← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kurt
Thread ID: 16853 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2005-02-20
2005-02-20 08:41 | User Profile
My family were always staunch Democrats. Back then, the Democratic Party was pro-White working class. The Dems didn't give a crap about minorities (remember,the GOP was the party that freed the slaves). The Democrats were always pro-White, until they saw a way to get votes, so they decided to pander to "minorities," at which point they turned their back on working class Whites, like my family. So, my family turned to the GOP, (the so-called "Reagan Democrats"). But now, the Repubs have decided to follow the same path as the Dems. They have decided to pander to non-Whites. So where is a White man to turn? I say, We need a pro-White party. A party that will appeal to all Whites, regardless of their socio-economic status. I doubt this will ever happen, but it's a thought.
2005-02-20 13:22 | User Profile
someone here will give you a better answer soon, but i will try. you pretty much explained it yourself. however, your question as to "why" is because most groups that identify with the democrats today see the republican party as being home to white interests, while the republicans party itself never really caters to that idea.
there are some good articles out there abou how southern & conservative democrats switched sides to the republican party, ill see if i can find a few.
also, you are right about the republicans selling out anyone with thoughts they were "conservative"
until more whites get a clue to whats happening and decide its time to bail from the rat-infested republican ship, it will be poo-poo for us.
its tough convincing whites who are voting for the lesser of two evils to do anything else. its even tougher to convince them about the ADL, SPLC or AIPAC, if they even know who they are.
2005-02-20 15:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]My family were always staunch Democrats. Back then, the Democratic Party was pro-White working class. The Dems didn't give a crap about minorities (remember,the GOP was the party that freed the slaves). The Democrats were always pro-White, until they saw a way to get votes, so they decided to pander to "minorities," at which point they turned their back on working class Whites, like my family. So, my family turned to the GOP, (the so-called "Reagan Democrats"). But now, the Repubs have decided to follow the same path as the Dems. They have decided to pander to non-Whites. So where is a White man to turn? I say, We need a pro-White party. A party that will appeal to all Whites, regardless of their socio-economic status. I doubt this will ever happen, but it's a thought.[/QUOTE]
The Democrats just named Howard "We need to appeal to those guys in pick-up trucks with confederate flag decals" Dean to head their party...look for some Populist energy of the Andy Jackson/Huey Long variety--and a quashing of overtly anti-White "Identity Politics".
The Repugs are now the party of Ken Lay; Armstrong Williams; RimJob and Wolfowitz...
2005-02-20 15:52 | User Profile
Howard,
I heard Hannity the other day trying to stir up resentment among Southerners against Dean by taking his comment about "guys with Confederate flags on the back of their pickup trucks" out of context. He claimed that they were being mocked by Dean whereas I, who heard Dean's comment in full understood that to be the opposite of the case. I find it funny to hear Hannity make an oblique appeal to Southern heritage when he has done his part to trash this part of the country. Now, I have no illusions about Dean, but if he is smart and plays his cards right, they might make some inroads here. I believe their p.c. will prevent them from doing this.
2005-02-20 16:04 | User Profile
The Illegal Mestizos have grabbed millions of tradesmen's and factory jobs from Blue-Collar Whites--while "outsourcing" has hit middle-class Euros tight in the solar plexus.
Both pro-corporate problems were wrought primarily by the GOP...which tosses "Terror"; "Hillary" and "Homosexual Marriage" to the poor downscaled suckers instead.
Just as a strong Russia kept America from noxious Empire a strong Democratic Party will help b*tch-slap the insolence out of this unholy Plutocracy.
2005-02-20 16:19 | User Profile
If nothing else we need a pro-White lobby that encourages Whites to block vote their interests. We would see some real pandering to Whites then. At the very least, the type of blatant defamation that politicians around here make about White people would vanish in the air. Here in SF you wouldn't believe, well probably you would, some of the inflammatory comments toward us that are made as a matter of course by the politician, usually the Hispanics or the Blacks and occasionally the Chinese as well, and they are all topped in vitriol by far left wing white boys like Chris Daly.
2005-02-20 17:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]The Democrats just named Howard "We need to appeal to those guys in pick-up trucks with confederate flag decals" Dean to head their party...look for some Populist energy of the Andy Jackson/Huey Long variety--and a quashing of overtly anti-White "Identity Politics".
