← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel

McConnell: 'Racists' must be purged from immigration reform movement

Thread ID: 20466 | Posts: 54 | Started: 2005-09-30

Wayback Archive

Centinel [OP]

2005-09-30 22:17 | User Profile

Yet another one of those articles that makes you wonder just who the h* TAC is trying to market itself to....apparently not Sam Francis' old fans.

[url]http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_09_26/article.html[/url]

**From Minutemen to Mainstream

In order to succeed, restrictionists must say racists are not welcome.**

By Scott McConnell September 26, 2005

After being contained for nearly a decade, immigration reform has been breaking its tethers: a new wave of grassroots activists and a serious congressional faction is putting the issue back on the American political agenda. Fed up with the Bush administration’s disinterest in securing the country’s borders, local elected officials are also stepping into the breach. The Minuteman Project—which mobilized volunteers in a well-publicized effort to help patrol the Mexico-Arizona border earlier this year—now has affiliates in 18 states and has attracted favorable press coverage and public notice. In New Hampshire, a local police chief is trying to employ criminal-trespass statutes against illegal aliens. In Texas, a county commissioner is using federal anti-corruption statutes against employers who hire illegals.

In the early 1990s, when immigration was last on the national agenda, it was a hot grassroots issue only in California, home of Proposition 187. Now, with large numbers of illegal aliens visible throughout the country and post-9/11 security worries, local concern is widespread. The elite press—liberal and neoconservative alike—sneers at “beer swilling good ol’ boys” who want to monitor the border, but the fact is that the long simmering sentiment of Americans desirous of border enforcement and lower rates of immigration may be ready to take shape as an unstoppable bipartisan majority.

But note the cautious “may.” Recall that in the early 1990s, immigration reform seemed like an issue whose time had come. But first some bad luck interfered—California Gov. Pete Wilson’s illness at the outset of his 1996 presidential campaign and Barbara Jordan’s sudden death just as her Clinton-appointed commission’s report was completed. (The group chaired by the eloquent Democratic congresswoman had recommended more effective interior enforcement against illegal aliens and a reduction in legal immigration.) In the meantime, the opposition rallied: the cheap-labor business lobbies forged a viable coalition with leftwing multiculti forces. They mobilized against immigration reform and killed it: in early 1996, serious immigration-reform legislation came up some 40 votes short in Congress, and that was the end of it.

The United States is different now. There are more immigrants and children of immigrants of every stripe. However much estimates of the Hispanic vote are swollen by the Beltway pundits, that vote is larger than it used to be—and growing. There is much truth to Nathan Glazer’s assertion—first published seven years ago—that “We are All Multiculturalists Now.” The Euro-America that existed until roughly 1980 has passed into history. If the immigration-reform movement is not to squander its second (and likely its last) opportunity, it must learn to accommodate itself to those changes.

An obscure incident in Laguna Beach, California illuminates the movement’s most dangerous trap. In mid-July, a hundred protesters marched to decry city funding of a day-labor site for illegal workers. Among the participants were members of Save Our State, an immigration-reform group involved in the Proposition 187 campaign, and James Gilchrist, one of the principals of the Minuteman Project—both groups roughly representative of grassroots immigration reform. They waved American flags and carried posters calling for the deportation of illegal aliens. A dozen lefty counter-protesters challenged them, labeling the demonstrators racist nuts.

And then a half-dozen extremists—people who actually are racist nuts—made an appearance, unfurling Confederate battle flags and in one instance a Nazi swastika. It’s not clear what happened then, but any hope immigration reformers had of making a favorable impression on viewers of the local news immediately vanished.

The Minutemen make clear in their literature, public statements, and website that they want nothing to do with racists or white nationalists, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. But the Laguna Beach fiasco demonstrates that such policies don’t go far enough. It is the nature of politically marginal groups to seek to attach themselves to more broad-based social movements—and they won’t be deterred by polite requests that they stay away. The Left’s history is replete with various Communist groups trying to gain influence in the labor movement, the civil-rights movement, and the antiwar movement. Indeed, the hard Left actually possessed cadres with considerable organizational skills that could make themselves useful in ways that the average skinhead with a swastika cannot.

In the early years of the Cold War, the American labor movement addressed the problem by purging Communists (including many skilled organizers) from its ranks. Such a purge no doubt went against the grain of many union types, but it was a necessary prelude to the golden age of the American labor movement in which tens of millions of workers and their families were able to acquire the trappings of a middle-class life.

There’s an old joke about the Republican Party and its dismal but perhaps slightly improving electoral relationship with black Americans. Question: what do you call the black man you run into at the Republican convention? Answer: Mr. Keynote Speaker. The joke bespeaks a cynicism about Republican minority-outreach policies that can easily be overstated. There is no more real racism in the GOP ranks than among white Democrats and roughly equivalent concerns about safety, school quality, and other topics that often have racial aspects to them. But—mirroring the Democrats—the GOP has adopted minority outreach big time, and it has largely overcome the image it had 15 or 20 years ago as a party built around white backlash and the Southern strategy. That image has faded —without, it might be noted, costing the GOP its hold on the South.

If the immigration-reform movement is to succeed, it needs to achieve something similar. If its foes can routinely and successfully depict immigration reform as racist and anti-immigrant, it will fail. The movement needs to create an aura around itself that is attractive to first- and second-generation immigrants, and—just as important—that would be repellant to the kind of white nationalists who want to attach themselves to it for their own purposes.

In theory this is simple enough: the most sensible immigration-reform line —most consistently embodied by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies—is pro-immigrant and pro-reform. In essence, the argument is that the United States could better welcome and assimilate new immigrants if their rate of entry were reduced.

Unlike many tactical political arguments, this one has the added benefit of being true. The greatest barrier to higher wages and more economic security for the millions of immigrants working in low-wage jobs is the great reserve army of future illegal aliens ready to work for even lower wages. The Bush administration and the neoconservatives insist, falsely, that these cannot be kept out.

The more poor immigrants there are, the more difficult for American schools to improve the skills of their children. The greatest barrier to real assimilation is the persistence of expanding communities in which English is a second language, barely spoken at all.

The only people whose interests would be harmed by a slowdown in immigration are not the immigrants already here—they would clearly benefit—but the ethnic activists who purport to speak for them and the employers who want a large, desperate pool of workers willing to toil for sub-American wage rates.

Many in the immigration-reform movement understand this, but it’s not clear they know it well enough. For example, Save Our State founder Joseph Turner recently sought to present his case to Los Angeles’s black community by soliciting an invitation to speak before Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s Urban Policy Roundtable, a popular political forum. Hearing of his scheduled talk, open-borders forces mobilized against the appearance, labeling Save our State violent, hateful, and racist. The smear was false, of course. But Hutchinson said he was troubled by rhetoric on the SOS website asking whether Californians wanted their state to turn into a “Third World cesspool.” He eventually rescinded the invitation.

A case could be made that such language isn’t racist, but it is not likely to be persuasive to many potential allies of the immigration-reform movement. And if immigration reformers need such allies to prevail, they need to hear how their own rhetoric sounds in the ears of others. Earl Ofari Hutchinson later told the Los Angeles Times that at every forum he sponsors, someone raises the issue of illegal immigration and that if Turner had come, “he would be met with thunderous applause.” But he never had the opportunity. For his part, Turner at least seems to understand the problem. “Rightly or wrongly we’re seen as being a bunch of angry white guys. ... Our movement needs to enlarge the tent.”

Multicultural outreach is now an American cliché with its own set rituals, and the immigration-reform movement needs to start adopting them. It certainly must deal effectively with its own infiltrators—if it isn’t practical to bar neo-Nazis from its public events, it can certainly make itself repellant to them. Beyond that, it can and should engage in symbolic affirmative-action frippery that mainstream political groups in the United States adopt as a matter of course. It can acknowledge—loudly and without hesitation—that the United States has benefited from immigration in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It can proclaim that the country could do a better job at welcoming new immigrants if it took them in at rates at which they could be assimilated, economically and culturally. It can look harder for potential allies in the Hispanic community and ensure that their voices are amplified. (It won’t be difficult: the legendary farm-labor leader Cesar Chavez, after all, was no fan of illegal immigrants, for sound economic reasons.) And, of course—as in the overwhelming majority of cases it does—the reform movement should shun racist appeals and associations, which will always harm more than help.

