The future is here; and it belongs to the new majority. And the people who are going to be most surprised when the full implications of this change hits our culture will be, you got it, liberals.

Hot rage for me, and I think we point out, vehemently and often, that the Democratic Party’s whole game is now racial preference politics, and ask the rhetorical question of how a candidate’s appearance at [Name your State]’s White Presidential Forum would be received by our establishment. Our cause is not helped by the fact that the hapless Republicans have just declared the most massive preferential option imaginable for Latin American, Asian and African foreigners: throwing our country open to them.

We need to reject the Republicans, but I hope those frustrated posters I see promising to vote for Dr. Dean or any Democrat to protest Bush’s treason will reconsider. The Democrats are the deliberate, mortal enemies of America - the Evil Party. The Republicans are merely the venal, thoughtless enemies of America - the Stupid Party. Don’t forget that when Bush floated his amnesty-for-Mexicans trial balloon in 2001, the Democrats immediately upped the ante and demanded one for all illegal aliens. Let’s not allow disgust with one enemy to drive us into the arms of another. HRS

Seconding Mr. Sutherland’s comments about not voting for Democrats: Cast enough votes for the Constitution Party candidate, and the Republican strategists will start thinking about how to win those votes back by moving rightward. Cast enough votes for Howard Dean, and they will start thinking about how to win those votes by moving leftward.

To Mr. Coleman, wouldn’t exit polls reveal that the crucial votes for Dean came from conservatives and Republicans protesting Bush?

I fully appreciate what Mr. Sutherland says. I’ve always rejected as immoral the idea of “the worse, the better.” I’ve always believed one should vote for the candidate one thinks is the best or the least bad. That is still the case. I would never vote for a bad candidate in the hope that that would make things worse and so lead to some political changes I hope for. I dread what a Democratic administration under Dean would do. But what I think is best for the long-term health of the country is that Bush be defeated. And the best way to defeat him is to vote for the only candidate who has a chance of beating him, rather than voting for a third-party candidate.

I’m not saying that I’m going to do this. In the end I may very well end up voting for the Constitution Party. But given the way I’m thinking and feeling now, if the election were being held today I would vote for the Democratic candidate.

Ironically, I seem to be consistently a bit more radical on these issues than Mr. Sutherland. In 2000 he voted for the Republican candidate while I voted for a third party candidate. And now in 2004 he’s talking about voting for a third party candidate while I’m talking about voting for Democrats. :-)

Mr. Auster has been ahead of me, but so far we have both been moving steadily right. A vote for Dean would be a split-S back to the left! At least, that is how the geniuses who guide the Republican Party would see it, so I agree with Mr. Coleman. Republican strategists have not been noted for their brilliance in the Bush era.

Steve Sailer’s VDare column today is a must-read about what may really underlie the Bush amnesty fetish. On a racial note, though: Steve characterizes Mrs. Jeb Bush as mestizo. Looking at her family portrait at one of his links, what I saw was a middle-class Mexican family of the older type - they look like, and probably are, Spaniards by blood. Suffice it to say, her family looks nothing like the Mexican illegal aliens I see every morning lined up around the corner of 39th and Madison to buy their matriculas consulares from the Mexican consulate (under the indulgent eye of the NYPD, of course). But who really knows whom Bush thinks he would be inviting into our country? It’s plain he doesn’t much care who shows up or what it does to the natives. HRS

It is a question of power. Joining with the Democratic candidate will very possibly cause the election to be controlled by immigration reformers. That is, the immigration reformers could possibly determine which party will win the election. Hopefully, General Clark will win the nomination and make it easier for many of us and many others to vote for him. But I agree that the balance of power could be shifted to the Democrats by another possible means: by drawing enough republicans away from Bush and to a third party such as the Constitution Party. The thing is, we must stick together on a plan or we will fail certainly.

I am considering whether to send the General a donation. He is moving up fast in the polls.

Never stop writing congressmen and congresswomen.

Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Coleman may have a point. If the conservative anti-Bush votes were for the Constitution Party, there could be no possible ambiguity about their meaning.

Mr. Auster wrote: “I’ve always rejected as immoral the idea of “the worse, the better.” I’ve always believed one should vote for the candidate one thinks is the best or the least bad.”

