarre competing as to who is the ''real racist'' or who is the real friend of African-Americans is just childish, and all it does is leave America with two pandering, race-card playing, politically correct parties, instead of one. And one is too many.
The GOP is becoming one huge embarrassing joke.
But there's one bright ray of hope: when this piece was posted at Free Republic, the first couple of comments were negative. Maybe some out there are not hopelessly mired in trying to outdo the Democrats at their own game.
From one of those comments:
''Yet this piece mirrors the Marxists' tactics in attempting to put Southerners, Democrats, especially white people, people of color, and everyone else at odds.
To call this screed historically accurate is beyond a stretch. There are shreds of truth woven in with ridiculous distortions.
Textbooks? Feh!
To blame the 'scientific' view of the relative intelligence and other characteristics of the races on Democrats demonstrates a real lack of knowledge of the development of scientific thought. The writer should obtain a copy of Ackerman's Natural History (1848), written before Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, and get a handle on what everyone learned in Anthropology thought.
Compare and contrast with The Bell Curve and see how that works out.
The bottom line is that the New Left has used historical distortion and identity politics to twist the fabric of American culture over a few decades into the current 'devil take the hindmost' political attitude held by the current party in power in DC.
If Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular cannot get beyond that methodology in order to gain and maintain control of the Federal Leviathan to rein it in and put it on a massive weight loss program, then nothing will really change and this nation will continue down the road to ruin, just driving on the other side of the center line.
5 posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:15:05 AM by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
Maybe there are others who are weary of this schoolyard taunting, this using of the race card by both parties. It's beyond ridiculous, and it's damaging to the country.
It makes you feel as though you've gone through the looking-glass. Sure, the PC Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for a while, this playing of the race card, this ''who's the Real Racist'' game. But this is beyond that. Heaven knows the Democrats are low enough, but this bizarre competing as to who is the ''real racist'' or who is the real friend of African-Americans is just childish, and all it does is leave America with two pandering, race-card playing, politically correct parties, instead of one. And one is too many.
The GOP is becoming one huge embarrassing joke.
But there's one bright ray of hope: when this piece was posted at Free Republic, the first couple of comments were negative. Maybe some out there are not hopelessly mired in trying to outdo the Democrats at their own game.
From one of those comments:
''Yet this piece mirrors the Marxists' tactics in attempting to put Southerners, Democrats, especially white people, people of color, and everyone else at odds.
To call this screed historically accurate is beyond a stretch. There are shreds of truth woven in with ridiculous distortions.
Textbooks? Feh!
To blame the 'scientific' view of the relative intelligence and other characteristics of the races on Democrats demonstrates a real lack of knowledge of the development of scientific thought. The writer should obtain a copy of Ackerman's Natural History (1848), written before Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, and get a handle on what everyone learned in Anthropology thought.
Compare and contrast with The Bell Curve and see how that works out.
The bottom line is that the New Left has used historical distortion and identity politics to twist the fabric of American culture over a few decades into the current 'devil take the hindmost' political attitude held by the current party in power in DC.
If Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular cannot get beyond that methodology in order to gain and maintain control of the Federal Leviathan to rein it in and put it on a massive weight loss program, then nothing will really change and this nation will continue down the road to ruin, just driving on the other side of the center line.
5 posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:15:05 AM by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
Maybe there are others who are weary of this schoolyard taunting, this using of the race card by both parties. It's beyond ridiculous, and it's damaging to the country.
Labels: American History, Gop, Pandering, Party Politics, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race-Baiting, Republicans, Stupid Party
0 comment Wednesday, September 24, 2014 | admin
I feel compelled to address a few of the canards and talking points that the 'colorblind conservatives' return to time and again. One that is frequently heard is that ''Democrat social programs cause all the black social problems. If it weren't for the Democrats/liberals, there would not be so much black crime or illegitimacy.'' Sometimes people elaborate on this one, and claim that black illegitimacy rates were negligible before the social programs of the 60s and onward were introduced. AFDC supposedly caused the number of unmarried mothers to skyrocket, and of course it's implied that were it not for the welfare checks, blacks would be chaste until marriage and monogamous within marriage.
Is there any evidence of that claim? One of the public figures who is most associated with the problem of social pathologies in the ''African-American community'' is Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Although he was a Democrat, he warned of the dangers of family disintegration among blacks. He said:
"The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."