If immigration reformers can’t figure out how to do these things in the next few years, they won’t have another chance.

Pennsylvania_Dutch

2005-09-30 22:44 | User Profile

Let's see here Amos...he's a COONservative...which is somewhat better than being a KAHNservative or a RepubliCOON... :bash:

Okiereddust

2005-09-30 23:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]Yet another one of those articles that makes you wonder just who the h* TAC is trying to market itself to....apparently not Sam Francis' old fans.

[url]http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_09_26/article.html[/url]

**From Minutemen to Mainstream

In order to succeed, restrictionists must say racists are not welcome.**....................................................................................

An obscure incident in Laguna Beach, California illuminates the movement’s most dangerous trap. In mid-July, a hundred protesters marched to decry city funding of a day-labor site for illegal workers. Among the participants were members of Save Our State, an immigration-reform group involved in the Proposition 187 campaign, and James Gilchrist, one of the principals of the Minuteman Project—both groups roughly representative of grassroots immigration reform. They waved American flags and carried posters calling for the deportation of illegal aliens. A dozen lefty counter-protesters challenged them, labeling the demonstrators racist nuts.

And then a half-dozen extremists—people who actually are racist nuts—made an appearance, unfurling Confederate battle flags and in one instance a Nazi swastika. It’s not clear what happened then, but any hope immigration reformers had of making a favorable impression on viewers of the local news immediately vanished.

The Minutemen make clear in their literature, public statements, and website that they want nothing to do with racists or white nationalists, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. But the Laguna Beach fiasco demonstrates that such policies don’t go far enough. It is the nature of politically marginal groups to seek to attach themselves to more broad-based social movements—and they won’t be deterred by polite requests that they stay away. The Left’s history is replete with various Communist groups trying to gain influence in the labor movement, the civil-rights movement, and the antiwar movement. [B]Indeed, the hard Left actually possessed cadres with considerable organizational skills that could make themselves useful in ways that the average skinhead with a swastika cannot.[/B] McConnell is just pointing to an obvious fact here. The racist/anti-democratic right, as a whole, possesses all the disadvantages of the far-left, yet none of the advantages. They are political[I]untermenschen[/I], who really can't accomplish anything positive in that sphere. Their only function is to interfere with the functions of legitimate pro-American groups. Just like I argued on the thread [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17820]Storrmfront Moderation Policies[/URL] . Of course much of their direction in this regard is actually deliberate, the work of the gov't and civil-rights agents and AP's who dominate their leadership. At any rate, politically they are poisen to anything they encounter

[QUOTE]In the early years of the Cold War, the American labor movement addressed the problem by purging Communists (including many skilled organizers) from its ranks. Such a purge no doubt went against the grain of many union types, but it was a necessary prelude to the golden age of the American labor movement in which tens of millions of workers and their families were able to acquire the trappings of a middle-class life. [/QUOTE]True enough. Politics is the art of the possible, and those who can't face that hard fact of life and adopt tactics compatible don't deserve to survive.

[QUOTE]Many in the immigration-reform movement understand this, but it’s not clear they know it well enough. For example, Save Our State founder Joseph Turner recently sought to present his case to Los Angeles’s black community by soliciting an invitation to speak before Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s Urban Policy Roundtable, a popular political forum. Hearing of his scheduled talk, open-borders forces mobilized against the appearance, labeling Save our State violent, hateful, and racist. The smear was false, of course. But Hutchinson said he was troubled by rhetoric on the SOS website asking whether Californians wanted their state to turn into a “Third World cesspool.” He eventually rescinded the invitation.

A case could be made that such language isn’t racist, but it is not likely to be persuasive to many potential allies of the immigration-reform movement. And if immigration reformers need such allies to prevail, they need to hear how their own rhetoric sounds in the ears of others. Earl Ofari Hutchinson later told the Los Angeles Times that at every forum he sponsors, someone raises the issue of illegal immigration and that if Turner had come, “he would be met with thunderous applause.” But he never had the opportunity. For his part, Turner at least seems to understand the problem. “Rightly or wrongly we’re seen as being a bunch of angry white guys. ... Our movement needs to enlarge the tent.”[/QUOTE]Turner's no softy. He's just being forced to come to grips with reality.

Multicultural outreach is now an American cliché with its own set rituals, and the immigration-reform movement needs to start adopting them. It certainly must deal effectively with its own infiltrators—if it isn’t practical to bar neo-Nazis from its public events, it can certainly make itself repellant to them. Beyond that, it can and should engage in symbolic affirmative-action frippery that mainstream political groups in the United States adopt as a matter of course. It can acknowledge—loudly and without hesitation—that the United States has benefited from immigration in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It can proclaim that the country could do a better job at welcoming new immigrants if it took them in at rates at which they could be assimilated, economically and culturally. It can look harder for potential allies in the Hispanic community and ensure that their voices are amplified. (It won’t be difficult: the legendary farm-labor leader Cesar Chavez, after all, was no fan of illegal immigrants, for sound economic reasons.) And, of course—as in the overwhelming majority of cases it does—the reform movement should shun racist appeals and associations, which will always harm more than help.

If immigration reformers can’t figure out how to do these things in the next few years, they won’t have another chance.[/QUOTE]Well here McConnell does bump against some pretty substantial symbolic issues. But the fact remains that success in democratic polity requires compromise and acknowledgement of reality. If we've even come face to face with that on this board,(re: the fights between NeoNietszche's and those who wish to restore the Inquisition :wallbash: ) imagine what its like in the real world.

JoseyWales

2005-10-01 01:00 | User Profile

I have a dream...

Texas Dissident

2005-10-01 01:46 | User Profile

Should be an interesting thread that garners some intelligent replies.

Thanks for posting, Centinel.

robinder

2005-10-01 01:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE]The Euro-America that existed until roughly 1980 has passed into history. If the immigration-reform movement is not to squander its second (and likely its last) opportunity, it must learn to accommodate itself to those changes.[/QUOTE] Officially, the USA is still about 70% white. That might not be a comforting figure, but to put it into a wider perspective consider that whites are over 4 times the size of the next largest group, and are still a pretty solid majority, pro tempore. And then, having considered that, how has "Euro-America" "passed into history"? No, it hasn't, but we do have plenty of folks like the author trying to convince us that it doesn't exist, and even if it does we should pretend the opposite to placate minorities. [QUOTE]people who actually are racist nuts[/QUOTE] The article makes no distinction between "racist nuts" and the regular old "racist", the implication is that the latter do not exist.

[QUOTE] Confederate battle flags [/QUOTE] You know, I'm not even entirely in agreement with the position of the Confederacy during the Civil War but I will never be offended by their symbolism.

[QUOTE] and in one instance a Nazi swastika. It’s not clear what happened then, but any hope immigration reformers had of making a favorable impression on viewers of the local news immediately vanished.[/QUOTE] There was one. European friends tell me it's hard to attend nationalist party meetings without encountering at least a few skinheads, an element the leadership really doesn't want. And this guy is on about one Nazi flag. Ok, he's right. Appearing to support those types is a deadend, but that is not his only agenda, simply saying as much; what's unstated here is that either one must assign no particular importance to race, or else one is an unequivocal Nazi. That is not true, and the author is lying in hinting at that line of reasoning.

[QUOTE]and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity[/QUOTE] I do, actually. They know they can get away with it longer if they pretend it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

[QUOTE] In the early years of the Cold War, the American labor movement addressed the problem by purging Communists (including many skilled organizers) from its ranks. Such a purge no doubt went against the grain of many union types, but it was a necessary prelude to the golden age of the American labor movement in which tens of millions of workers and their families were able to acquire the trappings of a middle-class life.[/QUOTE] So if the union movement had to compromise with communism-lite, the nativist movement should settle for nativism-lite.