*****

I could not disagree more. Most people refuse to act in their own defense until someone is pulling up the driveway, forcing them out of their homes and ordering them to leave their belongings behind. Even then, a good portion will meekly go along and accept their fate.

The goal, then, should be to make everyone aware of what lies in store for them. Re-electing Bush will not do the trick. Frankly, the very best thing that could happen would be the election of Sharpton. THAT would scare the bejeebers out of the complacent. Twentieth century examples of the validity of this tactic should be apparent: the reaction to Bela Kun and the Spartacists in Europe, the reaction to immigrant centered Communism in the U.S. during the 1910s and 1920s. In contemporary terms, just think how much better things would have been had McGovern defeated Nixon in 1972 and the entire Marxian internationalist Third World agenda been put out in the open. How much worse will things be this year, when conservatives think they have achieved another victory with the re-election of Bush?

Perhaps there is a third way. Get many conservatives to join the Constitution Party and then have the Constitution Party insist its members vote for the Democratic Party. The joining would demonstrate just how many anti-Bush people there are and the actual voting for the Democrats would demonstrate just how great a sacrifice the Constitution Party members are willing to endure on this issue. Moreover, once Bush is gone, we can rejoin the Republican Party and change it. I would rather have union and blue collar workers confiscating my money than aliens confiscating my country. We can always change economic policy later, but we can’t change a decisive victory by aliens.

Not possible for a solid third party some say? Recall the Republican Party began as an offshoot of the Whig Party because of the slavery debate. Republicans stood solidly against slavery. All the politicians wrote it off as ridiculous and insignificant. But it was only a FEW YEAR’S OLD when it elected Lincoln as president.

Lincoln didn’t join it because he thought it could win but because of its ideology.

I prefer voting my conscience, but Mr. Auster’s idea of voting for the Democrat does have its advantages, if I may pay devil’s advocate with my own ideas. :-)

Picture this mini-election: Bush gets 120 votes, the Democrat gets 100. Now, instead, 15 voters change their vote to the Constitution Party candidate: Bush 105, Democrat 100, Const. Party 15. Now, instead, the 15 voted for the Democrat: Bush 105, Democrat 115. There is a double effect when you don’t just take votes away from Bush, but also ADD them to a VIABLE opponent.

Even so, I don’t know if I can stomach it.

People have to do what is necessary. If people allow sentiment to control their political actions, they are like jellyfish floating with whatever current is strongest.

Mr. Coleman’s last point is a point I made weeks or months earlier here. It should serve as a sobering fact to the Bush people and as encouragement to people who are against Bush.

The Republican party was never really a third party. The Whig party simply disintegrated in 1854 after the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act, because the Act brough the slavery issue front and center, the Whig party was a national party which had no position on slavery, and Whigs simply migrated to new parties. Anti-slavery Whigs mostly became Republicans, pro-slavery Whigs mostly became Democrats. By the time of the 1856 election, the new Republican party was already one of the two major parties.

I think that many of the posters to this site still fail to understand the severity of the situation. A revolution is imminent. The only thing in the balance is the direction of that revolt. Either natives rebel or they/we will be overwhelmed and subjugated in very short order, a matter of years. Continuing to talk in terms of Republican vs. Democrat, polls, elections, policy, draft candidacies and the like is a distraction, ultimately.

Only a shock to the system that awakens the remnants of America has any hope of success. Until the elites themselves feel directly threatened—and until that feeling is well deserved—things will go on as usual. I cannot imagine anything more futile than playing the game associated with third party politics. If Perot and Buchanan couldn’t make anything of it, how effective do you think another “suits and ties” party will be?

The entire rotten structure, government, media, and academe, is designed to suppress contrary thoughts on the globalization and ethnic cleansing of America. Our trade policy, at the heart of the matter, no longer has anything to do with goods and services, it’s only about peoples. The entire issue centers on the importation of non-whites into the U.S. and simultaneous exporting of the white population into the garrisons providing cannon fodder for the “wars of liberation” demanded by our little Napoleon. If you doubt me, look at the names and faces on the casualty lists from Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and around the world.

To Paul,

Short of turning to some extra-legal form of politics, what could be more radical than my idea of voting for an anti-American nutcase like Dean?