The Repugs are now the party of Ken Lay; Armstrong Williams; RimJob and Wolfowitz...[/QUOTE] The Civil War ended 140 years ago, with the South losing. Most of the paleo-cons on this forum and elsewhere don't come from the South so any identity with Confederate culture (Neo-Confederacy) is contrived and suspect. Why reduce paleo-conservatism to these fringe, immature, sentimental groups like Neo-Confederates or neo-nazism? If there is one thing that paleo-cons on this forum should realize it is that paleo-conservatism is in diaspora.
And I disagree with you that the "Repugs are now the party of Ken Lay; Armstrong Williams; RimJob and Wolfowitz..." It is the party of Wolfowitz, Perle, Safire, Kristol, Krauthammer, and the rest. It is not the party of Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Armstrong Williams, Jim Robinson, or even George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, no matter what they think. These folks are mere useful goyim stooges who don't even realize they are fundamentally impotent. Ironically, the GOP is more the party for Karl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schummer and Russ Feingold than it is for the legions of loyal GOP dittoheads.
2005-02-20 18:19 | User Profile
Jack,
My post had nothing to do with NeoConfederism and partially to do with rewriting American history to the detriment of the South. In fact, I don't consider myself to be a NeoConfederate. That doesn't mean that I regard the South's cause to be wrong, instead, I believe that the issue of whether the states' reign supreme over the feds to be decided by other means as Jefferson Davis said. Dean may realize this constant bashing in unhelpful and the way to get southerners back is more emphasis on economic issues like the decline of the furniture and textile industries. We'll have to see if that is the case.
I think you are mostly right about the real faces of the Republican Party save this, I would definitely include people like Lay. That is your plutocratic element. Those other people named are the public facade of the party and the ones who keep the rank and file stirred up over nonissues.
2005-02-20 18:20 | User Profile
I'm not a southerner, and frankly don't relate to the few I've met. But I'm extreme Paleo, probably in the Buchanan or Brimelow mode (not so much some others)
"Block Voting" is a concept I've tried to explain to fellow Pubbies, but they just can't understand. I claim that if the 10% of Paleos (or paleo-leaners) would merely form their own party, they WOULD have tremendous power despite being only 10% of the voters.
How? Simple. Next time an energy bill comes up, the GOP has 45% of Congress and the DNC has 40%. Either party needs the Paleo block vote. They will make concessoins in other areas (immigration, legal issues, affim act) to get their way.
And if the majority party says "no thanks", they start losing a lot. If the minority one says "no thanks", they stay out of power in perpetuity. The Greens are very successful with this model in Europe.
2005-02-20 19:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]The Civil War ended 140 years ago, with the South losing. .[/QUOTE]
Some here would prefer to call it a tie.
2005-02-20 19:42 | User Profile
While I don't know anything about politics I read what you people post and as far as I can see you are doing the same thing that the Jews are doing by putting a physical fence between the Palestinians and themselves.
The fence that you have in place is not a physical fence but a fence of words that is separating you from others.
By saying "white nationals" or "white GOP" or "white republicans" you are saying that you are different than others and that's your fence and your problem.
You divide yourselves from others and yet you complain when others act different.
Like the story of the Jew......one Jew finds another Jew crying and the first Jews asks him " Why are you crying my brother?" and the second Jew tells him "I keep hitting this goy with this baseball bat but he keeps defending himself", don't piss against the wind if you don't wan't to piss all over yourselves.
2005-02-20 22:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]My family were always staunch Democrats. Back then, the Democratic Party was pro-White working class. The Dems didn't give a crap about minorities (remember,the GOP was the party that freed the slaves). The Democrats were always pro-White, until they saw a way to get votes, so they decided to pander to "minorities," at which point they turned their back on working class Whites, like my family. So, my family turned to the GOP, (the so-called "Reagan Democrats"). But now, the Repubs have decided to follow the same path as the Dems. They have decided to pander to non-Whites. So where is a White man to turn? I say, We need a pro-White party. A party that will appeal to all Whites, regardless of their socio-economic status. I doubt this will ever happen, but it's a thought.[/QUOTE]Getting away from historical events like the civil war, the short answer to your question I think is basically that the parties became permanently polarized along racial lines corrsponding with "the Southern Strategy" of Nixon. Or at least about the time of that.