[QUOTE] If the immigration-reform movement is to succeed, it needs to achieve something similar. If its foes can routinely and successfully depict immigration reform as racist and anti-immigrant, it will fail. [/QUOTE] What he doesn't say here is that undoubtedly many are anti-immigrant and "racist" to some degree, though our author would conflate any such sentiments into Nazism.

[QUOTE]that would be repellant to the kind of white nationalists who want to attach themselves to it for their own purposes.[/QUOTE] If this is meant sincerely, at least he has a somewhat understandable position, that white nationalists are not wanted because they are seeking to promote their own agenda. But he apparently doesn't see or won't address the fact that the movement will have to reach out to other groups, who also have their own unique agendas. The author would alienate whites in favor of a handful of (should they even exist) anti-immigration immigrants.

The whole thing strikes me as disengenous by saying that anything with racialist overtones is wrong and is always wrong for PR reasons, but completely avoids addressing any such views or opinions and their objective truth or falsity. I found the whole article annoying with its nagging assumption that the country's white majority owes something to minorities (is there any other way to describe a 70 percent majority in society delicately avoiding offending groups much smaller than it?), something one would normally associate with leftists.

Faust

2005-10-01 02:38 | User Profile

robinder,

A great post; you are very Right! Immigration is not an issue; it is in many ways the only issue. Immigration into the US is bad; because it is damaging the ethnic balance of America. Steve Sailer and Peter Brimelow both think making European a minority in the US is a bad thing and are willing to say so. McConnell is going well to the left of them in this article. Basically McConnell has no disagreement with the Neocons; so why does he attack them?

madrussian

2005-10-01 02:46 | User Profile

There's nothing wrong with being "racist". In fact, that's the only sensible position. Failure to be "racist" is why "conservatives" are such big failures.

Okiereddust

2005-10-01 02:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=robinder]If this is meant sincerely, at least he has a somewhat understandable position, that white nationalists are not wanted because they are seeking to promote their own agenda. But he apparently doesn't see or won't address the fact that the movement will have to reach out to other groups, who also have their own unique agendas. The author would alienate whites in favor of a handful of (should they even exist) anti-immigration immigrants. You could argue the other way too more persuasively - that white nationalists would have the white majority alienate large numbers of anti-immigration miborities (like the near majority that voted in favor of Arizona's and CA anti-illegal immgration initiatives) just for their support.

The whole thing strikes me as disengenous by saying that anything with racialist overtones is wrong and is always wrong for PR reasons, but completely avoids addressing any such views or opinions and their objective truth or falsity. I found the whole article annoying with it's nagging assumption that the country's white majority owes something to minorities((is there any other way to describe a 70 percent majority in society delicately avoiding offending groups much smaller than it?), something one would normally associate with leftists.[/QUOTE]Well I admit, it struck me as disingenuous too for just discussing PR reasons, sans consideration of objective truth or falsity. (Never mind that an awful lot of pagan WN don't believe in objective truth or falsity either, just the Nietszchien "Will to Power").

However viewed as a PR piece, what do you expect. PR is always disingenuous. And most WN's themselves would tell you politics and power is no morality play.

Leaving aside my irritation at the WN movement, I think an objective reading of the situation is that while WN's traditionalist demands and goals can by myself no longer be legitimately ignored as ultimate goals, the immigration crisis demands that they be put on the back burner for a while. Any WN with any contact with reality must acknowledge that any renewed American revolution for white rights must be a two stage process. First America's borders and sovereignty must be reestablished, and only then can WN work toward creating their own goals for society meeting their ideals.

WN's need to learn to put aside those aspects of their ideology, (such as swastikas, confederate flags, etc.) that hinder working with other groups, and those individuals and groups that can't do this voluntarily will have to be marked and excluded, as McConnell describs, for the movement itself to succeed.

robinder

2005-10-01 03:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You could argue the other way too more persuasively - that white nationalists would have the white majority alienate large numbers of anti-immigration miborities (like the near majority that voted in favor of Arizona's and CA anti-illegal immgration initiatives) just for their support. [/QUOTE]
Ok, but the whole reason that there is a white nationalist movement is because those people feel their concerns are not being met by the mainstream or even the semi-respectable fringes of the mainstream. Much of what white nationalists want was once not negotiable as such, and it is surreal to have have to plea for acceptance for views favorable to preserving the demographics of a white America. Alienation stemming from the failure of political cultural and apparent apathy of much of society is what created white nationalism as what they want once something that the mainstream allowed for, if not considered to be an assumpton not even necessarily needing to be stated. If it were acceptable to say outright that the country is majority white, founded and built by whites, make more allowances for the preservation of Western and American traditions, and acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with that, there would be far less reason for white nationalists to exist.

[QUOTE] However viewed as a PR piece, what do you expect. PR is always disingenuous. And most WN's themselves would tell you politics and power is no morality play. [/QUOTE] I agree, and would add that a lot WN groups are not entirely honest about their aims or motivations. Even some, like the National Alliance, which are not explicitly National Socialists seem to be so in everything but name.

[QUOTE]Leaving aside my irritation at the WN movement[/QUOTE]
I see no problems with criticizing them, though I can understand the ambivalence some have with, perhaps it does seem to some gratuitous to attack them when they are not the people behind the trends undesired by nativist, traditionalist or nationalist groups.

[QUOTE] WN's need to learn to put aside those aspects of their ideology, (such as swastikas, confederate flags, etc.) that hinder working with other groups, and those individuals and groups that can't do this voluntarily will have to be marked and excluded, as McConnell describs, for the movement itself to succeed.[/QUOTE] Confederate imagery is legitimate Southern heritage, it should not be faulted to the Southern people that there exists many people too narrowminded to accept that. But even if we ignore that for the sake of discussion, most people, myself included, don't want something with the substance of Nazism even if it does not resemble it in superficialities. What I want is for the mainstream to accept sometime in the future the realization that white rights does not have to involve something like todays white nationalism.

Okiereddust

2005-10-01 04:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]There's nothing wrong with being "racist". In fact, that's the only sensible position. Failure to be "racist" is why "conservatives" are such big failures.[/QUOTE]I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "right" and "wrong", but besides politics not being a morality play, that line is silly in a democratic society, and you know it. Democracy is not compatible with serious inter-ethnic warfare.

One of the reasons democracy did so poorly in the former Yugoslavia and even the former Societ Union.

madrussian

2005-10-01 04:11 | User Profile

What "democratic" society? You mean these huge changes over the last 50 years is actually a result of a democracy?

There's a difference between the official party line and personal beliefs. While they differ, it's not productive for the party line to explicitly contradict the ideal belief system. Of course, one component of being ideal is being a "racist". So the point about being "mild" for the sake of politics is going out of the window since it's explicitly condemning the core beliefs that are actually primary in all of this: blood and soil. The other fluff is never going to be agreed upon and is a shaky platform.

Franco

2005-10-01 04:57 | User Profile

Well, the way I see it is like this: no matter what the anti-immigration movement does, the Left will still smear the movement as "racist."

I can understand, for example, not allowing Nazi flags at anti-immigration events. But beyond that, I ask: should the anti-immigration movement allow lots of racial minorities, or recent immigrants, into its ranks? How might that impact the movement as a whole? How might that impact which types of immigration reform ideas are offered at the state and federal levels?

Okiereddust

2005-10-01 05:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Well, the way I see it is like this: no matter what the anti-immigration movement does, the Left will still smear the movement as "racist." True. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there's not someone out to get you, or that you should move to a ghetto and leave your doors unlocked at night.

I can understand, for example, not allowing Nazi flags at anti-immigration events. But beyond that, I ask: should the anti-immigration movement allow lots of racial minorities, or recent immigrants, into its ranks? And thank God, they don't answer to you, or shouldn't. While you guys have been robotically repeating "name the Jew" and trapping people who really shouldn't into taking the time to try :lol: :disgust: to dialogue with you, thank God someone had the sense to completely unencumber themselves from you.

