← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 7642 | Posts: 25 | Started: 2003-06-26
2003-06-26 16:18 | User Profile
[url=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Scallon/NewsSS062403.html]Chronicles Extra[/url]
Newsmax.com has of late become a conduit for stories from disgruntled, so-called leaders of the "Christian Right" auch as Paul Weyrich, Roger Knight, Gary Bauer, Louis Sheldon, Mike Farris and Jim Dobson, who are saying out loud that unless the Republican Party quits taking them for granted and doesn't start paying attention to them, there may be a revolt or mass exodus away from President George W. Bush in the upcoming 2004 election. Phil Brennen has written two of these stories on May 11 and May 6 and another story appeared on June 1 detailing Weyrich's comments on the situation.
Apparently these leaders are upset that the White House didn't vigorously defend Sen. Rick Santorum (R- Pennsylvania) when he made comments critical of homosexuals in an interview. And they're also upset that the White House and GOP Chairman Mark Raiciot continues to meet, court, and conduct outreach to homosexual lobby groups, including the Log Cabin Society, the organization of homosexual Republicans. Add to this the Bush administration's support for renewing the assault weapons ban and their support of the "road map" peace process that would force Israel to abandon settlements in the occupied territories and accept a Palestinian state, and one would think you would have a critical mass that would lead to such a mass defection or, as Weyrich put it, "[I]f the party is perceived to be changing its position on the homosexual agenda or indeed actually changes its position, there is no way we can deliver our people for Bush and the Republicans in 2004."
But that's not going to happen. These articles are nothing more than useless shots across the bow of Karl Rove to warn him not to take them for granted. Any fool could have seen where the GOP was headed in 2000 and an alternative to Bush and the Republicans did exist. Yet these same malcontents supported Bush fully and in doing so have bound the movement they are a part of to the Republican Party for good whether they like or not. So they should prepare to be taken for granted, because they deserve to be.
These "shepherds" of the "Christian right" are more than welcome not to vote in next year's election. The question is, would their flocks really follow them?
The fact is, these "Christian leaders" are no more relevent to the political process than so-called "black leaders" are, and, just as the Jesse Jacksons, Julian Bonds and Al Sharptons fade into the background, with fewer listening to their ward heelers' pitch anymore, so to will they.
"Christian conservatives" (or to be more specific and accurate, conservative fundementalist and Pentacostal believers) are lock, stock and barrel members of the GOP and play an active role in it, just as African-Americans do in the Democratic Party. They do not need "leaders" or voting guides anymore to tell them how to vote Republican. Blacks do, on occasion, stay at home on Election Day to punish the Democrats from time to time when the elections are, in their view, not that important. In the big elections, however, the Dems can count on them. They are smart enough to know when to show up and when not to.
Rank-and-file Christian conservatives are starting to follow their example, so any attempt by their "leaders" to make them stay at home in 2004 will be futile and useless gesture. They have more poltical sophistication than many give them credit for. Bauer hinted at this when he said recently that "Many of the candidates in 2000 were talking about abortion and gay rights while Bush talked about Jesus. That's what elected him." Indeed. Many Christian conservatives waited for a sign (if you want to call it that) from Bush to show he was one of them. There were plenty of other Republican candidates running for president back then who were more conservative than Bush and more consistent on the issues that these groups of voters cared about. But they also wanted someone who was electable and would not back a true believer who would only go on to lose in the fall, especially since they wanted so bady to end the Clinton era. Only a few Republican candidates fit the bill for electablility. And when George Bush said that his favorite philospher was and said "Jesus," they were sold.