Up through 1960 blacks in the South and North too voted for the GOP, while Southern Whites mostly voted Democratic. But the Goldwater campaign pretty basically changed that landscape, especially when Nixon decided to make part of that legacy permanent by trying to retain Southern Whites, who were becoming disenchanted with the Democrats due to the aggressive civil rights policies and general social liberalism of Johnson. The capture of the Democratic Party by McGovernites in 72 sort of sealed that, although there was a temporary relapse in 76.
2005-02-20 23:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]My family were always staunch Democrats. Back then, the Democratic Party was pro-White working class. The Dems didn't give a crap about minorities (remember,the GOP was the party that freed the slaves). The Democrats were always pro-White, until they saw a way to get votes, so they decided to pander to "minorities," at which point they turned their back on working class Whites, like my family. So, my family turned to the GOP, (the so-called "Reagan Democrats"). But now, the Repubs have decided to follow the same path as the Dems. They have decided to pander to non-Whites. So where is a White man to turn? I say, We need a pro-White party. A party that will appeal to all Whites, regardless of their socio-economic status. I doubt this will ever happen, but it's a thought.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion the Democrats are the true "stupid party" today. It shouldn't take much political savy to realize that you're going to alienate your traditional base of white working and lower middle class voters by becoming the party of affirmative action, slavery reparations, homosexual marriage, and abortion. At least for the time being, they cannot count on victory based on a negro/mestizo/Jew/homosexual/feminist constituency alone, particularly not with the inroads that the "big tent" GOP of George W. Bush is making into all of these groups today.
What this means is that the two parties are essentially competing factions of America's elites (i.e. the mass media, trial lawyer, and academic elite in charge of the Democrats and the corporate/Wall Street plutocracy represented by the GOP) who have recruited different clients. The GOP tried to court the middle and working class whites abandoned by the Democrats for a while (by paying lip service to social issues that they really cared nothing about), and have secured Christian conservatives as their obedient client class, just as the Democrats have colored minorities in the inner cities as their client class.
The good news is that the GOP may eventually alienate its client class by its continued attempts to out-pander the Democrats on their own turf. I had hoped that this would create the impetus for a mass exodus of whites from the GOP plantation and the start of an explicitly pro-white third party, but this hasn't come to pass yet.
2005-02-20 23:47 | User Profile
I, personally, have turned to the Constitution Party. It does not call itself a pro-white party. But by standing for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and opposing the open-borders policy of the rebups and demos, it is taking a stand for America.
2005-02-20 23:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]I, personally, have turned to the Constitution Party. It does not call itself a pro-white party. But by standing for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and opposing the open-borders policy of the rebups and demos, it is taking a stand for America.[/QUOTE] Politics always involves compromise. Becoming "color-blind", while a society becoming such would be a real positive step away from today anti-white one, how do you counter the minohties explicitly working for their interests?
Not that there's no room for the Constitution Party, but that's not enough.
2005-02-21 01:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Not that there's no room for the Constitution Party, but that's not enough.[/QUOTE] I agree. I don't think it's enough either. The Constitution Party got hardly no support in the last election. Almost everyone voted for ZOG.
I think that those of us who are aware need to band together, prepare for the worst, and hope that other whites join us when everything starts crashing in.
In the meantime, the Constitution Party is the only party I can vote for in good conscience.
2005-02-21 01:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]In my opinion the Democrats are the true "stupid party" today. It shouldn't take much political savy to realize that you're going to alienate your traditional base of white working and lower middle class voters by becoming the party of affirmative action, slavery reparations, homosexual marriage, and abortion. This is the McGovernite legacy.
In the long run though, it hasn't hurt the Democrats, especially the McGovernite faction, because they're power isn't really based on Democratic elctions anyway. Rather its based on the courts, bureaucracy, and media - estates (in Spengler's terminology) which the Republicans in power have been persuaded to leave alone
2005-02-21 01:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The good news is that the GOP may eventually alienate its client class by its continued attempts to out-pander the Democrats on their own turf. I had hoped that this would create the impetus for a mass exodus of whites from the GOP plantation and the start of an explicitly pro-white third party, but this hasn't come to pass yet.[/QUOTE] I truly wish. But I'm afraid that Christian evangelicals (and I am an evangelical) have been suckered by the pro-Israel lobby. They will vote for the interests of the Jews and not their own interests. Pat Robertson, say, might form a new party which is strongly pro-life, but it would also be blindly pro-Israel and pro-Jewish. So if this Pat Robertson party took votes away from the repubs, it would still do us no good.