Let me also suggest to Paul that he leave the war out of this discussion. Many of us have supported Bush on the war, and are critical of the anti-war right. Therefore an attempt to make the war the reason to oppose Bush can only re-open divisions among us. We are united on the immigration issue as the most pressing reason to oppose Bush, and I think we should stay with that.

For those who are considering throwing votes to the Democrats to dislodge President Bush, there are two things to consider. First, the defections would have to be massive enough to work. Second, the message would have to be very clear that these are conservative voters abandoning the Republican incumbent because he has sold out to liberalism - especially, but not only, over immigration - rather than former Republican voters disaffected by Bush’s “right-wing conservatism” or attracted to the Democrats’ liberalism. The worst possible result would be for conservatives to vote Democrat against Bush, and for Bush to win anyway. Then, as Mr. Coleman says, the Republicans will probably conclude that they need to move even farther left to pander to minorities as their white vote total declines. They would also probably conclude that they have nothing to fear from right-wing insurgents and would carry on in their statist, corporatist ways.

A third party insurgency is the best alternative, but the question remains: who should be its standard-bearer? Could the immigration issue, and the Bush amnesty proposal, drive a Buchanan candidacy to better results than in 2000? I have no idea whether Buchanan would have any interest in taking it on. HRS

Mr. Auster writes: “Short of turning to some extra-legal form of politics, what could be more radical than my idea of voting for an anti-American nutcase like Dean?”

*******

How about recruiting a mass organization of disgruntled former soldiers who have returned from fighting *for* an America that now legally requires a workforce, student body, and appointed government officialdom that “looks like America”, which itself in turn is being transformed into a brown horde before their very eyes, specifically excluding them?

Paul,

I am one of those disgruntled former soldiers (Marine, actually) that you speak of. I’m afraid you underestimate how politically correct today’s armed forces are and how indoctrinated today’s GIs are. Another of President Bush’s initiatives, perpetuating bad policy going back at least to the bad old days of Robert McNamara in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, is to make the armed forces as multi-racial as possible. Very few GIs, even Deep South good ol’ boys, question the wisdom of this, although they do question the feminization of the armed forces, something else the Bush administration supports. Two examples, both from Iraq: the full general running the show overall is John Abizaid, an Arab, while the lieutenant general in charges of forces in the field is Ricardo Sanchez.

Bush takes this multi-racialism to a new low by actively encouraging the recruiting of alien mercenaries with promises of instant citizenship. Worse, when an illegal alien Mexican was found to have enlisted in the Army using a forged birth certificate, the Army - at the direction of the administration, no doubt - did not court martial the alien fraudster, but decreed that it would work to “regularize” him and his family. I suspect there was not much grumbling in the ranks about that. This is a case where the armed forces could work against us. American Marines and soldiers who have served with Mexican mercenaries who were tough hombres or just “good guys” could conceivably be amnesty supporters, not opponents, because they don’t want to screw their buddies. Most of them are not deep thinkers about the meaning of American citizenship. HRS

The concern is reasonable that a sizable white conservative vote for the Democratic ticket in November might be misconstrued by the media and the Republican strategists as a statement by white voters that they think Bush is too conservative, and thus as a message that Republicans need to keep moving yet _farther_ to left. Therefore we would need to publicize our intentions so that there could be no misunderstanding of the significance of our votes. For example, we could run a full-page ad in the NY Times, “Conservatives against Bush,” which would explain why we are voting for the Democratic candidate. There could also be a website where people sign a statement that they are going to vote for the Democratic candidate as the only way to stop and discredit Bush’s anti-American policies.

Something like that would be required, because the idea of conservatives for Democrats creates cognitive dissonance.

