The final death of the Right

The leftists are on the verge of winning an inevitable final victory. Yet most people on the right are clueless that this is even happening.

It seemed like Reagan turned things around and won a huge victory against the Left. During his eight years in office, the tax code was reformed, we won the Cold War, everyone preached the virtues of free market economics. So what happened?

During this time of apparent victory against the Left, the Left was taking over behind the scenes. With its power over Hollywood, the universities, and even the primary and secondary schools, they were able to wage a successful war against non-leftist values. Homosexuality became glorified, the magic word of “racism” became even a more powerful weapon of the left, the idea of Global Warming (which is fake) was promoted until it became the predominant thought and anyone who speaks the truth to it is shouted down as someone who denies science.

Leftist thought has seeped into the minds of Republicans. John McCain says we must fight global warming, and give amnesty to illegal aliens. Bush says we must educate all minorities so they are as smart as white people—exactly what the left has been promoting since the 1950s.

Republicans applaud themselves for doing stuff that the left has been pushing for. We nominated a woman for Vice President. How wonderful of us. The female candidate talks about how she’s going to help “special needs” children, and the so-called conservatives applaud the conservatism of it. How wonderful of us. We are going to fight global warming. How wonderful of us.

But, of course, the Republicans who adopt leftist views get absolutely no respect from leftists, only more hatred. The MSM has now been calling McCain’s campaign racist. I guess he’s racist because he dares to run against a black man. How dare he think that he’s entitled to be President when a more deserving black man is running?

The MSM is in love with Obama in the sort of way that bimbo groupies throw themselves at rock stars. Every policy he proposes as President will be glowingly endorsed by the MSM. The few Republicans who dare to challenge him will be branded racist as well as other words like “bitter” and “angry.” If only they could see the Truth of the Lightworker.

What will Obama do with his power when he obtains it? The obvious answer is citizenship for all aliens, legal and illegal, instantly creating millions of new voters the majority of whom will vote Democratic. Laws will be passed making it easier for the poor and stupid to vote. Open borders to more immigration. Anyone who speaks out against this policy will be shouted down as racist. Traditional Republicans will never be able to win another election. The Republican party will become a minority party, primarily promoting laws against abortion put powerless to actually deliver any such laws.

And no one on the Right sees that this is happening.

* * *

The inspiration for this post is Patrik's comment.

* * *

Read my followup post: Sarah Palin is stupid.

Comments

[Jim Johnson]

Jesus, you're ridiculous.

[anonymous_coward]

You overstate things. If the Big O were to go that far, there would be backlash. At best he can enact moderate leftist change, and thankfully the economy, which is responsible for his eventual victory, will also tie his hands in regards to massive budgeting. This election is a setback but not a permanent defeat.

[Joshua Holmes]

Final victories are heavily overstated in politics. The Republicans fucked up absolutely everything they touched, and they're going to take a severe beating for it at the polls. If Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress are equally lousy, they'll get theirs in 6-8 years. Heck, Clinton got whamboozled 2 years into his presidency.

This isn't the triumph of leftism, just the triumph of the guys who aren't the current crop of fuck-ups.

[Insoluble Fact]

Don't worry, HS. I liked your article, but I'm sure plenty of people on the right are aware of what's going on. VDare, Lawrence Auster, etc. Midterm elections typically swing back against President. So look to 2010 and 2014 and feel hope. (Also look to 2012 if the scandals break as big as I expect them to.)

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"(Also look to 2012 if the scandals break as big as I expect them to.)"

Expect epic corruption scandals if Obama is foolhardy enough to promote lots of blacks into the upper levels of his administration.

I'm hoping Obama brings total chaos to the country so can finally have a reactionary backlash.

[David Alexander]

"Bush says we must educate all minorities so they are as smart as white people"

One could argue that you've found one of the possible underlying theories of liberalism that reeks of a left-wing white nationalism. The theory that with enough work, white people can turn non-whites into white people just like them. The flip side of such a theory is that the white people who reject liberalism are stupid and failed, hence the possible contempt of working class whites according to various right-wing commenters.

[DAJ]

Half Sigma,

With all due respect, I think that your paranoid view is akin to blacks claiming that a Republican victory in a presidential election will lead to the re-institution of slavery.

[Mysterious enigma]

"Laws will be passed making it easier for the poor and stupid to vote."

This is extremely important. The last liberal Democrat President with a strong majority in Congress was Lyndon Johnson, and he passed his Voting Rights Act (with Republican support).

A new Voting Rights Act with Australia-style mandatory voting (or perhaps an incentive for voting, e.g. $100) could deliver massive increases in vote totals for Democrats. Remember the very low voting rates of Latino citizens: with mandatory voting repeated amnesties and high Mexican immigration would become even more attractive to Democratic elites.

[Smotzer]

How about if you kick out the far-right, anti-science, pro-life, pro-death, pro-war, homophobic evangelicals out of my fiscal conservative Republican party, and I'll come back to it. This platform party is not what I became a Republican for, and until they change, I won't be back.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"One could argue that you've found one of the possible underlying theories of liberalism that reeks of a left-wing white nationalism. The theory that with enough work, white people can turn non-whites into white people just like them."

That's a very good point.

I've always wondered if there is a relationship between modern leftist racial dogma and 19th Century "White Man's Burden" "civilize the savage" propaganda.

[APH]

"How about if you kick out the far-right, anti-science, pro-life, pro-death, pro-war, homophobic evangelicals out of my fiscal conservative Republican party, and I'll come back to it."

Smotzer: I'm with you on most of the above...The problem is that if you look to the left, a vocal and sizable element are just as obnoxious.

I believe a viable third party is bound to take shape in the next 5 years. It will probably have to be funded on the back of some multi-billionaire since the Dems and Republicans won't voluntarily make it easy...

[DAJ]

What happened after the Clinton presidency? A Republican came into office. What followed the Carter presidency? The Reagan administration took over the Executive Branch. Who became president after LBJ? Richard Nixon. In short, a Democratic victory is not the death knell of the Republican Party.