At least the Constitution Party is not a pro-Israel party. They advocate neutrality and an end to all foreign aid, which would include the many billions given to Israel.
2005-02-21 02:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]The Civil War ended 140 years ago, with the South losing. Most of the paleo-cons on this forum and elsewhere don't come from the South so any identity with Confederate culture (Neo-Confederacy) is contrived and suspect. Why reduce paleo-conservatism to these fringe, immature, sentimental groups like Neo-Confederates or neo-nazism? If there is one thing that paleo-cons on this forum should realize it is that paleo-conservatism is in diaspora.
[/QUOTE]
i invite you to travel down some backroad in georgia, pull up in the driveway of a white southerner and try to have this same conversation. i suspect you wont get to stay for supper. just a hunch...
2005-02-21 05:07 | User Profile
[Quote=AntiYuppie]The good news is that the GOP may eventually alienate its client class by its continued attempts to out-pander the Democrats on their own turf. I had hoped that this would create the impetus for a mass exodus of whites from the GOP plantation and the start of an explicitly pro-white third party, but this hasn't come to pass yet.[QUOTE=Robert]I truly wish. But I'm afraid that Christian evangelicals (and I am an evangelical) have been suckered by the pro-Israel lobby. They will vote for the interests of the Jews and not their own interests. Pat Robertson, say, might form a new party which is strongly pro-life, but it would also be blindly pro-Israel and pro-Jewish. So if this Pat Robertson party took votes away from the repubs, it would still do us no good.
At least the Constitution Party is not a pro-Israel party. They advocate neutrality and an end to all foreign aid, which would include the many billions given to Israel.[/QUOTE] I doubt actually that Christian evangelicals were the first group AntiYuppie or a lot of people had in mind as a foundation for a pro-white party, for the reasons you've stated. Or for that matter myself a lot of times, for the same reasons. People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have made a joke of Christian people involved in politics.
We've come a long ways from the days of evangelicals like Gerald L. K. Smith, William Pelley with his Silver Shirts, or Gerald B. Winrod. Today's evangelical leaders seem to want to appear more Kosher than Kristol.
2005-02-21 07:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]i invite you to travel down some backroad in georgia, pull up in the driveway of a white southerner and try to have this same conversation. i suspect you wont get to stay for supper. just a hunch...[/QUOTE]I know around a half-dozen people in GA, and they are typical yuppies no different from Boston, Chicago, or Baltimore yuppies. I come from and live in Maryland, and in the rural areas of this state alot of pick-up trucks have Confederate flags and blast country music. I.e., it seems to be a cultural identity more than anything else. It's a culture that Gretchen Wilson (geographically a Yankee-- from Illinois) glorifies in her song "Redneck Woman". But frankly I'm baffled by your comment. Are there really people around that are sensitive about the South losing the Civil War? This is absurd given that they, their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents weren't even around at the time. Look, it is no leap to say nearly everyone on this forum would be sympathetic to the South and the Confederacy irrespective of their geographical location. But this is all just of historical interest. Forget Santayana, history is linear and like the number pi.
2005-02-21 12:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]This is the McGovernite legacy.
In the long run though, it hasn't hurt the Democrats, especially the McGovernite faction, because they're power isn't really based on Democratic elctions anyway. Rather its based on the courts, bureaucracy, and media - estates (in Spengler's terminology) which the Republicans in power have been persuaded to leave alone[/QUOTE]
That's an important insight.
I was talking with a guy who is an executive in a large real estate company in the DC area. Of course he deals with the federal government a great deal, and he told me that the entire Senior Executive Service (GS15 and above) is in the Racial Extortion Coaliton. These are the folks who make the decisions about how their budgets will be spent, and they control unimaginable amounts of money.
He said that the entire SES is staffed by angry feminist white women, blacks, homosexuals, and Hispanics, adding that if you're a heterosexual white male, don't even bother applying. He said that his being a white, heterosexual family man is a real drag on his career.