So there is no way that Bush II, born again and God fearing, a man that protects Israel and American from heathen terrorists, is going to see the core of his support desert him over homsexual rights. Sometime during the campaign, he will go to a church and say "Jesus" again and reassert his support amongst the faithful. And if that isn't a convincer, Karl Rove can always mention to these so-called "leaders," that if they really want to see the homosexual agenda agenda in action, all they have to do is stay at home and watch Howard Dean be elected. They'll all be back on board by the fall of 2004ââ¬âthe Sheldons, the Farrises, the Dobsons and the Weyrichs. They want their puny little piece of the Bush family action any way they can get it and, besides, if they did try to lead a revolt against Bush and it failed, rest assured, Karl Rove holds grudges.
Meeting with members of the Log Cabin Society is not something serious Christian conservatives will launch a revolt for. Only a serious breach, like Bush II becoming pro-choice all of a sudden would do that. That won't happen. So all these so-called leaders can do is shuck and jive for a few reporters to gain some attention for themselves, but their importance in the larger scheme of things is virtually nil.
2003-06-28 17:18 | User Profile
Quite simple: Xians I know always use the "lesser of 2 evils" argument. They absolutely WILL NOT stop thinking that way. They really believe that the Democratic Party is evil (I agree), and that they'll take the lesser.
Second, these people are naturally patriotic people. They want to think good things of their homes, families, friends, and country. Not voting would be a truly unpatriotic thing and they have been taught for generations to vote.
Third, Bushie lies to them all the time. He talks a good game at the conventions, then stabs them in the back. Most Xians have families, jobs, church functions - they don't have TIME to read everything. Just a fact.
Finally, they think the GOP keeps them safe. The press talks about war on Terror, but never talks much about Bushie's amnesty for Mex'cans.
-Jay
2003-06-28 19:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Jun 28 2003, 17:18 * *Quite simple: Xians I know always use the "lesser of 2 evils" argument.ÃÂ They absolutely WILL NOT stop thinking that way.ÃÂ They really believe that the Democratic Party is evil (I agree), and that they'll take the lesser.
**
Just like the article said
And if that isn't a convincer, Karl Rove can always mention to these so-called "leaders," that if they really want to see the homosexual agenda agenda in action, all they have to do is stay at home and watch Howard Dean be elected. They'll all be back on board by the fall of 2004ââ¬âthe Sheldons, the Farrises, the Dobsons and the Weyrichs.
Both leaders and flock thus have bought into the political line that the only meaningful political divide in this country is between the left-liberals and the neocons, and the only way for Christians to escape disaster is to back the latter.
Of course you can't really blame them. Outside of a few dusty corners of the political world such as this internet forum, which only reach a tiny minority, those are the only alternatives that exist. And as we can se by the discussions on this forum, most of those Christians who discover these alternatives are immediately repelled by a level of vitriol, some of which equals that of the hard left.
2003-07-05 01:02 | User Profile
If Bush does not fix the economy he will be in for a tight race even if he ran against Donald Duck.
He cannot afford to assume that Biblical Christians will still vote for him, no matter how suicidal the Dimocrats seem.
Why?
Because most voters are sophisticated enough to know that a purgative to the political process is a healthy thing on ocassion, like happened in 1992. The chaff die off and are later replaced by those more suited. It was the stay-at-homes in 1992 that truly produced the Republican landslides of 1994, and a great many people know that.
This purge can happen again, and even result in not a Republican resurgance, but perhaps a third party replacement.
It has happened before.
If Bush signs an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban, or the economy is still anemic in 2004, then he will have lost my vote and the vote of most people I know.
He should do himself a favor and put Karl Rove on the next shuttle - strapped to an external fuel tank.
2003-07-05 01:22 | User Profile
Now more than ever it is vital to the Propasphere that they maintain the illusion of choice by steadfastly ignoring any grass-roots movement - whatever its composition - away from the two-party system.
Thus, get ready for a dumptruck's worth of editorials in 2004 'reminding' the lemmingry that - unlike in past years - this year, Democan v Republicrat represents a [u]real choice [/u]between opposing ideologies.
Sure it is. Hello, sucker - step right up!
