Washington Down, King Up--GOP Out

Pledging to win a larger share of Hispanic and black votes, The Republican National Committee completed its winter meeting. This fateful decision could mean either the end of class and race political war in the U.S. or the demise of the Republican Party.

The outcome depends on how Republicans approach the task. The GOP can base its appeal to minorities on assimilation to American culture, on the promise of an opportunity society based in low taxes and decreased regulation, on respect for parental authority and a reduction in government intrusion in family affairs, and on respect for individual achievement and self-reliance.

If Hispanics and blacks desire a free and independent life, they will respond positively to the offer.

The alternative approach is to compete with Democrats in offering income support programs and race-based preferences.

The first approach would not only rally the demoralized Republican constituency, but also provide a test whether immigrants are committed to American principles or to income redistribution. The personal income tax burden rests on 32 million taxpayers (primarily white males), who deserve to know whether they have a future different from tax slavery.

The alternative approach--pandering, preferences, and handouts--will destroy the Republican Party.

Many of the Republican Party’s natural constituents are disgusted and alienated by the party’s wobbly principles and refuse to vote. Experts have pointed out that had Bush received 2 or 3 percent more votes from the white population, he would have swamped Al Gore in the electoral college. If Bush competes for minorities on the Democrats’ terms, he will lose more white votes than he will gain minority votes.

Moreover, whatever handouts the Republicans offer, the Democrats will offer more. Two political parties competing to redistribute income and expand minority privileges would spell the swift end of the U.S.

Most immigrants to the U.S. are poor and uneducated. They are tax-users. Sensing the white guilt that weakens resistance to income redistribution, organizations that speak for immigrants lobby for more benefits. Large and concentrated immigrant populations, combined with the emphasis on multiculturalism, make assimilation difficult.

Fearing that a principled approach to minorities will fail, GOP pandering has already begun. Witness President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and to provide food stamps for legal aliens.

Millions of Americans believe that their culture is being overrun from abroad and overturned from within, and that they are forced to pay for their corresponding loss of community and sense of self with their own tax dollars.

Announcing a MLK, Jr., portrait that will hang prominently in the White House, President Bush accepted the replacement of our Founding Fathers with new heroes: “Some figures in history, renowned in their day, grow smaller with the passing of time. The man [MLK, Jr.] from Atlanta, Georgia, only grows larger with the years. America is a better place because he was here, and we will honor his name forever.”

Many Republicans will see in these words the Republican Party’s acquiescence to racial preferences and unequal rights for whites. The war against terrorism and the illusion that the country has pulled together have led Republicans to conclude that they can broaden their political base by betraying the people who vote for them.

Lucky you. Ten years ago you would have been prime time for Desert Storm. But undoubtedly you were in college or doing something more important. Me too. Sorry for being so mean to you, but I really do want to know why you seem to take such glee in seeing the "whites" (that wonderfully crude appellation for us) go down. It's not anything particular you've said; just a recitation of things. For instance, you wonder where the demographic wave will take us. Let me point out that said wave was never supposed to have washed over us in the first place. Why do I say that?

1) Most of the 'immigrants' in So. Cal. are there illegally. Barging into someone else's country illegally is not 'immigration', like the kind your family engaged in. It's invasion.

2) We were told that the 1965 Immigration Act would not impact us this way, explicitly. Except it did.

So what you take nonchalantly as some sort of act of nature, I take as an act of force and also deceit against a formerly free people. Why do I say 'formerly free'? Because if foreign nationals or their offspring who do not share our values can vote in our elections, then they can rule us. In which case, 'WE' ain't free no more. Why should I take that as just a 'demographic' change? It's the extinction of my right as an American not to be ruled by a foreign people (that's why we declared "independence").