Remember Stalin's slogan: The Cadres Determine Everything.
If we have the Racial Extortion Coaliton deciding how the entire federal budget is to be spent, then it's going to be spent on things that are good for them and bad for us.
If instead we get white family men in there, then all of a sudden the federal bureaucracy will be much more friendly toward us and much more hostile to gate crashers.
We need to take over the federal bureacracy.
You know, I posted a while back an article from a major newspaper about Patrick Henry college (made for Christian homeschoolers) and it's pipeline into the beauracracies of the military and security services. We need more of that.
In the meantime, we need to attack the problem by taking broadly libertarian stances on things, arguing the economic benefits of small government. Even if we don't believe that, that should be our common propaganda line, IMHO, because it attacks the power base of those parts of the federal bureucracy white Christian cadres don't control.
2005-02-21 12:28 | User Profile
Here's the article I mentioned above (I can't find it on OD, what happened?).
New York Times March 8, 2004 College for the Home-Schooled Is Shaping Leaders for the Right By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
PURCELLVILLE, Va. ? As one of 12 siblings taught at home by their parents in St. Croix Falls, Wis., Abram Olmstead knew he would fit right in at Patrick Henry College, the first college primarily for evangelical Christian home-schoolers. But what really sold him was the school's pipeline into conservative politics.
Of the nearly 100 interns working in the White House this semester, 7 are from the roughly 240 students enrolled in the four-year-old Patrick Henry College, in Purcellville. An eighth intern works for the president's re-election campaign. A former Patrick Henry intern now works on the paid staff of the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove. Over the last four years, 22 conservative members of Congress have employed one or more Patrick Henry interns in their offices or on their campaigns, according to the school's records.
"I would definitely like to be active in the government of our country and stuff," Mr. Olmstead, 19, said as he sat in a Christian coffeehouse near the campus, looking up from a copy of Plato's "Republic." "I would love to be able to be a foreign ambassador, and I would really like to move into the Senate later in my career."
The college's knack for political job placement testifies to the increasing influence that Christian home-schooling families are building within the conservative movement. Only about half a million families around the country home-school their children and only about two-thirds identify themselves as evangelical Christians, home-schooling advocates say. But they have passionate political views, a close-knit grass-roots network and the financial support of a handful of wealthy patrons. For all those reasons, home-schoolers have captured the attention of a wide swath of conservative politicians, many of whom are eager to hire Patrick Henry students.
When President Bush signed legislation last fall banning the procedure it calls partial-birth abortion, Michael Farris, the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and the president of Patrick Henry, was one of just five prominent Christian conservatives invited to the Oval Office for the occasion.
Patrick Henry College is the centerpiece of an effort to extend the home-schooling movement's influence beyond education to a broad range of conservative Christian issues like opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and obscenity in the media. The legal defense association, located on the Patrick Henry campus, established the college as a forward base camp in the culture war, with the stated goal of training home-schooled Christian men and women "who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values."
"We are not home-schooling our kids just so they can read," Mr. Farris said. "The most common thing I hear is parents telling me they want their kids to be on the Supreme Court. And if we put enough kids in the farm system, some may get to the major leagues."
That is an alarming prospect to some on the left.
"Mike Farris is trying to train young people to get on a very right-wing political agenda," said Nancy Keenan, the education policy director at People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, and a former Montana state superintendent of public education. The number of Patrick Henry interns in the White House "scares me to death," she said. "It tells us a little bit more about the White House than it does about the kids."
Mingling in the corridors of the White House and Congress is also a long way from the sense of retreat at the heart of the Christian home-schooling movement. It began in the early 1980's as a few thousand evangelical Christians began teaching their children at home in disgust at what they considered the increasingly secular, relativistic and irreligious culture ascendant around them ? exemplified by the ban on prayer, the teaching of evolution and the promotion of contraception in the public schools.
The Home School Legal Defense Association, which now counts 81,000 families each paying about $100 a year in dues, was founded in 1983 by Mr. Farris, a lawyer who had been a prot駩 of Tim LaHaye, the conservative Christian political organizer and best-selling author. Mr. Farris and his wife home-schooled their own 10 children. Like Mr. LaHaye, Mr. Farris is a novelist. He has written three legal thrillers involving conservative Christian issues. His latest, "Forbid Them Not," begins with a Democratic landslide in the 2004 elections that leads to a nightmare of laws blocking parents from spanking their children, teaching their children fundamental Christianity or schooling them at home.