[Lane Honda]

Yeah, lighten up. After a few years of tax and spend, the people will be ready for tax cuts and spend again.

[sabril]

The future of America is white, hard-core religious people. Amish people; Orthodox Jews; Fundamentalist Christians, etc. Look at the numbers and do the math. These groups are doubling in numbers every 10 to 15 years.

If things keep going the way they are going, I expect the percentage of Americans which is white will bottom out at around 30-35% and then start rising rapidly.

Secular white liberals will fade into obscurity.

Watch what happens in Israel over the next 20 or 30 years. America is going the same way absent some huge change in technology.

Just my humble opinion.

[DiverCity]

HS, you're spot on. Those who question your thesis are utterly deluded. A confluence of events is occurring that will change this once great and free country forever -- all of the things you mention coupled with the socialist responses of the USG to the financial crisis have put us on a path to the apocalypse. I intend to investigate the viability of seccession for the South and Midwest. If unsuccessful, I'm headed elsewhere.

[Patrik]

Although your post is more eloquent, I made that exact point in a comment earlier around 3 pm today. When can I expect my royalty check?

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/10/gaia-worship-in-the-ny-times.html#comment-136743333

[Richard H]

For you people predicting a backlash,

How long can we count on that with the left having brainswashed the youth and the Hispanic birthrate at 3 per women? The silent majority is becoming a lot more silent and a lot less of a majority.

[ResidentCynic]

Sounds like someone needs to get laid. :)

[CC01]

Half Sigma,

get a hold of yourself. Ten more years of genetic and genomic research will spell the end of the left FOREVER! The most important thing we can do for the next 4-8 years is defend free speech, and push for more genetic and genomic research. That's it.

The leftest establishment realizes this too. Obama and fellow Marxist-Liberals will be 100 times more dangerous to scientific progress than any evangelical could ever be. This is where people like you come in Half Sigma. How strongly do you feel about what you preach? Are you going to be willing to "go to war" when the great "War Against Hate Speech" begins in America? Or will you quietly tone your blog down to talking about on-line dating and calling white people "White trash?"

Ten years Half Sigma, that's what we need, and the religion of Political Correctness will go the way of Zoroastrianism and dancing around to make the clouds rain. But it will be a battle, and lawyers will be main combatants.

[gordon-bennett]

What you posit HAS happened in Zimbabwe and IS happening in South Africa. Two disasters from black rule with too few whites to turn it round.

However, there are enough whites in the USA to correct the downward slide as soon as it becomes apparent.

[Turambar]

These Rage Against the Allowance kids can wallow in their self-indulgent leftist advocacy because there were no consequences. If and when it's the Big O and the Dems who are the establishment then the error of their ways will be manifest to them.

Just as Clinton lost the Democrats congress for the first time since WWII, and there may not have been 12 years of GOP in the Presidency without Jimmy Carter, a Democrat win just means a chance for them to indulge their noisome base.

Their Final Victory will lead to yet another defeat.

[nobody]

Conservatives should call liberals' bluff. For example, democrats are in favor of giving free money (stimulus package) to return for votes, the republican should simply double whatever offer the other side is making. If $600 is good, $1200 is better. Vote Republican because it is the party that cares. Democrats are holding back your free money with their so called fiscal restrain. The national debt is already in the trillions, a few more billions won't make any difference. Put the left's solution to test and see what happens. Force the democrats to make the tough choices and explain to the American people why their solution didn't work as expected. There is no better way to discredit an ideology than to have the people actually experience it first hand.

[Vim]

Both the right and the left have quite a few nonsensical beliefs that one has to put up with. For my own reasons, I also find it annoying how liberals fetishize 'diversity' and the nature worship. They overshoot but at least they understand 1. that non-white, non-protestant people are part of society too 2. that it's necessary to put some work toward maintaining our natural systems. Like most academics, I see those priorities as self-evident, probably for reasons inherent to academia.

My problem with the Republicans lately is that while the Democrats are in general constrained to a few areas of human interaction, the Republican front of nonsense keeps expanding. Global warming, stem cells, Evolution ... all these things have no business being voted on. We might as well vote on whether one plus one equals two. Bush turned almost any debate no matter what into a war on the accuracy of experts. It was sad. It was crazy. It was self-destructive. The war on Iraq would have gone so much better if he hadn't designated the truth an enemy combatant at the outset.

For better on worse, Obama is apparently obsessed with experts and always gets the foremost experts he can find on whatever topic he is interested in. This is the sort of obsession that lead to him taking 300 advisors on his trip to Europe. Whether this works any better we'll all have to see but personally I am tired of this war on the intellectual the right has been waging ... Palin, Joe the Plumber etc. There might be morons on the left but at least for the most part they defer to experts. (Although, I still find Hillary's 'elite opinion' comments disturbing.)

And no, having a high IQ is not the same as being truly intellectual, it's just the first precondition.

[Vim]

nobody:

"The national debt is already in the trillions"

Why won't conservatives admit that they had more than a little to do with this has happening? Bush is a conservative. You know how I know? Because conservatives voted for him TWICE! He's the one between what was going on under Clinton and now. I thought Republicans believed in taking responsibility .... This is the reason the damn party is falling apart. It's falling apart under the disingenuity. The truth is not the enemy!

Stop ranting about the damn 'liberals'! What exactly have the liberals done in the last 8 years that suggests they had more effect over the direction of the country than Bush and the overwhelming conservative led government?

This! This is exactly why the party is falling apart because when faced with a simple issue of truth like 'what could I have done differently?', The current conservative zeitgeist is to blame others. This seems to be all that's left. You watch Fox or listen to conservative talk radio and all you see and hear are rants about who to hate.

[Independent Accountant]

HS:
I've been saying the Republicans are on a suicide course for decades. The notion that Hispanics will become "good" Republicans and fill the social security trust fund's coffers with FICA taxes is something only a fool could believe. Apparently, that's what we have in the White House. With two Ivy League degrees to boot.