He was quoted here on the subject:
Mr. Moynihan speaks with passion about a poverty that is inextricably tied to "a volcanic change in family structure, for which there is no comparable experience in human history."
The 'respectable Republicans' say that the volcanic change, which led to a rise in illegitimacy and other social problems, was directly caused by Democrat/liberal bleeding-heart policies, like AFDC and other social programs. However, that is simplistic. The changes were already under way before the growth of the welfare state in the 60s and later. Much of the change resulted from earlier upheavals, first, emancipation, and then the uprooting of large numbers of rural blacks who went to large cities, many in the North, to find jobs. Disconnected from family and familiar surroundings, it was easy for many blacks (and poor Whites, for that matter) to break free of old social constraints and conventional morality.
It must be remembered, too, that many of these rural blacks did not hew as closely to conventional morality as did Whites. Illegitimacy rates and marital breakup rates were always higher than those of Whites.
Morality in general began to become more lax, especially during the years of World War II; this frequently happens because of the disruption caused by war, and the greater mobility and social disarray that accompanies it. Whites, too, had higher rates of social problems in the post-war years, though black problems were significantly more common.
This AmRen article from 1991 points this out.
''Black illegitimacy rates have always caught the attention of observers, even when they were forbidden to draw conclusions from them. As far back as 1944, when Gunnar Myrdal wrote An American Dilemma, he was worried about a 16 percent illegitimacy rate among southern blacks, which was then eight times the white rate. Today, nearly two thirds of all black children are born to single mothers (the figure for whites has risen to 15 percent), and if there is a single statistic that sums up the plight of American blacks today, this is it.''
But is that directly attributable to liberalism, as the 'respectable Republicans' insist? To claim such a thing is to deny that blacks bear any responsibility for their actions, or that they are free moral agents, not puppets of a political party -- or of White people in general, as many of the shriller PC Republicans imply.
Black people are not an inert mass who can be led this way and that by others. Yes, they vote consistently Democrat, because Democrats and their big-mommy government offer better pickings than the Republicans, and because the Democrats anti-White rhetoric and policies appeal to blacks and other minorities. To say that blacks are 'slaves on the Democrat plantation' is silliness. If they are being exploited, which is possible, given the corrupt political system we have, they are also doing some exploiting of their own. The Democrats deliver privileges to nonwhites -- as do the Republicans, but the Democrats go all out, and top Republican pandering every time.
Common sense would support the idea that subsidizing anything produces more of it, so that the easy social welfare benefits would provide an incentive for more single motherhood. This bears on the situation with illegal (and legal) immigrants, too. Subsidizing their irresponsible or illegal actions encourages such actions.
The rest of the talking points being disseminated by the PC Republicans involves a distorted picture of the War Between the States and the Reconstruction era. Their simple-minded scenario depicts Southron Whites as being cartoon villains out of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and makes slavery the sole cause of the rift between North and South. This is a caricature of history, and I cannot refute it in detail here; it would require a book. Unfortunately most Northerners and sadly, many Southron people too, have been weaned on such a caricatured, distorted view of the North-South conflict, and so the PC ''conservatives'' find a ready and gullible audience willing to accept their childish and oversimplified account.
The gullible Republican audience believes that the Democrats represented ''racism'' while the noble and selfless Republicans of the War era and afterward were the friends of blacks and heroic supporters of ''equality'' and freedom. So, believing this, they believe that the only reason the old ''solid South'' voted Democrat for so many years is that White Southerners were evil ''racists''. They show no sign of ever having heard of how Radical Republicans ran rampant in the South during Reconstruction, and how these extremists stripped White Southerners of their civil rights and liberties. They know nothing about the depredations against the White Southron population that took place during Reconstruction. And how can they know, since most schools and history books present a politically corrected account of what happened then, of the excesses and outrages of Reconstruction, of which Republicans were the architects, turned White Southerners against the Republican Party for a century or so. This is why some of my older relatives to this day will not vote Republican.
Actually, the Republican Party has been making the claim that the Democrats want to 're-enslave black people' ever since emancipation and the Reconstruction era, as the above document put out by the Union Republican Congressional committee shows. (Click to enlarge the document)
So now there are two parties, made up mostly of White people, each claiming that the other group of Whites consists of a lot of vile racists who want to ''keep blacks down.'' According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the racists, and according to the Republicans, who want to live down their reputation as being a White man's party, the Democrats are ''the real racists''. So we've got twice as many White people affirming that other White people are hateful racists trying to keep the black man down.