There was no particular glee I had in the demographic changes per se, though I guess it could be read as such. When the Indians first came here (the vast majority after the 1965 Immmigration Act) many of them were engineers and scientists. Many of these people felt discrimination at their jobs in terms of promotions (i.e. the dreaded "glass ceiling") Today about a third of the engineers and computer scientists in Fortune 500 corporations are Asains but few go up to CEO level, VP level, or a high executive level. When you have the numbers, like the whites do presently, you pretty much make the rules and everyone has to follow them. If the numbers shift the rules of the game also shift. In Silicon Valley, for example, many Indians run their own businneses. Why? Because they've gotten together with other Indians and set up things the way they wanted. This would'nt have really been possible when we first came as the whites controlled everything. If there are, say, more Asains in Silicon Valley then whites (right now there are not) Asians will tend to run things, take the plumb jobs etc. I saw with my own eyes how many of my people were passed up for white people who I believed were less qualified. Now that we have the numbers, we can be somewhat more independent than we used to be. If the white numbers are less, then their control is correspindingly less. Let us say, also, that whites actually start abandoning California in droves. What will happen to their houses and businesses? They will have to sell them, of course. They will probably sell them cheap. Then we can take over. Remember that the upper-class whites have much more inherited money than people like I have and you can not economically compete with them. If they're gone people like me could potentially become dominant economic forces in California. The concern is what kind of society would develop if the whites left the area. Would it become a disaster area or would American culture survive even if the whites left. I don't know the answer to that. As for the 1965 Immigration Act, you are correct. Ted Kennedy said only 5,000 immigrants per year at most would be let in. Guess he got that wrong!

"The problem is the "seniority" system. Power is put into the hands of a few people who have the ability to be re-elected. The solution? Term limits (I know, I'll put my tin foil hat on)."

"Tin foil hat" my ass. You're right, so don't apologize for it.

Term limits are the ONLY way to take a giant step toward limiting our Federal government. It has gotten way out of control (Understatement of the Week), and incumbents are fed millions by those who seek their favor.........and they keep winning. They get addicted to the power, the "glory", the............................................control.

Now, we even hear people screaming for the Feds to "bail out" all of the investors in and employees of the failed Enron Corporation. There's no such thing as a "tough break" any more that the Fed can't fix. Terrorists attack NY? EVERYBODY gets a fat check..........courtesy of the Fed. A major corporation goes tits-up? EVERYBODY gets a fat check.......................courtesy of the Fed (what, you say? no such thing has happened???.................I say to you.............hide 'n' watch).

No hurts, no ills, no pains, no troubles: Your FED is standing right behind you; robbing from the working (forget that "rich" bromide), giving to the lazy or "unfortunate" (forget that "poor" nonsense).

Our Federal Government represents nothing more than one, giant Income Redistribution Engine. Anyone who thinks otherwise, no matter WHO is in the White House, is on serious drugs.

At least your honest. Allegedly, no one here (I'm in the Silicon Slum as well, but I'm an Aerospace guy) is supposed to be discriminating. You just pointed out that a) you think they are, and b) you plan to do it too, once you're in control. Hah. Like I said, at least you're honest.

As far as the second part...well, it's like this. California is not a separate country, YET (even though it seems like it to us 'whites'). At some point though, the rest of the country may feel that way, and might be disinclined to sacrifice their children and tax dollars to defend it. At that point perhaps CA will sue to secede and be its own country, or perhaps become part of another country (some "Mexican-Americans" believe that this is a wonderful idea, and you can guess which country they would like to tag up with; fun stuff here: Reconquista Now! ).

In any event, the notion of a unified country with a common set of values will cease to exist. Oh, it might still be titularly unified, but that will be a joke. The ethnic differences will be stunning. Will all these nice people get together "for the common defense"? Nah. Look around you. Didja see lines around the block to join the Army on Sept. 12th? But that's what happened on Dec. 8th, 1941. Millions volunteered. It took weeks for the backlogs to be cleared. So we're already there in some ways. Ultimately this will lead to a more vulnerable country. Actually, it already has.

Forty years ago Mohammed Atta and his gang couldn't have walked around loose. People would have been instantaneously suspicious - even here in SJC, at least back then. Cops would have stopped them: whatcha doin here, furriner? But since virtually anyone can walk our streets now, and we are legally enjoined from impeding them based on any criteria at all, we are now vulnerable. The Japanese had to come in aircraft launched from carriers; these days the guys walk right in and set up operations. That's the future!