[Asher]

Two words: rightwing socialism.

Other than that, we're screwed.

[zuwr]

Patrik writes: "Lastly, the amount of money that these neo-socialists stand to make via green-washing and government subsidies is mindblowing. "

I believe anyone can buy carbon credits if you want to speculate in government subsidies. They will become much more valuable if a carbon cap is imposed.

[c23]

Yup. That's the way it always is. The right moves left and the left moves left. This becomes very clear if you take the long view. If you look at the left and right today compared to the left and right 100 years ago, the most right-wing moderns who are considered acceptable for public consumption would have been considered quite liberal then.

Fast forward not-too-many years, and you'll see that the right will have positions similar to those of Barack Obama today, while the center-left will be radical by today's standards. Today's right will be as dead as the Taft wing of the Republican Party is now. Rinse, lather, repeat, until the whole thing falls apart.

The process happens slowly during periods of conservative ascendancy, and seismically during liberal periods (like the 1930s and 1960s). It looks like another seismic shift is starting about now.

[Urt]

c23 has the only sensible response I've read in this thread. In the long term the center has always shifted leftwards. You can look as far back as the Enlightenment to see this trend. In my opinion, Progressivism (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek) is inherent within Christianity. Therefore, Progressivism cannot be excised from a Judeo-Christian society (Judaism is a huge disaster of a religion).

Ironically, I see only two possible alternatives. One is Islam, which is incredibly Progressive resistant - see: Dar Al Harb and Dar Al Islam, the closure of the Gates of Itjihad, etc. Unfortunately it is also incredibly technologically resistant as well - Muslims are barbarians. The other alternative is Mencius Moldbug's formalism - running a country like a for-profit corporation. The downside of that is it's never been tested except partially in city states like Singapore and Dubai.

It's all theoretical, anyway, because we're going to have communism on our soil within the next couple of years. And I think a global nuclear war within 5.

[The Griffyn]

"Laws will be passed making it easier for the poor and stupid to vote."

If you don't believe it should be easy for everyone to vote, do you believe in democracy?

One way for Republicans to avoid the charge of "racism" would be to not be so racist.

Half Sigma, it sorta seems like you're admitting that it's GOP policy to keep minorities and the poor from being able to exercise their right to vote.

Half Sigma, if the United States had policies that discouraged your people (Jews) from voting, would this be OK with you? How much discouragement would be OK?

[Maniac]

Wow, the sheer venom of this post; then, when you start getting bigoted comments, you're going to fake apologize. Seriously, you must live in your apartment whenever you don't work; I never see this kind of paranoia among New Yorkers.

[tommy]

Two words: white separatism.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

For you people predicting a backlash,

"How long can we count on that with the left having brainswashed the youth and the Hispanic birthrate at 3 per women? The silent majority is becoming a lot more silent and a lot less of a majority.

Posted by: Richard H | October 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM"

The left was eventually going to elect a nonwhite Mugabe or Hugo Chavez to the presidency anyway, considering the demographic changes in the Democrat party.

If we are going to have to fight this battle against a nonwhite racial partisan, I would rather have the political fight begin in 2009 when whites are still over 60% of the population and could effect dramatic change if they wanted to do so.

Much better to have society turn to shit now than postpone the inevitable until our demographic profile is even worse than it is today.

[JewishAtheist]

You guys are hilarious. Obama's going to be a better version of Clinton -- smart, pragmatic, and no sex in the oval office. We're looking at eight years of a responsible executive. Balanced budgets, sane foreign policy, etc.

As for amnesty, it's going to happen eventually regardless of who's in power. It's simply the only feasible option.

Also, you guys missed the memo on racism. The Republican line is supposed to be that you oppose ILLEGAL immigration because it's illegal, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that most of those immigrants are Latino. You can't explicitly argue that you don't want them because they are Latino AND complain when people call you racist. It just doesn't work.

It's like saying, a woman should not be president or vice-president! And don't call me a sexist!

[Ned]

HS, I mostly agree with your points, but I am reminded of Martin Luther's comment that bad Christians were the worst enemies of Christianity, not popes or Moslems. The Republican party has been the worst enemy of the conservative movement. It started with Bush I, who broke his promise not to raise taxes and thereby cost himself reelection. The Republican Congress that took over in 1995 was pretty good as long as Clinton was president, but when Bush II got in, things really went to hell. Bush II has been a complete disaster for conservatism - except for his tax cuts and judicial appointments, everything he has done has been against the core principles of conservatism. No wonder the Republicans are in such bad shape. They deserve it.

[Read the Paper]

Vim,
Your posts are nonsense. Anybody who thinks or argues that Bush is a "conservative" or has governed as one is an idiot or being disingenuous.

[Marc]

The future of America is white, hard-core religious people. Amish people; Orthodox Jews; Fundamentalist Christians, etc. Look at the numbers and do the math. These groups are doubling in numbers every 10 to 15 years.

Fundamentalist Christians are the only one of those groups with significant numbers, and neither their birth nor retention rates are high enough to "retake" American demographically in the near future.

On the other hand, if current growth rates hold, there will be 200 million Amish people in America in 200 years. Course that's a huge "if."

[Sgt. Joe Friday]

JA -

Obama as Clinton II? More likely Hugo Chavez, only dressed better and with manners.

And amnesty is not the only feasible option to the illegal immigration problem. Leaving it as is an option, as is stepped up enforcement and encouraging illegals to go home.

As for your point on racism, I will admit that I think large scale Latino immigration is a bad idea. And it's not because I'm ignorant or a racist - I was married to a Central American woman for 8 years and have spent considerable time in Mexico, Central and South America. I think allowing large numbers from these countries is a bad idea because I know them so well. These countries are screwed up places because of their cultures; why would we want to import that?