They don't have to answer, and its none of your business.

How might that impact the movement as a whole? How might that impact which types of immigration reform ideas are offered at the state and federal levels?

---------------------[/QUOTE]Since when did you care - it obviously doesn't have anything to do with "the day of the rope".

Okiereddust

2005-10-01 05:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]What "democratic" society? You mean these huge changes over the last 50 years is actually a result of a democracy? Of course not. If Stalin was still there he'd have turned to milquetoast by now, and Beria would be working at MacDonalds, (and not just to mix body parts in with the hamburger.) :lol:

I actually am not completely sure, but there certainly has been a change, and a drive to somehow reestablish morality, rule of law, and human decency. I personally don't see how it could have come about except for a power beyond us. But that's digressing.

There's a difference between the official party line and personal beliefs. While they differ, it's not productive for the party line to explicitly contradict the ideal belief system. Of course, one component of being ideal is being a "racist". So the point about being "mild" for the sake of politics is going out of the window since it's explicitly condemning the core beliefs that are actually primary in all of this: blood and soil. The other fluff is never going to be agreed upon and is a shaky platform.[/QUOTE]I see what you mean actually. Ethnic and cultural loyalties in what has become now, to some extent irretrievably, a multicultural society (as you in CA should know more than anyone) involves some give and take. You don't have to do like in post British India and make it a point to have a pig roast outside a mosque if you're a Hindu or a beef roast outside a Hindu temple if you're Moslem. I think that's what he means (or should mean) by mild. Now when talks about how

[QUOTE]Multicultural outreach is now an American cliché with its own set rituals, and the immigration-reform movement needs to start adopting them...... Beyond that, it can and should engage in symbolic affirmative-action frippery that mainstream political groups in the United States adopt as a matter of course. It can acknowledge—loudly and without hesitation—that the United States has benefited from immigration in the past and will continue to do so in the future. [/QUOTE] I agree, he's really attacking our core belief system. The whole reason people fundamentally are in the movement is not for these economic arguments about immigration etc. (the "party line") as to just not wanting a multicultural society. Perhaps the movement for practicallity needs to learn how to pay lip service to it, but fundamentally also we need to develop our own ideology, one that makes it clear that we reject the attempt in the past to create a multicultural society, and take no more steps down that path, eventually withdrawing from it to a substantial extent.

What the immigration movement needs to do is to develop a non-multiculturalist ideology of its own, with credibility, which means ensuring the Nazi's and CI's have no part in it. Perhaps McConnell doubts such will happen, thus his rather nauseatting embrace of multicult. He and AmCon really should know better.

jeffersonian

2005-10-03 16:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Failure to be "racist" is why "conservatives" are such big failures.[/QUOTE] Exactly so Mad. Why is it that promotion of the interests of whites and the desire to maintain our traditional values and culture is such an egregious crime when no one blinks an eye when La Raza openly states "For those inside the race everything, for those outside nothing". Just the blatent double standard should garner sympathy, but the racist label trumps all.

Okiereddust

2005-10-03 17:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jeffersonian]Exactly so Mad. Why is it that promotion of the interests of whites and the desire to maintain our traditional values and culture is such an egregious crime when no one blinks an eye when La Raza openly states "For those inside the race everything, for those outside nothing". [/QUOTE]Because we've been conditioned that way, of course.

Texas Dissident

2005-10-03 17:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]McConnell is just pointing to an obvious fact here. The racist/anti-democratic right, as a whole, possesses all the disadvantages of the far-left, yet none of the advantages.

And what exactly are those 'advantages'?

I suspect they can be summed up in one word -- money. In the case of the far-left, jewish money. Those old-school Reds had it and today's beer swillin' good ol' boys still foolish enough to fly the colors don't. We're way too busy trying to keep the mortgage and credit cards paid.

Now that aint the jews fault mind you, they put their money where their hearts are. Good for them. The fault is our own wealthy upper-class so infected with greed that not only have they sold-out their own kind on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, but they go one step further in refusing to finance, under-the-table or otherwise, some of the groups and efforts that are trying to correct the injustices already done. If the 'racists' had millions funding their point of view, then I'm sure McConnell's little essay here would take a different direction.

Nevertheless, I get that the main thrust of this piece is to how to start attracting said money for immigration reform and the greater point of how politics is the art of the possible. But having said that, reading this in the American Conservative I'm left with a overwhelming sense of how seemingly far I personally am out of the loop. McConnell strategizes on how to win the war, but to my mind is already conceding the battlefield and terms of engagement to the enemy. We Buchananites saw the same thing take place in the GOP back in the early 90s when the strength and focus of ideological conservatism took a back seat to obssessive worry about mainstream media descriptions, poll numbers and navel gazing. Sure the GOP has become the dominant party at almost every level of government, but can anyone deny it was at the expense of its very soul. There's no longer any conservatism to speak of left in the Republican party and it is now simply an establishment husk of the principles it once held dear and capitalized on to gain leverage and power in the first place.

You see, at bottom I fundamentally reject the whole notion of this new 'multi-cultural America' that must be cow-towed to in order to gain legitimacy from a mainstream media and moneyed establishment that without a doubt despises us common rednecks and our silly notions of blood and soil. Granted, politically speaking one has to choose what hill they are willing to die on and not every single issue is so vital there can be no give and take. But, on this one issue of immigration reform, it seems to me that retaining the ethnic and religious core of America is fundamental to any real and substantive political gain and/or reform and cannot be simply discarded without losing what the entire deal is about in the first place.

But take all that with a grain of salt 'cause like I said, I think I've moved so far off the reservation I'm now just a reactionary as I really despise and hold in contempt what this nation has already become and the basic rules it says I have to play by in order to get a seat at the table. Indeed, what I really want is to take a ten pound sledgehammer and smash the table.

Okiereddust

2005-10-03 19:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]And what exactly are those 'advantages'?

I suspect they can be summed up in one word -- money. Actually what I was talking about was the nature of the rank and file of the hard-left

[QUOTE] It is the nature of politically marginal groups to seek to attach themselves to more broad-based social movements—and they won’t be deterred by polite requests that they stay away. The Left’s history is replete with various Communist groups trying to gain influence in the labor movement, the civil-rights movement, and the antiwar movement. [B]Indeed, the hard Left actually possessed cadres with considerable organizational skills that could make themselves useful in ways that the average skinhead with a swastika cannot.[/B][/QUOTE]The communists situation was comparable with the VNNers and NAers in some ways. Like the VNNers, they possessed a rigid totalitarian ideology of foreign origin which basically doomed them to failure in achieving mass appeal. Like the VNNers their rigid leadership would not allow them to compromise on their ideology, were stupid and bull-headed, and basically proscribed any cooperative effort with other more groups, instead dictatng that they be viewed as the enemy and attacked (compare Stalin with people like Linder).

Unlike the WN's however, to operate on a grassroots level the communists were politically competent in a basic way, yielding a operative political theory applied to and coupled with a well disciplined organization, which were able to make some fairly impressive inroads into American society in certain areas, such as notably unions. educational organizations, and universities, and media. WN have not the slightest trace of this to my knowledge. That was my only point.

As to the money question, along with other qestions of white activism, the great mobilization of jewish groups in comparison with other groups iswel known, and discussed by MacDonald. Inversely related to it is another phrenomena generally understood by political and social analysts - the political demobilization of mainstream America. People just aren't engaged. Like Anti-Yuppie notes, the typical mainstream Joe is just interested in drinking beer and watching sports. That's just a tough barrier to overcome.

[QUOTE]In the case of the far-left, jewish money. Those old-school Reds had it and today's beer swillin' good ol' boys still foolish enough to fly the colors don't. We're way too busy trying to keep the mortgage and credit cards paid.