I don't expect the draft to make a comeback no matter what, for just those reasons. The "American people" may be too ethnically different in 30 years to ever expect that people from Iowa would team up with people from NYC or SFO and go out to fight. The US Armed forces will remain what it has become, a mercenary army controlled by a central government, rather than the citizen armies of the past, which were mainly state militias, activated for federal service in time of war. That is the reason I asked you about the military: to gauge your perceived willingness to identify as a part of a larger whole. Obviously, you don't. You segment the world into competing ethnicities. No surprise there. Everyone does!

Undoubtedly, there are those who will chime in and say, "but its always been this way in the US!". But that was when we had severe pressures to assimilate. With the numbers coming now, and the enormous cultural differences, that pressure has evaporated. And, as you said, no one knows what will happen.

So that’s it. Your side excuses the man on pragmatic grounds; my side condemns him for weakness and divided sympathies. Contrary to your assertions, the matter isn’t settled. I’m not alone, and the paleo-conservatives were not “backwards” obstructionists. A lot of people I have talked to said it was his health, but his doctors claimed he was alert. I think it was both: he was tired, and he didn’t think it was that bad, or could not forsee the perfidy that Stalin would perpetrate (an inexcusable myopia). The bomb may not have been tested at this point, but he knew about it, and its capabilities could have been considered for future necessities. Not just my opinion.

As far as a comparison of RR and FDR, well, here: Another Viewpoint

By the way, as far as Kennedy’s quote about us what believes in this being fringies, well, let me put it this way: I went to John Birch Society meetings with my father in the 1960’s, where they said lots of nasty things about the sympathies of our leaders. Most of which turned out to be true (like, describing Martin Luther King as “not a communist, but pink” in 1965, which was heresy then, but fact now). We were Goldwater Republicans in Arizona (Tucson, in fact) when that definitely wasn’t cool with the libs in the East. Hell, my sister was a Goldwater Girl from Arizona at the ’64 Convention (along with the Hildebeest)! So you can call us card carrying Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Members. So, you bet. I’m a fringy. And the past 50 years of history and the Venona papers proved us right. One more thing. Your handle is LincolnDefender. That’s nice. My Great-Great Grandfather was an abolitionist who left North Carolina in 1852 because of Slavery (and alcohol traffic). His sons – my g-g uncles – were Union soldiers who fought his brothers and their cousins who stayed home and fought in Confederate Regiments. Our family was split because of the War: the Unionists – who were some of the first Republicans (the real ones) went North and West into the Free States, and the other folks stayed in the South or went West into the new Slave States. We have been Republicans for 150 years, and defending Mr. Lincoln is something we do reflexively. That still doesn’t stop me from being skeptical of Lincoln’s tactics with regard to the Copperheads or the question of Secession and its “legality”. As Gale Norton said, maybe the Southerners just picked a bad issue to resolve State’s Rights. I think the topic is quite timely at the moment.

Read this first!

Hi there. Took a break to do some work. So let’s wrap it up: You are of the opinion that FDR was a great guy because he shook a sleeping, isolationist America out of it’s uncaring slumber and got us to be the international savior that we’re supposed to be. Yeah, that’s the dogma I was taught too. Even saw the Capra films where they derided the Lazy Americans for being that way. We all know the conspiracy theories about FDR “letting” Pearl Harbor happen to get things going. Some of the same noise is going around right now about 911. Who knows. Only George. There is truth to that viewpoint. I didn’t dispute that – I disputed other things. Some people would point out that had a lot of things been done, WWII wouldn’t have happened. What ever. It did. At the time, the US had virtually no immigration, its ties to the rest of the world seemed remote, and most WASP’s could care less about the outrages happening to the Jews in Germany. Witness the famous turning away of the St. Louis. I can tell you that my Grandfather had no such illusions about Germany, having been present for the German occupation of the Sudetenland. He was all for war with the Axis, and that’s not the crux of the argument here. The crux again is FDR’s – and the American Left’s – perception of the character of Socialism, and in specific, Internationalist Socialism, allegedly dead by the ice pick to Trotsky’s head. FDR and the Democratic Party in the 1930’s WERE socialists – as they are today! Social Security and a lot of other things were borrowed straight from Norman Thomas’ party platforms, specifically the 1928 platform:

Socialist Party Platform of 1928

Many of these are reality today, and would probably be considered good (I like having weekends off!). But the point is, Communism, Socialism etc were seen as the modern future by many Democrats, who couldn’t bring themselves to go so far as to admit to being Socialists. So they borrowed ideas, and ignored troubling little stories coming out of the USSR about the nature of the regime there. They convinced themselves that some unpleasantness attended all revolutions, and besides, the evil landowners probably deserved it anyway, right? Stalin was really a great guy just trying to build a great country. Occasionally he went a little over the top. So what?

It’s these attitudes that would lead someone to say – in the aftermath of Stalin not upholding his agreements for Eastern European self-determination after the war (“Stalin did not hold free elections in Eastern Europe and the American press turned increasingly hostile to Russia”) that perhaps FDR, Hull and others were credulous when it came to Stalin. Stalin had honored his commitments during the war, but that was pragmatism; he was interested in surviving. After the war he was interested in solidifying his power, and could not be expected to go along with high minded crap like elections in Poland or other places, at least not elections that he couldn’t control.

So we come to Yalta. The standard line is: Roosevelt had to make concessions to secure Soviet participation in the Far East, because who knew what would happen when Japan was invaded? They needed to tie up the Japanese Manchurian forces. Or maybe not – if the bomb worked. But they couldn’t bank on that. So Mr. Roosevelt had some horse trading to do, and these were the horses he sold:

- Russia's demand for $20 billion in reparations from Germany - Poland to the Curzon line - 3 seats in the United Nations - territory in the Far East including Outer Mongolia, south Sakhalin Island, the Kuriles

These were, of course, the ‘secret protocols’ that were referred to as the sell-out. But it all went further, right? Here’s Churchill doing a little world shuffling:

'The moment was apt for business, so I said “Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Rumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions and agents there. Don’t let us get at cross-purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety per cent predominance in Rumania, for us to have ninety per cent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?” While this was being translated I wrote out on a half a sheet of paper: Rumania Russia 50% The others 10% Greece Great Britain 90% Russia 10% (in accord with USA) Yugoslavia 50-50% Hungary 50-50% Bulgaria Russia 75% The others 25% 'I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down, ... After this there was a long silence. The pencilled paper lay in the centre of the table. At length I said, “might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an off-hand manner? Let us burn the paper”. “No, you keep it” said Stalin'.

All of this just to get Stalin into the war with Japan, and the other excuse being that “he had a lot of troops there, so what could we do?” Methinks not. I can see that Churchill was brazenly pragmatic, and probably had no illusions about Stalin. But I think Roosevelt was open to the deals, because, again, he was a socialist himself. The other rationales are just cover. For a different viewpoint on this then your buddy Mr. Drucker, see CAUGHT BETWEEN ROOSEVELT AND STALIN.

The “sell out” is the opinion of many people, not just me. You have many justifications for it, i.e., military reality, the need for Russia in Japan, etc. Well, for the Congress in 1951, that wasn’t good enough: they passed a resolution condemning it (so what, right? Just politics). Articles were written: Human Events, 1950. This points out something even far worse: the fall of China as a result.

These are cataclysms in human history. No one should get a pass on them. What would China have been under the KMT? Look at Taiwan today. Then look at the mainland. And because of a few “realpolitik” considerations? Nah. He just didn’t think it would all be that bad, since he and the people around him were, in many cases, sympathizers. Remember that many Leftists fought in WWII because it was considered a “sacred cause” (like Bill Kunstler, in the Phillipines, or Herbert Marcuse in the OSS). The trial of Alger Hiss, the rise of Joe McCarthy, was related to all of this. I don’t care what you think of McCarthy, I feel that history has vindicated him. There WERE communists in the State and War departments. And they were influential. They were tolerated because of the attitudes of the Democratic party, and FDR.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.