But back to Obama. Even if he wants to be a responsible, fiscally sober president, he's going to have a very liberal congress sending him very liberal legislation. I don't think he intends to spend his presidency acting a goaltender, vetoing Democrat legislation. He'll sign the bills, and hope that the ill effects from them don't start to be felt until after 2012.

[Vim]

Bush is a member of the conservative movement. As I said, its hard to claim a guy is not on your side when you vote for him twice. Also hard to claim a guy isn't a member of your movement when he's been leading it. Finally, hard to claim a guy isn't a member of your movement when you march in lockstep behind him for the greater part of 8 years.

[syn]

The author appears to be someone who watches way too much TV.

Read a little about Margaret Thatcher my friend, this will help you to understand why your premise is wrong.

[syn]

Vim

Bush is a JFK liberal who had to run in a Centrist "Big Government" America in order to win.

I would offer that the problem isn't Conservatism, the problem is Centrism.

[jim]

Big group of us laughing at you.

[See you at the Gulch]

Who is John Galt?

[Stephanie]

Whoo-hoo! Let's revoke voting rights for all poor people! Oh, and they have to pass an IQ test too (and you can write the questions!)

You're batshit crazy.

[Ryan Kendall]

I fail to see how homosexuality has been glorified in our cutlure. I am a conservative man, but also a gay man, and let me tell you, there is no glory in being gay.

[ME]

Simplistic, fatalist nonsense. With all the advantages of the media, academia, etc. the left-wing candidate who will signal the final death of conservatism is running on a middle-class tax cut, and moderating his speech wherever possible, including downplaying his connections to radicals, proclaiming his support for capitalism and the free market (however disingenuously).

And the election isn't even over yet. I hope McCain wins, if only to shatter these false, depressive angst-filled pre-mortems of liberty. Even if he doesn't, Obama will either wisely tread carefully towards his determined ends or face the same kind of backlash the GOP has this year.

The thing about America is that we value freedom more than any other nation. The social liberals depend on that notion, as much as they twist it. The economic liberals ignore it at their political peril.

[James]

"Stop ranting about the damn 'liberals'! What exactly have the liberals done in the last 8 years that suggests they had more effect over the direction of the country than Bush and the overwhelming conservative led government?"

Bush is a liberal. The GOP is not led by conservatives, but by liberals. John McCain, for instance.

This is as opposed to the Dems, who are led by socialists. Political discussion in America would be greatly improved if people would learn the correct meanings of words.

[James]

"My problem with the Republicans lately is that while the Democrats are in general constrained to a few areas of human interaction, the Republican front of nonsense keeps expanding. Global warming, stem cells, Evolution"

It's the Democrats who think these things should be voted on. And that vast sums of money should be spent on them.

[Sgt. Joe Friday]

Vim - You're confusing the Republican party with conservatism. Bush is not a right wing kook, in fact except for the fact that he pays lip service to the anti-abortion crowd he probably would be somewhere between LBJ and JFK on the ideological spectrum.

And Stephanie, while I agree that taking away voting rights from any citizen is not going to pass muster, I do think we put way too much emphasis on "turning out the vote." I actually don't want uninformed people voting, do you?

[James]

"In my opinion, Progressivism (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek)"

Progressivism does not love anyone or turn any cheeks. Progressivism is the direct heir of the totalitarian movements of the 1930's. It seeks complete power for the so-called "experts" in government, with the promise of Utopia in exchange.

As anyone with eyes can see, Progressivism is violently hostile to the Christian faith. After all, it's a competitor for peoples souls.

[James]

"I fail to see how homosexuality has been glorified in our cutlure."

Then you don't watch TV or the movies.

[Glenn]

Don’t count on a backlash accomplishing anything. We had the Regan revolution and the backlash against Clinton but were we able to get rid of Jimmy Carter’s liberal concoctions like the Department of Education or the Department of Energy? No we were not; instead we put our liberals in charge and continue on the road to serfdom.

Liberal institutions are nearly impossible to dislodge and liberal judges will be pushing us even farther left and letting criminals lose to kill our children for many generations.

To minimize the effect of an Obama, Reid, Pelosi government is an act of pure delusional rationalization.

Thomas Jefferson famously said “It is easier to stay out than to get out” but conservatives don’t seem to believe that. They think it will be easier to get out of liberalism someday in the future when the right candidate comes along. Riiiight…someday our messiah will come and deliver us the way Obama appeared for the liberals. He will convince people that it is wrong for the Government to pay for their health care and poor people everywhere will burn their welfare checks in the streets...

[as]

HalfSigma: "The MSM has now been calling McCain’s campaign racist. I guess he’s racist because he dares to run against a black man. How dare he think that he’s entitled to be President when a more deserving black man is running?"

The same logic applies to the issue of voter intimidation. It seems any effort to ensure that only people who can legally vote are registered to vote is voter intimidation. Remember the outcry from the left that ensued when various states passed a law saying you needed a driver's license or some form of secure id in order to register to vote?

On SNL, they made a joke about how the McCain campaign was going to "robocall" blacks to say that the election had been cancelled.

And here's Acorn:

"Acorn’s ad, which the group says will air on national cable television, features an image of a black man morphing from a child to an adult on the screen as a narrator says: “It happened to him in 1960, in 1965 and again in 2000. He was intimidated so he wouldn’t vote. This year, they’re at it again.”"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/acorn-accuses-republicans-of-voter-supression-in-new-ad/

[James]

"You guys are hilarious. Obama's going to be a better version of Clinton -- smart, pragmatic, and no sex in the oval office. We're looking at eight years of a responsible executive. Balanced budgets, sane foreign policy, etc."

Obama is an unabashed Marxist, one who will have an unabashedly left-wing Congress. Neither of those conditions applied to Clinton.

And Obama is as smart as a box of rocks.

Lastly, there is no such thing as an atheist Jew.

[bill]

SHHHHhhh. Save it till after the election Bub.

[Vim]

Sgt. Joe Friday:

"I do think we put way too much emphasis on "turning out the vote." I actually don't want uninformed people voting, do you?"