What message does this put out? How does this help the country? It does not; it further cements the minorities' stereotype of Whites as bigots and hypocrites. It hampers relations between the races.
However, that last sentence does not indicate that I am one of those colorblind conservatives who thinks that the races would all get along famously if only ''those other racist White guys'' stopped stirring up hate and division. For Democrats to believe such utopian foolishness is predictable; they are not known for being honest or realistic. But for ''conservatives'', who used to pride themselves on common sense and groundedness to believe this is unforgivable. The Republicans are again proving to be the Stupid Party.
As I type this, I can just hear those objecting that ''but the Democrats are far worse; the Republicans at least have some good candidates!" Yes, I agree to some extent. I plan to vote next week, though my faith in the system is weakening by the day, but I will not have an easy time choosing between the evils.
If the Republican Party is to be salvaged -- and that is a huge ''if'', there will need to be a resurgence of common sense and a repudiation of the childish game-playing and name-calling, and above all, a jettisoning of political correctness and pandering. I know; that's a forlorn hope. But PC and all its attendant lies will have to go; the issues that are at the heart of it are the very issues that will be the death of us if we do not deal with them head-on, minus all the finger-pointing and blame-shifting and name-calling, minus the intra-racial hate and divisiveness.
A rejection of liberalism in its Republican guise is one of the most urgent needs if things are ever to turn around.
Is there any evidence of that claim? One of the public figures who is most associated with the problem of social pathologies in the ''African-American community'' is Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Although he was a Democrat, he warned of the dangers of family disintegration among blacks. He said:
"The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."
He was quoted here on the subject:
Mr. Moynihan speaks with passion about a poverty that is inextricably tied to "a volcanic change in family structure, for which there is no comparable experience in human history."
The 'respectable Republicans' say that the volcanic change, which led to a rise in illegitimacy and other social problems, was directly caused by Democrat/liberal bleeding-heart policies, like AFDC and other social programs. However, that is simplistic. The changes were already under way before the growth of the welfare state in the 60s and later. Much of the change resulted from earlier upheavals, first, emancipation, and then the uprooting of large numbers of rural blacks who went to large cities, many in the North, to find jobs. Disconnected from family and familiar surroundings, it was easy for many blacks (and poor Whites, for that matter) to break free of old social constraints and conventional morality.
It must be remembered, too, that many of these rural blacks did not hew as closely to conventional morality as did Whites. Illegitimacy rates and marital breakup rates were always higher than those of Whites.
Morality in general began to become more lax, especially during the years of World War II; this frequently happens because of the disruption caused by war, and the greater mobility and social disarray that accompanies it. Whites, too, had higher rates of social problems in the post-war years, though black problems were significantly more common.
This AmRen article from 1991 points this out.
''Black illegitimacy rates have always caught the attention of observers, even when they were forbidden to draw conclusions from them. As far back as 1944, when Gunnar Myrdal wrote An American Dilemma, he was worried about a 16 percent illegitimacy rate among southern blacks, which was then eight times the white rate. Today, nearly two thirds of all black children are born to single mothers (the figure for whites has risen to 15 percent), and if there is a single statistic that sums up the plight of American blacks today, this is it.''
But is that directly attributable to liberalism, as the 'respectable Republicans' insist? To claim such a thing is to deny that blacks bear any responsibility for their actions, or that they are free moral agents, not puppets of a political party -- or of White people in general, as many of the shriller PC Republicans imply.
Black people are not an inert mass who can be led this way and that by others. Yes, they vote consistently Democrat, because Democrats and their big-mommy government offer better pickings than the Republicans, and because the Democrats anti-White rhetoric and policies appeal to blacks and other minorities. To say that blacks are 'slaves on the Democrat plantation' is silliness. If they are being exploited, which is possible, given the corrupt political system we have, they are also doing some exploiting of their own. The Democrats deliver privileges to nonwhites -- as do the Republicans, but the Democrats go all out, and top Republican pandering every time.