2003-07-05 03:20 | User Profile
*Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 4 2003, 21:22 * ** Now more than ever it is vital to the Propasphere that they maintain the illusion of choice by steadfastly ignoring any grass-roots movement - whatever its composition - away from the two-party system.
Thus, get ready for a dumptruck's worth of editorials in 2004 'reminding' the lemmingry that - unlike in past years - this year, Democan v Republicrat represents a [u]real choice [/u]between opposing ideologies.
Sure it is. Hello, sucker - step right up! **
Absolutely right, IR. Just when I thought that the R's and D's couldn't be any more indistinguishable from one another, they've hit a new low: the Liberia thing. The same George Bush who told the American people during the 2000 campaign that "we shouldn't be the policeman of the world" now wants to pull a Bill Clinton and take up "Black issues" and help Liberia in its civil war. Not that I ever believed him, of course, but I have to admit I'm a little surprised that the R's are taking up the D penchant for mucking about in Africa.
I'm also amused that the media is telling people that "America has a special relationship with and responsibility for" Liberia, since the Liberians are repatriated Black American slaves. [Too bad they all didn't go back there]. I'd have thought it was the opposite case--the whole point of Liberia was that those people were supposed to be on their own, and no longer tied to us.
2003-07-05 06:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Jul 5 2003, 03:20 * ... I'm also amused that the media is telling people that "America has a special relationship with and responsibility for" Liberia, since the Liberians are repatriated Black American slaves. [Too bad they all didn't go back there]. I'd have thought it was the opposite case--the whole point of Liberia was that those people were supposed to be on their own, and no longer tied to us.*
PA, Only a small percentage of Liberians are descended from repatriated Black American slaves.
As well as former US slaves who chose repatriation, Africans who were captured on the high seas enroute to slavery were shipped to Liberia. The two groups collectively are referred to as 'Congo' Liberians. They only constitute a small percentage of the population. The rest are called 'Country' Liberians. There has been mixing of course, but the 'Congos' tend to underplay their 'Country' links because the 'Congo' Liberians are traditionally the more prestigious group, since they have dominated the country since arriving, when they set up settlements on the coast, and treated the locals atrociously, including enslaving them.
2003-07-05 14:33 | User Profile
Illusion of choice? No, there is real choice, between that of a leftist that wants to implement policies that wil destroy this nation in another generation, or those of a free trade zealot whose policies will make us destitute and likel destroy the Union in two generations.
But the people are not as stupid as many would like to think. While we live in relative prosperity, people are naturally more concerned with maintaining the status quo, or at least as much tranquility as they canmanage.
But when we fall into economic chaos, the people will become far more radical and will look for answers to what they perceive as the source of the problems. If the economic problems are compounded by the perception that it is legal to discriminate against whites in employment/education opportunities and that the laws in general are rigged to be at the expense of white males, then you can bet people will get more willing to risk what they have to set things aright.
It will be a window of opportunity for WN, but not if it still has the twin albatrosses of anti-semitism and racial hatred wrapped around its neck.
2003-07-05 16:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 5 2003, 14:33 * *If the economic problems are compounded by the perception that it is legal to discriminate against whites in employment/education opportunities and that the laws in general are rigged to be at the expense of white males, then you can bet people will get more willing to risk what they have to set things aright.
It will be a window of opportunity for WN, but not if it still has the twin albatrosses of anti-semitism and racial hatred wrapped around its neck.**
This prescription, by itself, is actually pretty much what all the neocons are advocating too. They also of course criticize paleo's for racism and anti-semitism of course.
Like Derbyshire you seem preoccupied with not getting [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=6373&st=0&]The Jew Thing[/url]. Do you want to follow Buckley down your own "In Search of Anti-Semitism" ?
2003-07-05 17:31 | User Profile
Derbyshire is damn right not to want to get 'the Jew thing.' Anti-Semitism will not fly, and it completely marginalizes the right.