There is so much to object to here.

1. There is some discussion in economics that voters who are not informed have no reason to vote one way or the other and therefore vote randomly. Because they vote randomly, their votes don't matter over the long run as they are likely to vote in equal numbers for both parties. I suspect you will say that these 'uninformed voters' are easily swayed. However, you can't sway them without giving them information and thus they cease to be 'uninformed voters'.

2. Everybody is uninformed about most issues relative to at least one person; and everybody is uninformed about some issue relative to most people.

3. In part, the point of voting is not to figure out what is best for the country, it is to discern the will of the people and for their representatives to gain the people's consent. It seems that democracy is good at figuring out what is good for the country but that's beside the point. This is the difference between democracy and other methods of government which actually explicitly aim to determine what is best for the country regardless of the will of the people.

4. The wisdom of crowds: a low level of information generally can lead to an intelligent outcome in aggregate.

5. At the very least, each individual voter is highly informed on a topic which no remote bureaucrat can discern, which is their own aspirations and desires.

[ME]

Smpotzer writes:

"How about if you kick out the far-right, anti-science, pro-life, pro-death, pro-war, homophobic evangelicals out of my fiscal conservative Republican party, and I'll come back to it. This platform party is not what I became a Republican for, and until they change, I won't be back."

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Because, frankly, with "analysis" this intellectually dishonest, I suspect you won't be back unless Barack Obama makes a sudden and startling conversion to the GOP (which would be the logical end to his campaign if his run for the center were credible).

But let's have a quick, glib look ourselves at the "charges"

- "far-right": Apparently massive government bailouts and increases in entitlement and education spending is "far right". Who knew?
- "anti-science": Let's see, this probably included opposition to embryonic stem cell research, which has been a scientific dead-end so far, but which the GOP candidate for POTUS supports. Maybe he means evolution, which even the evangelical VP candidate has no opposition to being taught in classrooms, despite demagogues like Hitchens suggesting otherwise.
- "pro-life": Being pro-life is bad? Oh, waitaminute, I forgot that in the age of Obama, supporting protections of any kind for unborn, living human beings is cruel and unprogressive, even if they're actually born as part of a botched abortion.
- "pro-death": Geez Louise, make up your mind. I guess you just want pro-sorta life/death. This I suspect refers to the death penalty, which many Democrats also support. I don't BTW and I'm a Republican.
- "pro-war": I expect you'll have words with Obama when he launches his strikes deep into Pakistan for OBL, or that you opposed Clinton's Bosnia adventure (It was the right thing to do, IMHO). I don't know any conservatives or Republicans who are as pro-war as the old Progressives (Check out Jonah Goldberg's book on that count) and while Obama's playing the anti-war crowd, he's simultaneously backing a Kenyan political leader (and blood relation) who has been accused of facilitating genocide against Christians. Nice.
- "homophobic": Please. Opposition to redefining marraige is not the same as "homophobia" unless you're in the branch of politics that considers any political opposition to a particular policiy as a personal attack. In that case, Barack Obama, who opposes gay marriage, would be homophobic too. Sarah Palin on the other hand has supported civil unions and similar protections.
- "evangelicals": Bigot.
- "out of my fiscal conservative Republican party": That's the funniest line in the whole bit. Fiscally conservative after all this, and yet McCain is the only presidential candidate (well, aside from Barr) promising to cut spending.

Your view just don't add up.

[JGJ]

Progressivism = Liberal Fascism.

Read the book.

"love thy neighbor by stepping on his cheek, picking his pocket and then locking him up if he peeps up about it."

[Translator]

"far-right" = anyone I disagree with

"anti-science" = not atheist

"pro-life" = anti-infanticide

"pro-death" = poop-poo heads

"pro-war" = non isolationist

"homophobic" = against judicial dictatorship

"evangelicals" = Christian or Jew

Go vote Democrat.

[sestamibi]

Smotzer--

There is plenty of anti-science sentiment on the Left as well, as evidenced by the hysterical reaction to former Harvard president Larry Summers' suggestion that there MIGHT be innate differences in men and women.

The Left will fight to death any research into genetic/biological foundations of inequality and differences in ability. If this were found to be true, it would undermine their entire agenda of spending trillions of dollars in the name of "equality".

[slwerner]

Mysterious enigma - "Remember the very low voting rates of Latino citizens: with mandatory voting repeated amnesties and high Mexican immigration would become even more attractive to Democratic elites."

Although my suggestion has been previously discounted on this forum, I still get the sense that the best way to break the coming Democratic/liberal/media stranglehold is to break the Latino’s away from the Democratic Party and into La Raza. If compulsory or monetarily encourage voting were to come about, and amnesty/citizenship giving to millions of Latino’s, they would represent the second largest voting block in the country.

I see several reasons why a GOP strategy of encouraging Latino’s to join La Raza would stand a good chance of success.

Like blacks, Latino’s are highly racially aware (although they are not considered to be their own race, many, if not most, consider themselves just that – hence “La Raza”). And, being segregated by language, they are even more likely to band together if they could for see a potential for political power (political power being equated with economic power throughout the “latin” world).

Like blacks, they collectively tend to feel that they have been oppressed and denied opportunities by whites. And, they too wish to achieve “parity” with whites at all levels. And, many would like to go much further and simply take over possession of everything of value. The The MEChA slogan is, after all, "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" (Everything for the Race - Nothing oustside the Race).

Unlike whites, Latino’s feel no shame in being overtly racist. They have no collective guilt over long-past slavery and segregation.

And, a significant segment of Latino’s believe that the American southwest was stolen from Mexico, and many of those would like to see the formation of Aztlan, either as a separate nation or as a satellite of Mexico (see the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MECha) El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán).