Membership in the home-school association grew by more than 50 percent a year for most of its first decade, association officials said. From the outset, the association fought state regulations requiring home-schooling parents to have college or high school diplomas, to pass certification tests, or to submit to visits by professional educators or social workers. It won a long series of legislative and court victories culminating in a 1993 decision by the Michigan Supreme Court, which eliminated the final major obstacle to home schooling in any of the 50 states.
By 1994, Mr. Farris was ready to flex the association's muscles. When Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, introduced a bill requiring teachers to have certain credentials, Mr. Farris warned the association's members that home-schooling parents might face the same tests (something Mr. Miller denied). Thousands of angry home-school parents and their allies deluged Congress with so many faxes and telephone calls that it temporarily shut down the Capitol Hill telephone system.
The House ultimately voted overwhelmingly to delete the provision. "They made a big impact on people's minds that fateful day," said former Representative Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, a longtime champion of home schooling who proposed the deletion. "They got a taste of the game and found out they could be a major player."
By 1997, however, most of the association's state battles had been won and its membership growth had slowed to about 12 percent a year. Mr. Farris began looking for a new frontier. "I try to figure out how we can fix systems, so I started focusing on a bigger system," he said in an interview in February.
His answer was a college just for home-schoolers.
"Parents would ask me, Is there a school that has the Christian character I am looking for?' " Mr. Farris said. "And congressmen would ask,Mike, do you have a sharp home-schooler who can come and work for me?' "
One of the first and most significant contributors to sign on was Dr. James Leininger, a Texas physician, home-schooling parent and part-owner of the San Antonio Spurs. Dr. Leininger had made a fortune as controlling shareholder of the medical-bed manufacturer Kinetic Concepts Inc. He also owned a conservative political consulting and direct-mail business, and he had already become one of the biggest political contributors in Texas. He became known for backing Christian conservative candidates to the state's influential school board. And, as a board member of Children First America, he was also a major patron of the push for school tuition vouchers.
At a 1999 dinner in honor of George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, held by one of Dr. Leininger's several foundations, Mr. Bush called his host "a good man and a great Texan," The Dallas Morning News reported.
Dr. Leininger did not respond to calls for comment.
"Jim has been a very good and very faithful friend to the college," said Jack W. Haye, chairman of its board and a Texas executive of the Wells Fargo Bank. Other trustees include Janet Ashcroft, wife of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The board helped establish a 106-acre campus with six red brick buildings on rolling green hills.
Thanks to the generosity of its donors, Patrick Henry operates with no debt, eschews federal financial support and charges about $15,000 per student a year for tuition, about $10,000 less than some comparable small colleges. The average SAT score is about 1320, roughly comparable to Notre Dame or the University of Virginia.
About two-thirds of the students major in government. It is one of the few schools that offer a special program in intelligence and foreign affairs.
Now Mr. Farris is trying to enlist even younger students in Christian conservative politics. He estimates that there are more than two million home-schooling children in the country, or more than the number of children attending New Jersey public schools, and in February he sent a letter encouraging home-schooling families to enroll their children in Generation Joshua, a new hands-on civics program for home-schooled teenagers. Participants will learn about government by helping conservative churches get voters to the polls and by volunteering for the campaigns of like-minded conservative politicians, he said.
"Home-school teens could become one of the most powerful forces in American politics, rivaling the labor unions in effectiveness," Mr. Farris wrote, adding, "The best way to train the leaders of tomorrow is to have our young people help to elect the leaders of today."
2005-02-21 13:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]In the meantime, we need to attack the problem by taking broadly libertarian stances on things, arguing the economic benefits of small government. Even if we don't believe that, that should be our common propaganda line, IMHO, because it attacks the power base of those parts of the federal bureucracy white Christian cadres don't control.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you've put down your E.O. Wilson and picked up Machiavelli :)
2005-02-21 14:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Sounds like you've put down your E.O. Wilson and picked up Machiavelli :)[/QUOTE]
One doesn't exclude the other!