Now that aint the jews fault mind you, they put their money where their hearts are. Good for them. The fault is our own wealthy upper-class so infected with greed that not only have they sold-out their own kind on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, but they go one step further in refusing to finance, under-the-table or otherwise, some of the groups and efforts that are trying to correct the injustices already done. If the 'racists' had millions funding their point of view, then I'm sure McConnell's little essay here would take a different direction.[/QUOTE]Well that's not entirely true about our wealthy upper-class. You look at history, the type of people who have supported far-right movements (at least far-right in the mainstream eye) the occasional rich eccentric types have been their chief funders. Henry Ford comes to mind, more recently it was something rich Texas oilmen like Nelson Bunker Hunt had quite a reputation for.

I think part of the problem of course is the gradual eclipsing of the old rich and bourgiose with the new "managerial class" of rich. Today's rich didn't inherit oil wells from their daddy (even dubbya didn't make his money that way) they're successful organization men, getting rich on stock options underwritten by Goldman-Sachs. This and their differiing values were what Burnham and Francis wrote so much about.

Nevertheless, I get that the main thrust of this piece is to how to start attracting said money for immigration reform and the greater point of how politics is the art of the possible. But having said that, reading this in the American Conservative I'm left with a overwhelming sense of how seemingly far I personally am out of the loop. McConnell strategizes on how to win the war, but to my mind is already conceding the battlefield and terms of engagement to the enemy. We Buchananites saw the same thing take place in the GOP back in the early 90s when the strength and focus of ideological conservatism took a back seat to obssessive worry about mainstream media descriptions, poll numbers and navel gazing. Sure the GOP has become the dominant party at almost every level of government, but can anyone deny it was at the expense of its very soul. There's no longer any conservatism to speak of left in the Republican party and it is now simply an establishment husk of the principles it once held dear and capitalized on to gain leverage and power in the first place.

You see, at bottom I fundamentally reject the whole notion of this new 'multi-cultural America' that must be cow-towed to in order to gain legitimacy from a mainstream media and moneyed establishment that without a doubt despises us common rednecks and our silly notions of blood and soil. Granted, politically speaking one has to choose what hill they are willing to die on and not every single issue is so vital there can be no give and take. But, on this one issue of immigration reform, it seems to me that retaining the ethnic and religious core of America is fundamental to any real and substantive political gain and/or reform and cannot be simply discarded without losing what the entire deal is about in the first place.

But take all that with a grain of salt 'cause like I said, I think I've moved so far off the reservation I'm now just a reactionary as I really despise and hold in contempt what this nation has already become and the basic rules it says I have to play by in order to get a seat at the table. Indeed, what I really want is to take a ten pound sledgehammer and smash the table.[/QUOTE]True enough. Like you say, we're way off the reservation right now. If we climb back on, it will have to be, at least initially through appeals to those values most Americas still consider mainstream. And I think we do have to account for the strength of empire in the modern world and in the modern American dynamic. Most people do not reflexively dismiss its precepts and legitimacy like we do, so I doubt it is possible to completely overturn the past. As you note politics is the art of the possible. The key I think is staying attuned enough so you are in a position if favorable to exert pressure for your principles.

AntiYuppie

2005-10-03 19:49 | User Profile

McConnell here parrots Steve Steinlight's line "immigration reform is a real problem, but yesterday's 'racists' and xenophobes should not have a seat at the table." To Steinlight, "racists" and "xenophobes" mean people like the late Sam Francis or even Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan. Does McConnell agree? Does he agree that neoconservatives should be allowed to hijack the immigration reform movement and set not only the terms of debate and discourse but decide who does and doesn't get a voice in the matter?

The loud and clear message seems to be that immigration reform only became a legitimate issue when "respectable" plutocratic and Jewish voices said that it was. As long as unlimited immigration harmed those who didn't have tickets to elite society, it wasn't a problem and those who protested were just bigoted rednecks. When highly educated and skilled H1B workers threatened to put the average Wall Street Journal reader out of work, or when Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants decided that they don't just hate Gringos and Infidels in general but Jewish Gringos and Infidels in particular, then and only then could the issue be safely put on the table (under careful neocon supervision, of course).

[quote=Okiereddust]I see what you mean actually. Ethnic and cultural loyalties in what has become now, to some extent irretrievably, a multicultural society (as you in CA should know more than anyone) involves some give and take.

Which is all well and good, except for the fact that whites are doing all of the giving and minorities all of the taking. Extreme racialism is a backlash against the fact that our "multicultural" society is set up in a lopsided fashion so that the white majority must always make compromises while non-whites can be as militant, self-assertive, and in-your-face in their demands as they like.

mwdallas

2005-10-03 21:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE]And what exactly are those 'advantages'?

I suspect they can be summed up in one word -- money.[/QUOTE]

And media....

[QUOTE]McConnell strategizes on how to win the war, but to my mind is already conceding the battlefield and terms of engagement to the enemy. [/QUOTE]

Right. The fact that "racists" support a policy does not mean that the policy itself is racist. The appropriate response to the allegations that immigration restriction is racist is to turn the table; the immigration advocates are replacing the traditional black minority along with the traditional white majority. The proponents of mass immigration are the aggressors; if "racist" is to have any pejorative meaning it must be applied [I]to them[/I]. And if "racist" means "bad for blacks" -- as they appear to believe at Ole Miss -- even under that standard, the pro-immigration side is the racist side. This is elementary, but when the "non-reality-based community" is the only side that gets to present its views, you wind up with nonsense like this. One would hope that TAC would present the other side, but no such luck. I am all for encouraging black participation -- and visible black participation -- in anti-immigration rallies and the immigration restrictionist movement. That is not a concession of principle; it is a simple acknowledgment that we have a common interest in this issue. And it scores legitimate PR points as well.

Okiereddust

2005-10-03 21:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]McConnell here parrots Steve Steinlight's line "immigration reform is a real problem, but yesterday's 'racists' and xenophobes should not have a seat at the table." Well when he says things like

[QUOTE]If the immigration-reform movement is to succeed, it needs to achieve something similar. If its foes can routinely and successfully depict immigration reform as racist and anti-immigrant, it will fail. He echoes something every political analyst in the world will tell you. I don't think that's necessarily just parroting Steinlight.

athough when he says

The movement needs to create an aura around itself that is attractive to first- and second-generation immigrants, and—just as important—that would be repellant to the kind of white nationalists who want to attach themselves to it for their own purposes.

In theory this is simple enough: the most sensible immigration-reform line —most consistently embodied by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies—is pro-immigrant and pro-reform. In essence, the argument is that the United States could better welcome and assimilate new immigrants if their rate of entry were reduced. [/QUOTE] It certainly hints, as does the article in general, that for the immigration reform movement to succeed politically, it must distance itself from the kinds of fights over multiculturalism that moderate WN's and paleoconservatives believe in.

Is the time here to put these issues on the back burner and concentrate on immigration? I think an argument could be made that way. After all as our country becomes more truly multicultural these other fights get more and more difficult to win politically, and require the votes of those minorities WN's aren't likely to be if use in getting.

[QUOTE]To Steinlight, "racists" and "xenophobes" mean people like the late Sam Francis or even Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan. Does McConnell agree? Does he agree that neoconservatives should be allowed to hijack the immigration reform movement and set not only the terms of debate and discourse but decide who does and doesn't get a voice in the matter?[/QUOTE]He still works for Buchanan and publishes alongside Francis and Roberts. I doubt he wants to let neo's hijack the debate. His ways of not letting them do so might differ from your's though. He councils a strategic retreat.

[QUOTE]The loud and clear message seems to be that immigration reform only became a legitimate issue when "respectable" plutocratic and Jewish voices said that it was. As long as unlimited immigration harmed those who didn't have tickets to elite society, it wasn't a problem and those who protested were just bigoted rednecks. When highly educated and skilled H1B workers threatened to put the average Wall Street Journal reader out of work, or when Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants decided that they don't just hate Gringos and Infidels in general but Jewish Gringos and Infidels in particular, then and only then could the issue be safely put on the table (under careful neocon supervision, of course).[/QUOTE]Of Steinlight, true enough, though I don't think they care about the H1-B worker. But let's face it, toleration by the neo's and establishment certainly is important, practically, in determining if an issue is "respectable". After all they run the country, and WN'scertainly don't have any effective vehicle, or vehicle of any kind really, to oppose them, other than hooting and hollering (anonymously of course) from the internet.