Common sense would support the idea that subsidizing anything produces more of it, so that the easy social welfare benefits would provide an incentive for more single motherhood. This bears on the situation with illegal (and legal) immigrants, too. Subsidizing their irresponsible or illegal actions encourages such actions.
The rest of the talking points being disseminated by the PC Republicans involves a distorted picture of the War Between the States and the Reconstruction era. Their simple-minded scenario depicts Southron Whites as being cartoon villains out of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and makes slavery the sole cause of the rift between North and South. This is a caricature of history, and I cannot refute it in detail here; it would require a book. Unfortunately most Northerners and sadly, many Southron people too, have been weaned on such a caricatured, distorted view of the North-South conflict, and so the PC ''conservatives'' find a ready and gullible audience willing to accept their childish and oversimplified account.
The gullible Republican audience believes that the Democrats represented ''racism'' while the noble and selfless Republicans of the War era and afterward were the friends of blacks and heroic supporters of ''equality'' and freedom. So, believing this, they believe that the only reason the old ''solid South'' voted Democrat for so many years is that White Southerners were evil ''racists''. They show no sign of ever having heard of how Radical Republicans ran rampant in the South during Reconstruction, and how these extremists stripped White Southerners of their civil rights and liberties. They know nothing about the depredations against the White Southron population that took place during Reconstruction. And how can they know, since most schools and history books present a politically corrected account of what happened then, of the excesses and outrages of Reconstruction, of which Republicans were the architects, turned White Southerners against the Republican Party for a century or so. This is why some of my older relatives to this day will not vote Republican.
Actually, the Republican Party has been making the claim that the Democrats want to 're-enslave black people' ever since emancipation and the Reconstruction era, as the above document put out by the Union Republican Congressional committee shows. (Click to enlarge the document)
So now there are two parties, made up mostly of White people, each claiming that the other group of Whites consists of a lot of vile racists who want to ''keep blacks down.'' According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the racists, and according to the Republicans, who want to live down their reputation as being a White man's party, the Democrats are ''the real racists''. So we've got twice as many White people affirming that other White people are hateful racists trying to keep the black man down.
What message does this put out? How does this help the country? It does not; it further cements the minorities' stereotype of Whites as bigots and hypocrites. It hampers relations between the races.
However, that last sentence does not indicate that I am one of those colorblind conservatives who thinks that the races would all get along famously if only ''those other racist White guys'' stopped stirring up hate and division. For Democrats to believe such utopian foolishness is predictable; they are not known for being honest or realistic. But for ''conservatives'', who used to pride themselves on common sense and groundedness to believe this is unforgivable. The Republicans are again proving to be the Stupid Party.
As I type this, I can just hear those objecting that ''but the Democrats are far worse; the Republicans at least have some good candidates!" Yes, I agree to some extent. I plan to vote next week, though my faith in the system is weakening by the day, but I will not have an easy time choosing between the evils.
If the Republican Party is to be salvaged -- and that is a huge ''if'', there will need to be a resurgence of common sense and a repudiation of the childish game-playing and name-calling, and above all, a jettisoning of political correctness and pandering. I know; that's a forlorn hope. But PC and all its attendant lies will have to go; the issues that are at the heart of it are the very issues that will be the death of us if we do not deal with them head-on, minus all the finger-pointing and blame-shifting and name-calling, minus the intra-racial hate and divisiveness.
A rejection of liberalism in its Republican guise is one of the most urgent needs if things are ever to turn around.
Labels: American History, Creeping Liberalism, Cultural Marxism, Divisiveness, Faux Conservatism, North Vs South, Pandering, Political Correctness, Societal Decay
0 comment Monday, May 26, 2014 | admin
I could find surprisingly little about the rally on the blogs I read. Free Republic, predictably, was a cheering section for Beck, 'colorblind conservatism' (did you know MLK was really a Republican, and his 'dream' speech was Republican? I learn something new every day at FR) and all thing PC.
However, Countenance Blog has a piece about the rally.
* Does Glenn Beck not realize that real freedom and Martin Luther King�s vision on that very soil of 47 years ago are diametric opposites? We lost a whole lot of freedom pursuing MLK�s Dream. Ironically, one of the major bloggers associated with this event today advised people to go nowhere near D.C. neighborhoods and public transit stops that are associated with the people who we just had to extend civil rights to in the last generation. Oh yeah, pander to blacks, but just don�t travel anywhere near them.