[as an aside, while it’s too late to pull it off now, I do believe that had the GOP recruited Latino operatives within the Spanish-speaking press, and gotten them to press the Obama campaign as to Obama’s plans to negotiate the return of Aztlan, his campaign’s answers (or lack thereof) would have either alienated Hispanics or the undecided voters]

Latino’s tend to be more willing to work than do African-Americans, a significant number of whom have come to adopt the attitude that America should be taking care of them (as opposed to the reverse).

With the election of Obama to be president just days away now, and with the Congress going even deeper Democratic, now is the time to start sewing the seeds of discontent amongst Latino’s. There will be limited “spoils” to be had from Obama’s presidency. Blacks, of course, believe they are in line to get the lion’s share. So, it should be easy enough to highlight the disparity between what blacks receive relative to what Latino’s receive.

Next, spread the idea that now that the left has gotten a black man into the presidency, that they don’t feel they need to also push for a Latino one. Actually, it’s probably already the case, anyway. Give Latino’s the idea that since blacks had to endure 400 years of slavery, another century of segregation, and another 40+ years thereafter before they got to see a black president; that Latino’s will have to be long-patient and endure years of neglect before they are as equally as deserving of having one of their own in power.

Given their predilections towards believing that other (English-speaking) American’s are aligned against them, it should be hard to convince a great many that La Raza would be a much better vehicle for their aspirations than is the Democratic Party.

Now, I expect that such an idea will get me “flamed” (do today’s blog posters still use that term?) for dishonest and disingenuous tactics, but, let me point out that such a approach is little different than have been the left’s efforts to split the GOP into fiscal vs social conservatives and evangelicals vs level-head Republicans. The efforts of the NYT to use McCain to divide the party standing as just one of many examples.

[Bryan]

"Laws will be passed making it easier for the poor and stupid to vote."

Well, at least you can claim that the Obama administration did something on your behalf!

But seriously. The charge against the Democratic ascendancy to which you give the most weight is that Obama would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Yet that's one issue where the difference between McCain's position and Obama's is minimal.

You also seem unduly concerned for the fate of the GOP, given that (as your masthead suggests) you aren't a member. And while I'm on that subject, in what world is support of "common sense" compatible with climate change denial? The one where Jesus preached to the multitudes while riding athwart a dinosaur?

[Sgt. Joe Friday]

Vim - "...you can't sway them without giving them information and thus they cease to be 'uninformed voters'." This is exactly what I'm talking about - I don't consider people who believe what an authoritive sounding voice on the radio or TV tells them to be well-informed. They're just gullible morons who lack the ability to think critically.

Look, let me give you an example. I did not vote for the community college board of trustees this time around, because I felt I did not know enough about any of the candidates. But by your standard, if an ad had run in the local paper accusing one of them of, let's say, not supporting a bond issue, then I should believe that information, true or not, and act on it.

An "informed" voter takes the time to do at least a modicum of research on the candidates and issues before voting. If they can't be bothered, then they should decline to participate.

[Mysterious enigma]

Vim,

The 'miracle of aggregation' doesn't work because voters are not just uninformed, they are biased, and systematically so.

Google Bryan Caplan's 'Myth of the Rational Voter' or his papers. Then follow the citations for the raw data from decades of opinion research.

Jewish Atheist,

You're being disingenuous. Sure the line about opposition to illegal immigration solely because it's illegal is weak, but that's not what people here are concerned about. You know the score on the assimilation of Mexican unskilled immigrants in the U.S: after three generations the grand children of Mexican immigrants on average still have abysmal educational performance, crime, etc, unlike historical European or Asian immigrant populations. A policy that only accepted highly skilled or high-IQ immigrants from Latin America would work fine, but repeated amnesties and chain migration could make America's demographics more closely resemble Venezuela's or Brazil's in a few decades, with all the inequality, low levels of education, high levels of religiosity, lack of personal liberty, etc.

Why not argue for massive increases in skilled immigration without amnesties for the illegal? Asian-Americans vote Democratic as well, and you could add a hundred million Asian college graduates to the U.S. with very positive rather than negative effects on economic prosperity, inequality, average voter quality, etc. They would also dilute white Christian dominance, ensuring that no anti-Semitic white nationalism would gain power, but would increase average world well-being (not just because the Asians would be able to make better use of American opportunities and pay taxes to improve the well-being of the American poor, but also because of an economy and scientific system that would produce more technology and other such benefits).

[James]

"They would also dilute white Christian dominance, ensuring that no anti-Semitic white nationalism would gain power"

The amusing thing about this is that the dreaded Christianists are the most pro-Jewish bloc in the country. I do love the glib assumption that Asians will be well disposed to Jews though.

And "Jewish Atheist" is a a proud racist bigot.

[tomv]

JA:

Also, you guys missed the memo on racism. The Republican line is supposed to be that you oppose ILLEGAL immigration because it's illegal, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that most of those immigrants are Latino. You can't explicitly argue that you don't want them because they are Latino AND complain when people call you racist. It just doesn't work.

Who's "you" here? The official Republican line, as you've correctly stated, has nothing to do with race, and yet Republicans who adopt that line are routinely accused of racism or xenophobia (which has been used and understood almost synonymously). And keep in mind that even this benign, PC line is deemed far too wicked by the moment's chief bigot: John McCain.

As for those who openly oppose immigration on IQ grounds like Half Sigma and Steve Sailer, I doubt that "racism" charges bother them much. They are only annoyed that the Republicans get so labelled without living *up* to it.

It's your own logic, JA, that doesn't work. (Not to mention reading comprehension and sense of irony.)

[Vim]

Sgt. Joe Friday:

I think you didn't get my point about voting being:

1. getting the consent of the governed

2. discerning the will of the people

If I understand the thinking behind democracy correctly, getting the 'right answer' is a secondary concern if it really is a concern at all.

[Vim]

tomv:

"Half Sigma and Steve Sailer, I doubt that "racism" charges bother them much."

They would have a dramatically smaller readership without the racism.