A trade-off is necessary between a desire to offer legitimate criticism of malign Jewish influence--for example, in Hollywood--and a desire to offer a platform that self-critical conservative Jews can accept. Derbyshire goes way overboard in criticizing McDonald, yes, but it is difficult not to have sympthay for his intention of being welcoming to Jews.
2003-07-05 18:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 5 2003, 17:31 * *Derbyshire is damn right not to want to get 'the Jew thing.'ÃÂ Anti-Semitism will not fly, and it completely marginalizes the right.ÃÂ
A trade-off is necessary between a desire to offer legitimate criticism of malign Jewish influence--for example, in Hollywood--and a desire to offer a platform that self-critical conservative Jews can accept.ÃÂ Derbyshire goes way overboard in criticizing McDonald, yes, but it is difficult not to have sympthay for his intention of being welcoming to Jews.**
Trade-off eh? Who are these "self-critical conservative Jews" who we must placate? You mean the neocons I presume?
These people drive a hard bargain. It sounds like you've already personally given them everything, i.e., you've been "Jewed down" to nothing ". :lol: You seem to be insisting we allow the neocons to continue to define conservative respectability, as [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=8417&hl=&view=findpost&p=49064]MacDonald notes[/url].
2003-07-05 19:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jul 5 2003, 18:40 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jul 5 2003, 18:40 ) <!--QuoteBegin-iwannabeanarchy@Jul 5 2003, 17:31 * *Derbyshire is damn right not to want to get 'the Jew thing.'ÃÂ Anti-Semitism will not fly, and it completely marginalizes the right.ÃÂ A trade-off is necessary between a desire to offer legitimate criticism of malign Jewish influence--for example, in Hollywood--and a desire to offer a platform that self-critical conservative Jews can accept.ÃÂ Derbyshire goes way overboard in criticizing McDonald, yes, but it is difficult not to have sympthay for his intention of being welcoming to Jews.**
Trade-off eh? Who are these "self-critical conservative Jews" who we must placate? You mean the neocons I presume?
These people drive a hard bargain. It sounds like you've already personally given them everything, i.e., you've been "Jewed down" to nothing ". :lol: You seem to be insisting we allow the neocons to continue to define conservative respectability, as [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=8417&hl=&view=findpost&p=49064]MacDonald notes[/url]. **
I agree with Okie.
I long laboured under the delusion that there was such a thing as "reasonable, conservative" Tribesmen that we could work with if we just reassured them sufficiently as to our good intentions.
I've come to believe that even if there are any of these "real conservative" types (a big IF), there are in any event far too few for it to matter for our purposes.
The unhappy truth is that when we deal with our Elder Brothers in Faith, we're talking to a HIVE and NOT so much to individuals. And you're hearing this from a guy who genuinely loves some of them as individuals.
But despite their best conscious intentions, I'm convinced that I as a gentile really can never be more to them than a sort of Man Friday to their Robinson Crusoe; at best an object of condescending indulgence and the sort of admiration you and I might feel for the beauty of the higher animals, and at worst an object of fear, hatred, slavery, exploitation, and genocide. We'll never just be fellow human beings to them, because they do not and cannot see themselves simply as a nation among nations.
They'll always be either at our throats or at our knees. There's no other way. Right now they're at our throats, in case you haven't noticed.
It just can't happen with them, at least not so long as they self-identify as Jews. There's too much cultural and historical baggage for that, and I strongly suspect genetic baggage, too, that keeps all that in motion. I would also add that as a Christian I suspect that there is some vast cosmic signicance in the fact of the Tribe's existence - and they aren't on the side of the Good, that's for sure. Tikkun is the work of Satan, history proves that beyond all doubt. But I wax too religious for my Heathen brothers here, and will fall into a respectfual silence on that point.
I leave it to you in the light of your own reason and experience.
I just ask that you consider the matter in light of MacDonald and others discussed here.
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-07-05 19:15 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 5 2003, 14:33 * ** It will be a window of opportunity for WN, but not if it still has the twin albatrosses of anti-semitism and racial hatred wrapped around its neck. **
I agree with everything you said above until I got to this last point.