* Beck implied that MLK/CRM were entirely on the side of the angels, while the opponents were nothing more than moronic knuckle-dragging bigots. I regret to inform you, Mr. Beck, but there was a lot of resistance to the CRM in the 1950s and 60s on the intellectual and cerebral level. As loath as this publication would be to admit it today, half the anti-CRA intellectuals of those years worked for National Review. At least two states in the South declared a certain day on the calendar to be "Race and Reason Day," titled after Carleton Putnam�s book.''
Also, please see Old Atlantic's piece, if you haven't yet read it.
Everytime Diversity is honored at White events its a moment of shame for Whites. This is its meaning even to those who organize it and experience it. The Diversity is not honored for anything other than as a symbol of White Guilt and White Shame. The Diversity Token is not there for themselves, they are therefore to symbolize White Guilt, White Shame and White dispossession.
The Diversity Tokens symbolize that Whites give up their right to be a nation and a people. Diversity Tokens symbolize that Whites give up their own Whiteness as having meaning and identity. Diversity Tokens are a funeral decoration not a life affirming celebration.'' If I understand OA's words correctly, I agree that the presence of 'diversity, especially when it is put front and center, as at these events, seems to symbolize guilt and 'repentance'; yes, we know we are congenitally guilty because of things our forefathers did or did not do, and we renounce our former evil ways. So please, please, don't call us the r-word. As long as we feel the need to act out this apparent 'cleansing' ritual or symbolic confession of guilt, then the idea of 'colorblindness' is nothing but a bitter joke.
Old Atlantic's piece quotes many comments posted on MSM sites. The comments are as vitriolic and ugly as we've grown to expect from leftists. It is still somewhat wryly funny that the name-calling from the usual suspects is not the least bit mitigated by Beck and company pandering themselves silly, and bowing at the diversity altar. When will people learn it does not pay?
However, Countenance Blog has a piece about the rally.
* Does Glenn Beck not realize that real freedom and Martin Luther King�s vision on that very soil of 47 years ago are diametric opposites? We lost a whole lot of freedom pursuing MLK�s Dream. Ironically, one of the major bloggers associated with this event today advised people to go nowhere near D.C. neighborhoods and public transit stops that are associated with the people who we just had to extend civil rights to in the last generation. Oh yeah, pander to blacks, but just don�t travel anywhere near them.
* Beck implied that MLK/CRM were entirely on the side of the angels, while the opponents were nothing more than moronic knuckle-dragging bigots. I regret to inform you, Mr. Beck, but there was a lot of resistance to the CRM in the 1950s and 60s on the intellectual and cerebral level. As loath as this publication would be to admit it today, half the anti-CRA intellectuals of those years worked for National Review. At least two states in the South declared a certain day on the calendar to be "Race and Reason Day," titled after Carleton Putnam�s book.''
Also, please see Old Atlantic's piece, if you haven't yet read it.
Everytime Diversity is honored at White events its a moment of shame for Whites. This is its meaning even to those who organize it and experience it. The Diversity is not honored for anything other than as a symbol of White Guilt and White Shame. The Diversity Token is not there for themselves, they are therefore to symbolize White Guilt, White Shame and White dispossession.
The Diversity Tokens symbolize that Whites give up their right to be a nation and a people. Diversity Tokens symbolize that Whites give up their own Whiteness as having meaning and identity. Diversity Tokens are a funeral decoration not a life affirming celebration.'' If I understand OA's words correctly, I agree that the presence of 'diversity, especially when it is put front and center, as at these events, seems to symbolize guilt and 'repentance'; yes, we know we are congenitally guilty because of things our forefathers did or did not do, and we renounce our former evil ways. So please, please, don't call us the r-word. As long as we feel the need to act out this apparent 'cleansing' ritual or symbolic confession of guilt, then the idea of 'colorblindness' is nothing but a bitter joke.
Old Atlantic's piece quotes many comments posted on MSM sites. The comments are as vitriolic and ugly as we've grown to expect from leftists. It is still somewhat wryly funny that the name-calling from the usual suspects is not the least bit mitigated by Beck and company pandering themselves silly, and bowing at the diversity altar. When will people learn it does not pay?
Labels: Pandering, Pc Conservatives, Political Parties, Respectable Right, White Guilt
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