"The official Republican line, as you've correctly stated, has nothing to do with race"

I think it would be hard to be Hispanic citizen and not get the feeling that you and your culture aren't welcome. Hispanics are responding to the threat and other people are feeling protective of them because they also perceive it as an implied threat. The Republicans have done a bad job of just focusing on illegals and their illegality and on the usual channels of tackling crime. They have strayed into anti-Spanish laws, multilingual education, racial profiling etc etc

These laws not only make life harder for illegal Hispanic immigrants but the people who are most like them, hispanic citizens.

As with many issues, they turned it into a cuture war 'real America' vs. hispanics with majority white groups literally picking up their guns and going down to the border to hunt around for hispanics. Are hispanic citizens morons? What extra hints do they need?

[Jack]

I'm actually ok with an IQ test for voting. Stephanie might not pass, though.

[Marc]

"I fail to see how homosexuality has been glorified in our cutlure. I am a conservative man, but also a gay man, and let me tell you, there is no glory in being gay."

Bah! Being gay kicks ass. You don't have to deal with women. EVER. ;)

More seriously, homosexuality isn't being glorified. It's just being treated as equal to heterosexuality. Which it isn't for reproductive purposes, but is in the sense that homosexual people have the same capacity to realize love through gay relationships as straight people have to realize love through straight relationships. And since people these days seem to care far more about having a culture that stresses individual liberty and the pursuit of happines than they do about ensuring the birthrate stays high, what else can you expect?

[Sgt. Joe Friday]

Vim -

1. If you chose not to vote, you haven't given anything up. Waiving your right to vote is a form of consent too.

2. We do not have a "democracy," we have a representative republic, although the proposition system here in California makes our state closer to "democracy" than most. Even Democrat officeholders don't like the idea of direct political power being in the hands of the people - it keeps them from using their office to acquire power and dispense goodies to favored constituents.

3. "...it would be hard to be Hispanic citizen and not get the feeling that you and your culture aren't welcome." This may actually be a valid point, although I can't understand why anyone might think this is surprising. You can't import a foreign population into an area (in my case, southern California), create huge pockets of poverty and gang banging where no English is spoken, displace long-time residents (many of them African American, BTW), all within a period that is historically nothing more than the blink of an eye and expect that there won't be friction and resentments.

(And spare me the "California used to belong to Mexico" business. Mexico exercised jurisdiction over this area for only about 30 years after their independence, and there were at most a few thousand Californios in the entire territory. It's a little too late for anyone to start arguing adverse possession, since compensation was offered and accepted and the statute of limitations is way done.)

[moto]

Bush governed unconservatively because the whole whole conservative approach is merely theoretical. For the last 20 years we have built our country on borrowed money and outlandish risk taking despite center right governance. Righties just prefer to redistribute the wealth in the upward direction. A true conservative approach won't see the light of day in American realpolitik. The people (even - especially - so-called conservatives) won't stand for it. It's academic.

[sestamibi]

slwerner--

I'm not going to flame you for what you wrote (of which I mostly agree), but goddamn it, STOP USING APOSTROPHES IN PLURALS!!!!!

[Optimist]

Half-Sigma:

I typically don’t agree with you, but thank you for a very important post.

We have to admit that the left is winning the culture wars in America. They haven’t completely won yet, but they are winning, and Obamas victor is a manifestation of this. The cumulative effect have been devastating. 4 key institutions/ groups were subverted: The Media and the Universities by the 60s, and more lately the primary education system and the economic elites (professional types, those who read The Economist and view themselves as world citizens).

Essentially they have managed to erode the unique American ethos. This happens largely through two effects:
Cultural change. Using their key institutions the left are constantly bombarding the public, and stealth subverting the culture.

Demographic change seldom seen in history: Non-hispanic whites were 88.4% of the population in 1940, are 65% today, and will be a minority by 2042.

This development seems to be a historical inevitability. The west uniformly has moved to the left. Not through full fledged socialism, that battle against they lost. But a welfare-state, death of Christianity, death of western values, with multiculturalism as the highest moral code, and a postmodern leftist world view (for what it matters I am an ateist, and I don't particularly care if McCain loses, what worries me is this election reflection of underlying trends).

It happened in Western Europe, Canada, New Zeeland. Last countries in to fall were Swizerland, Australia and the U.K. You may think the U.K was saved by Margaret Thacher, but that was only temporary retreat for the left. They won, not in the form of government ownership, but gradually through multiculturalism, open borders, a loss of the British identity, self-hatred rather than pride for their culture.
(The once free Swiss economy is now 45% public. They have joined the U.N, although they have been better at keeping their cultural conservative).

America alone has stood out. Conservatism reorganize itself, and for a time, 1980-2000, managed to fight back the initial assault by reaching the silent majority.
Bush accelerated the process, through his inept policies, by wasting a massive amount of ideological capital on the Iraq war, and through his horrible cultural cues that made the educated Americans identify with the left.

It wasn’t 100% Bushes fault. He was fighting the entire elite, and had a constant bias against him, with every mistake exaggerated and the occasional good policies (harsh measures against terrorism, successful cuts in capital taxes, the surge) thrown out with the bad. He was blamed for spending when the Democrats in congress consistently proposed even larger deficits. He was blamed for Katrina, that wasn’t his fault. But a lot of it WAS his fault, and he accelerated the process.

Now conservatives have to realize some truths:

• The majority of Americans are brainwashed by the media in the cult of multiculturalism, believe that the US has invisible racism, and that white people are morally inferior to others.

• McCain has been blamed for not using the Wright issue, but while Wright’s association with Obama seems a legitimate issue to most readers of this blog, the majority of the public would side with Obama.

• The majority would ultimately side with the media and condemn as reprehensible if a politician suggested that low skill immigration be cut. That would be “hateful”.

• Most Americans don’t mind a welfare state (not necessarily the results, but the promises).

• A lot of people see that Michele Obama is anti-American, that Obama is a cultural ultra-liberal, that he wants unrestricted abortions and open borders, that he rejects patriotism as lowbrow, that McCain stands for Country First and Obama for group grievances. They are just not especially bothered by this, as the American majorety would have been 20 years ago.