While I agree that we should keep our anger under control and not allow it to degenerate into an all-consuming "hate", we have to accept that the essence of the struggle is racial/national/religious.
Increased racial consciousness is essential to our success, it is not something to be avoided or villified in any way.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, please explain.
Walter
iwannabeanarchy
2003-07-05 20:23 | User Profile
First, think I should I make clear that I do not give a rat's ass what Okkie and Yannis think about Jews or my attitude toward them. That said, I shall endeavour to clarify a few of my points.
No, I do think most neoconservative Jews are self-critical. Indeed, most are blindly un-self-critical. However, there are thinkers such as Paul Gottfried who are different, just as there highly religious Jews who recognize that their brethen often misapply their energies from the synagogue to politics and society at large. I am sorry if you all are not meeting them--but, then, you aren't really very likely to, unless you live right next to to a conservative Jewish neighborhood.
I agree that there are limits to how useful such Jews will be as allies, in that they are a minority within a minority. However, Jews and gentiles alike recognize the basic unfairness involved in lumping all Jews together as anti-white ideologues. This move is essentially anti-Semitic. It is a stance that reduces the individual to his or her genetic-ethnic identity, just as do racist utterances about the evils of 'mud people' and the like.
I also agree that increase white racial consciousness is imperative. However, to imply that this necessarily involves racial hatred or anti-semitism is lunatic.
Finally, I would note that it is not so much Jews who have to be 'placated'--although this is important--but rather white philosemitic gentiles who are not going to change their basic philosemitic orientation. Accept it, get over it, that's just the way it is.
Okiereddust
2003-07-05 21:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 5 2003, 20:23 * ** First, think I should I make clear that I do not give a rat's ass what Okkie and Yannis think about Jews or my attitude toward them.ÃÂ That said, I shall endeavour to clarify a few of my points.* Pretty lengthy clarification for a rat's ass. You must place a high value on rats, not surprising :huh:
**Accept it, get over it, that's just the way it is. **
Yes Mr. Cronkite :sleep:
Allow me to apologize to the rats. :thd:
madrussian
2003-07-05 21:18 | User Profile
Okie's on iwannabeanarchy's case. Finally on the right side of the issues :th: :punk:
Kurt
2003-07-05 21:35 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Jul 5 2003, 15:18 * ** Okie's on iwannabeanarchy's case. Finally on the right side of the issues :th: :punk: **
I agree. Nice work, Okie.
[SIZE=2]This iwannabeanarchy character should change his name to iwannabetomrennie ... or [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8178]iwannabegeorgecorgi[/url][/SIZE].
[SIZE=1]notice, I did [u]not[/u] say he was them, only that he reminds me of them. Ok?[/SIZE]
madrussian
2003-07-05 21:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by Kurt+Jul 5 2003, 14:35 -->
QUOTE* (Kurt @ Jul 5 2003, 14:35 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jul 5 2003, 15:18 * ** Okie's on iwannabeanarchy's case. Finally on the right side of the issues :th:ÃÂ :punk: ** I agree. Nice work, Okie.
[SIZE=2]This iwannabeanarchy character should change his name to iwannabetomrennie ... or [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8178]iwannabegeorgecorgi[/url][/SIZE].
[SIZE=1]notice, I did [u]not[/u] say he was them, only that he reminds me of them. Ok?[/SIZE]**
iwannabejewrat? :dung: [img]http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/rough/headshot.gif[/img]
Okiereddust
2003-07-05 22:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Jul 5 2003, 21:18 * Okie's on iwannabeanarchy's case. Finally on the right side of the issues :th:ÃÂ :punk:*
Now com'mom. You mean to suggest I was ever wrong? :huh:
Oh I remember when I was wrong. It was one time when I thought I was wrong :D
iwannabeanarchy
2003-07-05 22:24 | User Profile
Okkie apparently has this odd impression that what I write is intended to change his or Yanniss' views regarding Jews.