Which is all well and good, except for the fact that whites are doing all of the giving and minorities all of the taking. True, as MacDonald notes. However, whether > Extreme racialism is a backlash against the fact that our "multicultural" society is set up in a lopsided fashion so that the white majority must always make compromises while non-whites can be as militant, self-assertive, and in-your-face in their demands as they like.[/QUOTE]That is, an active force drawing in people from society's mainstream, and capable of acting intelligently and appealing to mainstream people with these legitimate arguments, as opposed to just the old atavistic phenomena, seems debatable, from looking at any of the "extreme racialist" sites, like VNN. They don't spend any time talking productively about how to change normal society with practicable means (although they do like the minutemen) they just love to reminense about the glory days of the Third Reich.

I think there's profitable ground between neocon accomodationism and VNN, and if smart people would spend less time trying to conflate rejection of the latte with the former, a ot of good worthy movements might do better. Even though there is plenty to worry about and criticize even in the moderate WN movement's [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132170&postcount=5]like AmRen, as I just did[/URL].

Sertorius

2005-10-03 21:54 | User Profile

Okie,

I took his article that way as well. The Left does have an advantage when it comes to turning folks out. Jews have a knack at that sort of thing. Still, what gets me about the beer drinking crowd is their laziness when it comes to writing letters to these clowns in DC and the state legislature. Personally, I have no problem drinking beer and raising hell at them about this.

Tex,

I'm with you, save I don't want to use a sledge hammer. I want to take a chainsaw to post modern America. The America I grew up in was a far cry from today's Judeo-plutocracy.

AY,

[QUOTE]When highly educated and skilled H1B workers threatened to put the average Wall Street Journal reader out of work, or when Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants decided that they don't just hate Gringos and Infidels in general but Jewish Gringos and Infidels in particular, then and only then could the issue be safely put on the table (under careful neocon supervision, of course).[/QUOTE] I don't think it goes quite this far with them. I note that a number of Neocons praise H1B as being necessary for "growth". I believe their greed trumphs this comment. I haven't seen anything in the Wall Street Journal where they have ever advocated anything but send more of them.

Some of the smarter ones are speaking out about illegal immigration, but in very selective way as you note. It isn't Mexicans they are worred about, they pay lip service to that. It is Muslims. The few that do say that we need to something about "latino" ilegal immigration are up to no good. I just can't see a road to Damascus conversion for people like Bennett and Gingrich. It seem to me too that they are trying to co-op this issue to sabotage it.

Texas Dissident

2005-10-03 21:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Inversely related to it is another phrenomena generally understood by political and social analysts - the political demobilization of mainstream America. People just aren't engaged. Like Anti-Yuppie notes, the typical mainstream Joe is just interested in drinking beer and watching sports. That's just a tough barrier to overcome.

In and of itself I agree, it's an impossible barrier to overcome. That's really been the source of most of my recent frustration on this issue. People just don't care enough to do anything and that's in Texas!

But looking a bit deeper and I can't help but speculate if it is truly that they don't care or they just haven't connected the dots between immigration and their own family's stressed-out budget, social problems, exodus to the suburbs, crime, etc. etc. Here's where organization and most importantly, money, funds and creates its own market, so to speak.

How many of these folks who don't seem to care right now would get worked-up into yellow-ribbon hysteria if they were saturated and bombarded by a non-step media advertising campaign telling them 1) there is a problem with immigration, 2) here is how it affects you and your family, and 3) here is what you need to do to fix it?

Of course then I guess the next problem would be what radio/TV stations would air such media spots, especially since the AM talk radio dial is now just about completely owned by Bush's buddies Clear Channel.

Okiereddust

2005-10-03 22:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=mwdallas]And media....

This is elementary, but when the "non-reality-based community" is the only side that gets to present its views, you wind up with nonsense like this. One would hope that TAC would present the other side, but no such luck. I am all for encouraging black participation -- and visible black participation -- in anti-immigration rallies and the immigration restrictionist movement. That is not a concession of principle; it is a simple acknowledgment that we have a common interest in this issue. And it scores legitimate PR points as well.[/QUOTE]Sounds to me like you're talking just like TAC does about "adobting the set rituals of multicultural outreach", and "enlarging the tent". :lol:

Seriously, that is always the trick in politics, to make pragmatic alliances without fundamentally compromising your principles. Such takes a healthy balance of qualities and a balanced mindset that is not the most common among hardcore activists. One of the reason I think finding a leader like Buchanan (when available) is always so important.

Faust

2005-10-03 22:05 | User Profile

Just using the word “racism” is surrendering to cultural marxism.

AntiYuppie

2005-10-03 22:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] It certainly hints, as does the article in general, that for the immigration reform movement to succeed politically, it must distance itself from the kinds of fights over multiculturalism that moderate WN's and paleoconservatives believe in.

He still works for Buchanan and publishes alongside Francis and Roberts. I doubt he wants to let neo's hijack the debate. His ways of not letting them do so might differ from your's though. He councils a strategic retreat.

His rhetoric seems to be crafted to reassure the neocons that the "fringe" will be kept out, and he's careful not to tell us what his idea of "fringe" really is. This amounts to letting neocons dictate the terms of the debate from the very get-go, which is the same mistake that foreign policy think-tanks made decades ago when neocons were allowed to dictate the terms of Cold War and anti-Communist strategy.

If anything, it is the neoconservatives who should have no say in the matter and no seat at the table. They were busy subverting anti-immigrationism when it suited them, only to turn around and hypocritically say "But we've favored sensible immigration policy all along" when it turned out that the latest pool of immigrants doesn't just hate whitey, but Jews as well. Neocon immigration reform has all the sincerity of neocon anti-Communism, and paleoconservatives are fools to not only allow them in but to accomodate them. Fool me once, shame on you...

Of Steinlight, true enough, though I don't think they care about the H1-B worker. But let's face it, toleration by the neo's and establishment certainly is important, practically, in determining if an issue is "respectable". After all they run the country, and WN'scertainly don't have any effective vehicle, or vehicle of any kind really, to oppose them, other than hooting and hollering (anonymously of course) from the internet.

(also in response to Sertorius)

The WSJ editors and writers are of course solidly pro H1B and open borders. What I was referring to with my H1B comments is the fact that some white collar workers and professionals are waking up to the problem of cheap 3d world labor because of H1B technical experts (i.e. east Asian engineers, scientists, accountants, etc). This has given the issue a more genteel air than when it was primarily a blue collar issue and immigration reform was seen as a populist cause that fiscal "conservatives" (WSJ readers) would have nothing with.

However, whether That is, an active force drawing in people from society's mainstream, and capable of acting intelligently and appealing to mainstream people with these legitimate arguments, as opposed to just the old atavistic phenomena, seems debatable, from looking at any of the "extreme racialist" sites, like VNN. They don't spend any time talking productively about how to change normal society with practicable means (although they do like the minutemen) they just love to reminense about the glory days of the Third Reich.

I think there's profitable ground between neocon accomodationism and VNN, and if smart people would spend less time trying to conflate rejection of the latte with the former, a ot of good worthy movements might do better. Even though there is plenty to worry about and criticize even in the moderate WN movement's [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132170&postcount=5"]like AmRen, as I just did[/url].[/QUOTE] The Skinhead crowd is just a stick that neocons and the Left use to silence their critics. The immigration reform movement was not built or dominated by skinheads or VNNers, so all of this debate is just a red herring. If all McConnell is saying is that the 14/88 types shouldn't lead the immigration debate, there really is not point because they 14/88 crowd is not and never was the main grassroots force behind it.

This means that if he does have a substantive point, his definition of "racism" probably converges with Steinlight's.