2005-02-21 15:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]I know around a half-dozen people in GA, and they are typical yuppies no different from Boston, Chicago, or Baltimore yuppies. If those people are actually Southerners, and not just transplanted Yankees, then it just shows what 140 years of imperial occupation can do. [quote=Jack Cassidy]I come from and live in Maryland, and in the rural areas of this state alot of pick-up trucks have Confederate flags and blast country music. I.e., it seems to be a cultural identity more than anything else. Actually, Jack, Maryland is part of the South, technically speaking. It is below the Mason-Dixon line, and it would have seceded during the War Between the States, if Lincoln had not sent federal troops into the state legislature to keep them from voting. The whole state was more or less occupied by the Yanks for the duration of the war to keep it in line.
[Quote=Jack Cassidy]Are there really people around that are sensitive about the South losing the Civil War? This is absurd given that they, their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents weren't even around at the time.[/QUOTE] Yes, there are, and I am one of them. The South was invaded by a foreign nation, burned and pillaged, and its economy destroyed. It was then militarily occupied, its remaining resources looted, and its form of government fundamentally changed. It was then systematically kept in poverty for the next 90 years, while the US made a concerted effort to destroy its traditional culture. Then there was Reconstruction II, in which desegregation, abortion, and multiculturalism were forced upon it. Why in the hell shouldn't I still be 'sensitive' about it? How long did the Irish nurse a grudge about that whole Oliver Cromwell thing? A bit longer than 140 years, I think.
2005-02-21 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]If those people are actually Southerners, and not just transplanted Yankees, then it just shows what 140 years of imperial occupation can do.[/QUOTE]What makes someone a Southerner? Some of the folks I'm referring to are the product of parents who came from CA and NY, etc. They don't have Southern accents for the most part, but then again it is an interesting sociological phenomenon that regional accent are disappearing among middle and upper classes-- due to, I presume, the increasing influence of tv and globalism.
[QUOTE] Actually, Jack, Maryland is part of the South, technically speaking. It is below the Mason-Dixon line, and it would have seceded during the War Between the States, if Lincoln had not sent federal troops into the state legislature to keep them from voting. The whole state was more or less occupied by the Yanks for the duration of the war to keep it in line. [/QUOTE]Well, where I grew up we never even thought or heard about the Civil War except for a week or so during American history class or a fieldtrip to Antietam or Harper's Ferry. I guess if asked we would've considered ourselves Northerners/Union, perhaps because we grew up just outside of Washington, DC.
[QUOTE] Yes, there are, and I am one of them. The South was invaded by a foreign nation, burned and pillaged, and its economy destroyed. It was then militarily occupied, its remaining resources looted, and its form of government fundamentally changed. It was then systematically kept in poverty for the next 90 years, while the US made a concerted effort to destroy its traditional culture. Then there was Reconstruction II, in which desegregation, abortion, and multiculturalism were forced upon it. Why in the hell shouldn't I still be 'sensitive' about it? [/QUOTE]How does one respond to anger over long gone historical events? If I were to give any legitimacy to what you say, I'd better be prepared to more fully accept the position of blacks who say they should get reparations for being held in slavery, despite the fact that most of them are under the age of 120.
[QUOTE] How long did the Irish nurse a grudge about that whole Oliver Cromwell thing? A bit longer than 140 years, I think.[/QUOTE]This is exactly what I'm talking about. It is a developed indentity, not genuine anger over what has been done to you personally. It is like these 3rd and 4th-generation Irish Americans who bristle when they hear a British accent and make comments like, "The English are no damn good..." I have little patience for this manufactured anger and provincialism and ask them if they are referring to the English in Liverpool or Manchester, where the people are overwhelmingly of Irish extraction.
2005-02-21 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy] How does one respond to anger over long gone historical events? If I were to give any legitimacy to what you say, I'd better be prepared to more fully accept the position of blacks who say they should get reparations for being held in slavery, despite the fact that most of them are under the age of 120.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. It is a developed indentity, not genuine anger over what has been done to you personally...[/QUOTE] It sounds like you are celebrating indifference and deracination. The history of my people is important to me, since who I am is bound up with who my people are. The attitude that the past is unimportant, simply because it is, well, past, is not one with which I agree.