• Many (although not most, not yet) Americans don’t care, even if they were to find out, that Obama was pretty close friends with Ayers, and think Ayers is an OK guy .

• Educated Americans, those who give money and organize campaigns, increasingly vote based on their cultural identification with liberals, and not their and their countries economic self interest.

While the short term trends (such as Bush incompetence) can be fought, the long term trends go against you year after year. While in the 60s a small minority got brainwashed in college to hate conservatism, today 30-40% go to college (not graduate, but that doesn’t matter here) learn to hate Republicans as the party of “hate”, learn that American is a bad country with a bad culture, learn that John Stewart is cool and Lou Dobbs evil, that people who go to church or join the military are stupid.

I don’t think the battle is lost yet. Democrats can do a lot of damage, but they might not dare impose amnesty, the only question that could quickly reorganize Republicans. There are a few good trends, such as the increasing advances in human science. Maybe the right can reorganize. But if the trend continues this way America will become a fractured, leftist nation in a few decades.

[Optimist]

Vim
“I think it would be hard to be Hispanic citizen and not get the feeling that you and your culture aren't welcome.”

If you are Hispanic, You are more than welcome, but your culture f*cking isn’t. This is America, if you want to live here adapt to American culture. National Culture is non-divisible. Since when do immigrants have the right move for a better life for themselves to another country, and instead of gratefulness feel they have the right to impose their culture on the rest?

Also, let me be extra honest. If Hispanic culture was superior to Anglo culture poor unskilled Hispanics wouldn’t be forced to moving here, would they? By moving to America and free-riding on the accomplishments of American civilizations Hispanics are acknowledging which culture is superior.

[Richard H]

"More seriously, homosexuality isn't being glorified. It's just being treated as equal to heterosexuality. Which it isn't for reproductive purposes, but is in the sense that homosexual people have the same capacity to realize love through gay relationships as straight people have to realize love through straight relationships. "

That makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. Most homos are screwed up.

[Asher]

Quite trashing the homos. It's probably a group fitness benefit in that it reduces in-group male sexual competition for females.

[Underachiever]

Richard H, I wonder how many kids you have. If the answer is less than 2, you might be "evolutionarily" screwed up.

[sabril]

"Fundamentalist Christians are the only one of those groups with significant numbers, and neither their birth nor retention rates are high enough to "retake" American demographically in the near future."

There is some subset of fundamentalist christians which is growing rapidly. The mathematical error is to look at some set of people and extrapolate the population growth rate for the entire set.

For example, look at Jewish people in the United States. There are 5 or 6 million Jews in the US and the population growth rate is approximately 0. Does this mean we can expect that there will be 5 or 6 million Jews in 2100? No!

Why? Because the American Jewish population is composed of different subgroups. Among other things, there are secular Jews, whose numbers are stagnating, and ultra-orthodox Jews, who are growing rapidly. Right now, there are about half a million ultra-orthodox Jews in America. At the current growth rate, there will be over 150,000,000 orthodox Jews in America 100 years from now.

Similarly, there will be lots of Mormons and Amish if things keep up. Perhaps that's a big "if," but it's not as big an "if" as that which applies to the hispanic growth rate.

The future of the world looks very white to me.

[Richard H]

"Richard H, I wonder how many kids you have. If the answer is less than 2, you might be "evolutionarily" screwed up. "

A man enjoying heterosexual relationships with women is more likely to be psychologically ok even if he's sterile. Homosexuality is usually an indicator for many other issues and anti-social problems, as anybody who has known male homosexuals can tell you.

[Marc]

Sabril,

You overplay your hand! There are around 500,000 Haredim in the U.S. today. They would have to double every 12 years, which means they would have to have a population growth rate of 6%. I'm not aware of any group in the world that has maintained a population growth rate of 6% over one hundred years. Even the Hutterites, who are the demographic standard for natural fertility averaging about 8 births per woman, only grew at a rate of about 4% per year at the height of their growth, which has since fallen drastically. And even if the Orthodox do have fertility rates of 8 kids per woman, I'm sure they have substantial defection rates, which will increase their doubling time substantially.

[Marc]

"A man enjoying heterosexual relationships with women is more likely to be psychologically ok even if he's sterile. Homosexuality is usually an indicator for many other issues and anti-social problems, as anybody who has known male homosexuals can tell you."

Really, Richard? And do you have any data backing this up?

[James]

"National Culture is non-divisible. Since when do immigrants have the right move for a better life for themselves to another country, and instead of gratefulness feel they have the right to impose their culture on the rest?"

I believe the correct answer is "Since the Jews decided that assimilation was not for them".

[James]

"These laws not only make life harder for illegal Hispanic immigrants but the people who are most like them, hispanic citizens."

We are not supposed to have "hispanic citizens". We are SUPPOSED to have "American citizens". If you want to be a hispanic citizen then you need to go and live in a hispanic country.

You'd think that this is straightforward enough for even Vim to grasp. But amazingly enough, you'd be wrong.

[James]

"Are hispanic citizens morons?"

They may or may not be morons. But rather plainly, they are not American citizens.

[wheelers_cat]

Halfsigma, Sarah Palin is Stupid just links back to this post.

[Richard H]

"Really, Richard? And do you have any data backing this up? "

My experience with homosexuals, the flamboyancy of the "gay rights" movement, evolutionary logic and the high AIDS rate all lead me to believe that this is the case. It doesn't seem likely that you can just happen to perfer other men instead of women and be exactly the same in every other way. It's sort of like the liberals' belief that biology can make us different on the outside but keep every population the same on the inside.

See what kinds of behavior homosexuals engage in when they form their own "culture."

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

[tommy]

I don't think Obama's presidency will be the end of the world, but the next fifty years may be another story.

Concerned whites need to find ways to withdraw, isolate, and insulate themselves as much as possible from non-whites and leftist governments in the years ahead.