Sertorius

2005-10-03 22:11 | User Profile

AY,

Thanks for clarifying that for me. [QUOTE]This has given the issue a more genteel air than when it was primarily a blue collar issue and immigration reform was seen as a populist cause that fiscal "conservatives" (WSJ readers) would have nothing with.[/QUOTE] Stephen Moore "Club of Greed" types...

Okiereddust

2005-10-03 22:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]His rhetoric seems to be crafted to reassure the neocons that the "fringe" will be kept out, and he's careful not to tell us what his idea of "fringe" really is. This amounts to letting neocons dictate the terms of the debate from the very get-go, which is the same mistake that foreign policy think-tanks made decades ago when neocons were allowed to dictate the terms of Cold War and anti-Communist strategy. Yes, I'm nervous about his rhetoric too. It does seem extremely and obstentatiously moderate

[QUOTE]If anything, it is the neoconservatives who should have no say in the matter and no seat at the table. They were busy subverting anti-immigrationism when it suited them, only to turn around and hypocritically say "But we've favored sensible immigration policy all along" when it turned out that the latest pool of immigrants doesn't just hate whitey, but Jews as well. Neocon immigration reform has all the sincerity of neocon anti-Communism, and paleoconservatives are fools to not only allow them in but to accomodate them. Fool me once, shame on you...[/QUOTE]Well you aren't going to shut them up. Like Dershowitz "unavoidable for comment" :biggrin:

[QUOTE] (also in response to Sertorius)

The WSJ editors and writers are of course solidly pro H1B and open borders. What I was referring to with my H1B comments is the fact that some white collar workers and professionals are waking up to the problem of cheap 3d world labor because of H1B technical experts (i.e. east Asian engineers, scientists, accountants, etc). This has given the issue a more genteel air than when it was primarily a blue collar issue and immigration reform was seen as a populist cause that fiscal "conservatives" (WSJ readers) would have nothing with.[/QUOTE]So how many wine and cheese parties have you started going to? :wink:

The Skinhead crowd is just a stick that neocons and the Left use to silence their critics. Its a real thing on its own right, as we (unfortunately) have discovered here.

The immigration reform movement was not built or dominated by skinheads or VNNers, so all of this debate is just a red herring. A red herring that movement opponents certainly can use effectively. Neocons and everyone else.

If all McConnell is saying is that the 14/88 types shouldn't lead the immigration debate, there really is not point because they 14/88 crowd is not and never was the main grassroots force behind it.

This means that if he does have a substantive point, his definition of "racism" probably converges with Steinlight's.[/QUOTE]So you're saying unless the 14/88 ers are in all the leadership positions whether the display their swastika's and SS armbands at meetings is immaterial, and for anyone to complain about it makes them a neocon?

Here you aren't making sense.

AntiYuppie

2005-10-03 22:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]

So how many wine and cheese parties have you started going to? :wink: I sometimes get invited once, but never a second time.

So you're saying unless the 14/88 ers are in all the leadership positions whether the display their swastika's and SS armbands at meetings is immaterial, and for anyone to complain about it makes them a neocon?

Here you aren't making sense.[/QUOTE] The reason it's a red herring is this: the 14/88ers are to the Right what "Free Mumia" types are to the Left or what "Kill Whitey" types are to the NAACP. You don't see Jesse Jackson dwelling on and condemning his "Kill Whitey" constituency even if he does see them as an embarassment, because to do so is to accomodate his opponents. Yet rightwingers never lose an opportunity to condemn their own lunatic fringe, as though it were the lunatic fringe rather than the establishment that is their greatest enemy and barrier to political power.

I don't like 14/88er's either, but I also know that it isn't they or their clownish antics that are holding back immigration reform and sensible foreign policy, but rather opposition from the establishment. To dwell on 14/88ers rather than educating readers about the threat posed by neocons would be analogous to some neocon condemning excessive "LETS ROLE" jingoism from the rank and file rather than spilling their ink against enemies of neoconservatism.

Centinel

2005-10-03 22:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The Skinhead crowd is just a stick that neocons and the Left use to silence their critics.

IMO at least some of these types must be supported--in one degree or another--by SPLC/ADL or their sympathizers in order to keep checks flowing into the coffers from rich widows in south Florida.

The immigration reform movement was not built or dominated by skinheads or VNNers, so all of this debate is just a red herring. If all McConnell is saying is that the 14/88 types shouldn't lead the immigration debate, there really is not point because they 14/88 crowd is not and never was the main grassroots force behind it.

Yes, but it's not that far of a leap from the 14/88 crowd to, say, Sam Francis' writings, the CofCC, the Minutemen, VDARE, The Occidental Quarterly, and Americans for Immigration Control. Would McConnell marginalize these voices from the debate as well for being "too racist?"

Faust

2005-10-03 22:50 | User Profile

Centinel,

Somehow I think it is the likes of William Regnery II, Jared Taylor and Virginia Abernethy that McConnell wants purged from the immigration reform movement. I agree with Antiyuppie the "Skinhead" thing is a red herring.

Centinel

2005-10-03 22:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Faust]Centinel,

Somehow I think it is the likes of William Regnery II, Jared Taylor and Virginia Abernethy that McConnell wants purged from the immigration reform movement. I agree with Antiyuppie the "Skinhead" thing is a red herring.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I forgot about AmRen...you and I are suspecting the same motives for McConnell's position.

Texas Dissident

2005-10-03 22:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]Would McConnell marginalize these voices from the debate as well for being "too racist?"[/QUOTE]

McConnell just might. He's always been the, shall we say, least virile of the AmCon crew, most concerned with appearances at said wine and cheese fetes.

I don't think a Buchanan would, though I definitely think one of anti-immigration's leading lights, Tancredo, would as well.

robinder

2005-10-03 23:00 | User Profile

That's the sort of thing I mentioned earlier, like a dutiful leftist, the author equates a Jared Taylor or similar sort with any old street Nazi. That solitary Nazi flag he saw proves it, or so he would have everyone believe.

Okiereddust

2005-10-03 23:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]Yes, I forgot about AmRen...you and I are suspecting the same motives for McConnell's position.[/QUOTE]You're being silly. He conducts [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20468]long public exchanges[/URL] with him, but would "purge" him?

Okiereddust

2005-10-03 23:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]IMO at least some of these types must be supported--in one degree or another--by SPLC/ADL or their sympathizers in order to keep checks flowing into the coffers from rich widows in south Florida.

Yes, but it's not that far of a leap from the 14/88 crowd to, say, Sam Francis' writings, the CofCC, the Minutemen, VDARE, It is in my book.

And I thought everybody's book but Dees' and Foxman's.

[QUOTE]The Occidental Quarterly[/QUOTE]You mean all ten of them?

Hugh Lincoln

2005-10-04 02:36 | User Profile

McConnell is weaker than used tea bag in the South China Sea. I'm monumentally unimpressed by this Avon heir who, with his tall dollar, could afford to take the most unpopular positions, but instead behaves as if continued invites to whatever functions with his Asian wife are the manna he must crane his neck for. Like Derbyshire and so many others, he's a duck-sauce dipper, which says a lot. The point that Nazi flags are idiotic goes without saying. Making a to-do about it for the sake of the Overlords is pathetic. Why not address the quite legitimate white racial reasons for opposing immigration, Scotty?

Apply pressure to thumb pad with index finger fingernail, and release.

Sertorius

2005-10-04 02:39 | User Profile

Hugh,

I've noted that too. I wonder how much of this has to do with his former friendship with Norman Podhoretz?

madrussian

2005-10-04 03:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] Extreme racialism is a backlash against the fact that our "multicultural" society is set up in a lopsided fashion so that the white majority must always make compromises while non-whites can be as militant, self-assertive, and in-your-face in their demands as they like.[/QUOTE] It doesn't stop there. If/when whites become a minority, the same will continue: Zimbabwe is the ultimate stop in this "hate whitey" campaign. Minority quotas and handouts and preferences will give way to majority quotas and handouts and preferences. The rhetoric will change from minority "rights" to majority "rights" -- after all the whitey hoarding all the wealth and perks is even more unjust than when whitey was in majority.