Okiereddust
2003-07-05 22:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by Kurt@Jul 5 2003, 21:35 * *[SIZE=2]This iwannabeanarchy character should change his name to iwannabetomrennie ... or [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8178]iwannabegeorgecorgi[/url][/SIZE].
[SIZE=1]notice, I did [u]not[/u] say he was them, only that he reminds me of them. Ok?[/SIZE]**
He strikes me more of a cross between leo of SFF and Darkeddy actually. :rolleyes:
Franco
2003-07-05 22:46 | User Profile
** iwannabeanarchy wrote:
Derbyshire is damn right not to want to get 'the Jew thing.' Anti-Semitism will not fly, and it completely marginalizes the right.
A trade-off is necessary between a desire to offer legitimate criticism of malign Jewish influence--for example, in Hollywood--and a desire to offer a platform that self-critical conservative Jews can accept. Derbyshire goes way overboard in criticizing McDonald, yes, but it is difficult not to have sympthay for his intention of being welcoming to Jews. **
**Whoop! Whoop! Uncle Franco's internal Jew alarm just went off! [I almost missed this thread, since I had not been paying attention to it. ALMOST missed it].
What you call, ahem, "anti-Semitism" is not anti-anything. It is merely noting that JEWS ARE WRECKING AMERICA!
Man, I am gonna keep a sharp eye on this iwannabeanarchy for the rest of my time here at OD.** :angry: :angry: :angry:
[clarification for moderators at OD: I do not claim that iwannabeanarchy is Jewish himself, just that his post is pro-Jew].
[edited]
Okiereddust
2003-07-05 22:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 5 2003, 22:24 * Okkie apparently has this odd impression that what I write is intended to change his or Yanniss' views regarding Jews.*
Who was it directed towards then? Any "guests" we don't know about? :ph34r: Or were you just talking to/arguing with yourself? (and losing :lol:)
iwannabeanarchy
2003-07-06 16:05 | User Profile
Okkie, presumably others beside you read these posts from time to time....
Your pitiful responses might work at your local beerhall, but they are extremely boring on OD, a forum which occasionaly achieves actually interesting conversation.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-06 16:24 | User Profile
*Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 5 2003, 20:23 * ** First, think I should I make clear that I do not give a rat's ass what Okkie and Yannis think about Jews or my attitude toward them. That said, I shall endeavour to clarify a few of my points.
No, I do think most neoconservative Jews are self-critical. Indeed, most are blindly un-self-critical. However, there are thinkers such as Paul Gottfried who are different, just as there highly religious Jews who recognize that their brethen often misapply their energies from the synagogue to politics and society at large. I am sorry if you all are not meeting them--but, then, you aren't really very likely to, unless you live right next to to a conservative Jewish neighborhood.
I agree that there are limits to how useful such Jews will be as allies, in that they are a minority within a minority. However, Jews and gentiles alike recognize the basic unfairness involved in lumping all Jews together as anti-white ideologues. This move is essentially anti-Semitic. It is a stance that reduces the individual to his or her genetic-ethnic identity, just as do racist utterances about the evils of 'mud people' and the like.
I also agree that increase white racial consciousness is imperative. However, to imply that this necessarily involves racial hatred or anti-semitism is lunatic.
Finally, I would note that it is not so much Jews who have to be 'placated'--although this is important--but rather white philosemitic gentiles who are not going to change their basic philosemitic orientation. Accept it, get over it, that's just the way it is. **
Ditto on Paul Gottfried - he's a prime candidate for one Tribesman who really "gets it" and wishes me no ill. That's not proof, but I believe in giviing folks the benefit of the doubt. One could name a tiny handful of other possible candidates, such as Israel Shahak, Michael Levin, and Michael Hart.
I'm not seeing where we disagree, but you seem to think that I'm taking a position somehow opposite of what you wrote.
Please explain.
Regards,
Walter