It's a war, and every war is fought to completion of objectives. The objective isn't "justice", then why think they'll stop? Just to be consistent in their rhetoric? lol.

madrussian

2005-10-04 03:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] If the 'racists' had millions funding their point of view, then I'm sure McConnell's little essay here would take a different direction. [/QUOTE] Exactly. There's a huge market for pro-white pro-West entertainment, rather than for the stupid schlocky niggers-as-brain-surgeons-whites-are-cowardly-and-dumb formula. Look at the success of "The Passion".

Hivemindgammahydra7

2005-10-04 03:40 | User Profile

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]More sellout rubbish.

Every group but whites is acting in their own self-interest and is deeply committed to identity politics. The writer can continue to delude himself and cling to his public education fantasies for as long as he wants to, but that won't change the facts. Non-whites are working furiously to undermine and, one day soon, suppress whites while stealing from them the very fruits of their labors and their children's birthrights. White folks had better wise up, and [u]FAST[/u].

Every passing day that whites sit on their hands for fear of New Age labels (such as - gasp - racism!) and/or newsmedia condemnation moves them one day closer to a future like unto Zimbabwe's present. By the time self-righteous and narrow-minded fools like McConnell wake up to our plight it will be far too late, and he'll get to reflect upon the errors of his dogma as his wife and daughters are forcibly serviced by the brown mob while the noose gets tightened up around his collar.

The man and the idiot-throng at AmCon would do well to pull their collective heads out of their colons, but what's the likelihood that will ever happen?[/size][/font]

Stanley

2005-10-04 18:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The reason it's a red herring is this: the 14/88ers are to the Right what "Free Mumia" types are to the Left or what "Kill Whitey" types are to the NAACP. You don't see Jesse Jackson dwelling on and condemning his "Kill Whitey" constituency even if he does see them as an embarassment, because to do so is to accomodate his opponents.[/QUOTE]The media does not hold Jesse to account for his "Kill Whitey" constituency. Remember when Al Gore spoke to the Nation of Islam? No controversy there -- the ADL gave its stamp of approval.

That's why McConnell's concern for respectability is futile. As long as the media pushes the open borders agenda, it will always find something to tar the immigration reform movement, regardless whether the skinheads are kicked out. Something like, "Tancredo disavows racism, but one of his speeches was reprinted in the newsletter of the CofCC, which according to the SPLC ...." We've all seen the drill.

xmetalhead

2005-10-04 19:51 | User Profile

I knew there was a reason I didn't re-up my American Conservative subscription 6 months ago.

PS. Nice post Hivemind.

Quantrill

2005-10-04 20:10 | User Profile

I think conservatives, for the time being, should adopt a 'no enemies on the right' sort of attitude. This does not mean that they should cooperate with the Aryan Nations or allow Nazi flags at anti-immigration demonstrations. What it does mean is that attacking other rightists is both counterproductive (wasting energy and resources tearing down those that mostly agree with you) and futile (no matter how much you criticize National Vanguard, the ADL is still going to call you a Nazi.) The one exception to this would be WN pagans that make overt (and asinine) attacks against Christianity. No group hoping for widespread support among the white majority of this nation can associate with 'jew-on-a-stick' types.

Cracker of the Whip

2005-10-04 20:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]It doesn't stop there. If/when whites become a minority, the same will continue: Zimbabwe is the ultimate stop in this "hate whitey" campaign. Minority quotas and handouts and preferences will give way to majority quotas and handouts and preferences. [B]The rhetoric will change from minority "rights" to majority "rights" [/B] -- after all the whitey hoarding all the wealth and perks is even more unjust than when whitey was in majority.

It's a war, and every war is fought to completion of objectives. The objective isn't "justice", then why think they'll stop? Just to be consistent in their rhetoric? lol.[/QUOTE] I've been telling family and friends for years that the minorities don't want equal rights. They want the upper hand. South Africa is now a perfect example of what will happen to whitey when the tables turn. The sad thing is that whitey is handing it over to them [I]again, here[/I], on our own soil. Another sad thing is that family and friends don't want to discuss the matter at all.

G.Larson

2005-10-04 21:06 | User Profile

Conservatism is a dust husk, and I just can not see all the wimps and mealy mouthed bed wetters who infest what little turf it pitfully has left doing any thing revolutionary. They will not even admit that until the upper money classes are all Vlad tepesed nothing will honestly change. Guess it would be time for the tiny groups of people locked into conservatism with some vital signs to strike out and put together a working creed.

Faust

2005-10-05 02:15 | User Profile

G.Larson,

Yes I agree, Vlad Dracul was one of the good guys. He fought the Turks. We need men like him today. Impale the yuppies!

[QUOTE]Dracula was a brave Christian Wallachian Prince known in history as Vlad the Impaler. He was contemporary with St. Stephen the Great of Moldavia (second half of the 15th Century) and a good ally of him in the numerous Romanian wars against the Turks.

The father of Vlad the Impaler was known as Vlad Dracul (Romanian word for Dragon - because he received for his warrior merits a Germanic Dragon Order).

The people of that era used to name "Draculea" or "Dracula" the "Son of Dracul", that was Vlad the Impaler - Dracula. He was not a vampire but a brave Prince who fought for Christendom.

[url]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1268/DRACULA.html[/url] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]In 1461 Mohammed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of twenty thousand impaled Turkish prisoners outside of the city of Tirgoviste. This gruesome sight is remembered in history as "the Forest of the Impaled."[/QUOTE]

madrussian

2005-10-05 02:45 | User Profile

Impaling Turks is hilarious and just. Turk on a stick. Like a rotten kebab.

Okiereddust

2005-10-05 04:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]I think conservatives, for the time being, should adopt a 'no enemies on the right' sort of attitude. This does not mean that they should cooperate with the Aryan Nations or allow Nazi flags at anti-immigration demonstrations. What it does mean is that attacking other rightists is both counterproductive (wasting energy and resources tearing down those that mostly agree with you) and futile (no matter how much you criticize National Vanguard, the ADL is still going to call you a Nazi.) [B]The one exception to this would be WN pagans that make overt (and asinine) attacks against Christianity. No group hoping for widespread support among the white majority of this nation can associate with 'jew-on-a-stick' types[/B].[/QUOTE]I'm afraid this tends to be the exception that proves the rule, does it not?

Its rather silly to say we have no enemies on the right, and include groups that say they have no other friends on the right, or aren't even "right" themselves.

Quantrill

2005-10-05 11:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I'm afraid this tends to be the exception that proves the rule, does it not?

Its rather silly to say we have no enemies on the right, and include groups that say they have no other friends on the right, or aren't even "right" themselves.[/QUOTE] My main point was two-fold. First, spending our time criticizing other groups on the right is counterproductive and futile, in general. Second, there are exceptions to this, namely that criticizing rabidly anti-Christian groups is legitimate and necessary. I could make common cause with a fair-minded agnostic or pagan, and I think it makes good tactical sense to do so. I could not, however, make common cause with someone who holds the destruction of Christianity as one of his goals.

Polish Noble

2005-10-05 12:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Let's see here Amos...he's a COONservative...which is somewhat better than being a KAHNservative or a RepubliCOON... :bash:[/QUOTE]

Hilarious!!!

G.Larson

2005-10-06 05:45 | User Profile

Where did I attack him? As I stated until the current ruling plutocratic class is Vlad Tepesed, meaning given the same treatment Uncle Dragon gave the corrupt nobles of his day. Uncle Dragon is a hero of mine.

[QUOTE=Faust]G.Larson,

Why do you attack Vlad Dracul, he was one of the good guys. He fought the Turks. We need men like him today.[/QUOTE]

Faust

2005-10-06 05:52 | User Profile

G.Larson

I am very sorry I misread your post. Yes I agree! Impale the yuppies!