One precedent for this sort of thing is W.F. Buckley’s bestirring himself in 1988 to set up “Buckpac” to help defeat Sen. Lowell Weicker, the self-described “turd in the punchbowl” of the Republican Party. Beware what you wish for: Buckpac succeeded (“Buckpac kills” crowed Buckley in NR). The result was the execrable Joseph Lieberman in the Senate, where he has now been for 15 years - he approves of Bush’s amnesty and wants to add driver’s licenses for illegal aliens to it. The defeated Weicker then won Connecticut’s governorship. He proceeded to inflict a state income tax on Connecticut. Some conservative triumph Buckpac turned out to be. HRS

Howard Sutherland, I’m sure, knows more than I do about the current state of our armed forces. My firsthand knowledge is almost 31 years old. Mr. Sutherland also underscores my greatest fear regarding current trends: the creation of a mercenary “professional” military, consisting primarily of foreign AND native born Latins, who will have no hesitation in turning their weapons on American citizens. And, bearing in mind Mr. Auster’s admonishment about war talk (with which I agree), I nevertheless take note of at least one columnist (coming to a conclusion quite the opposite of mine) who sees the amnesty of illegals as part of a Bush plan to reopen the military draft and populate his armed forces with mexicans and other latins ( http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_4505.shtml — a link I found on americanpatrol’s website ).

Still, despite the strength of Mr. Sutherland’s argument, I wonder about the attitudes of returning white veterans. Remember, this includes many national guardsmen gone overseas for well over a year, now. Shut out of jobs, promotions, entry into college, graduate schools, *veterans’ medical and educational benefits* (because the dollars are redirected to educate, medicate, and house illegals instead) through the fruits of “diversity” laws, how will white veterans react to seeing those “tough hombres”, their barely English speaking, barely literate “buddies” receive jobs, benefits, and resources that are denied to them?

There is, in this country, at least one 20th century example of disgruntled veterans taking to the streets, the Bonus Marchers of 1932. Of course, their numbers were relatively small (twenty or thirty thousand), and they were disorganized and unarmed. Their European counterparts, especially in the immediate aftermath of World War I, did not suffer from the same lack of discipline and, as a result, were far more effective in achieving their aims.

What Paul forecasts is more likely to happen among returning Guardsmen and Reservists than among the regulars. They are more civilian in outlook, obviously, and much less susceptible to propaganda. What is missing is any sense among white Americans, including veterans, that we have any particular interests worth defending. All the training and indoctrination white GIs have had is, for obvious reasons, directed toward making them feel they have common interests with the blacks and hispanics alongside whom they serve. My point above is that that is hard to overcome; military people are as likely to see the world in military v. civilian terms as white v. non-white. HRS

Paulccc is right that we can’t go on in the old way. Something’s gotta change, but being an ineffectual er I mean an intellectual I don’t know what to do. I am thinking a lot of William James’s famous phrase, with one word added: “the moral equivalent of civil war.” Because it’s apparent that the American elite has been at war with the citizenry for the last generation and is now becoming almost irrationally aggressive. Last month, homosexual travesty-marriage, this month, ethnic cleansing of white working people, next month…but how does “the moral equivalent of civil war” translate into action?

I find myself, to my horror, in partial disagreement with Mr. Auster on the question of whether we should vote for Coward Howard Dean. True, that appears, in a way, more radical and decisive than voting for some obscure third party. But surely at this point we need a politics of absolute clarity - and, as suggested above by Mr. Auster, the reliably treasonous media will completely sink any recognition of the meaning of conservative votes for Dean. I am not sure anything we could do would overcome this. And yes, those votes would be twice as hurtful to our new Napoleon as votes for a third party, and increase his chances of defeat. But suppose Bush squeaks by into a seoncd term - surely more of a message would have been sent by his near-defeat than by a liberal victory, if it were crystal clear that he had nearly lost because many Americans had understood his treason. Of course at this point we’re not really interested in attempting to change the behavior of the Karl Roves, the Texas barons, the country-club, CofC, WSJ types anymore, but mayhaps a surprising showing by an anti-immigrant third party would tend to give a big boost to a nativist mass movement - whereas a vote for Dean would be more like an act of anguish, a gesture toward despair.

I guess it comes down to this. Are we trying to change Republican behavior, or are we now in “the moral equivalent of civil war?” And although I suggest above that a vote for Dean *appears* more radical than voting third-party, I think that in the end the more decisive course is to go third-party, and endeavor to build a New Model.

Republicans just don’t care, and never will.

(By the way, like Mr. Auster, I also have been annoyed by the anti-war right, but I have to say, my interest in the “War on Terror” has utterly drained away since the president delivered his little ethnic-cleansing surprise. If Bush can blithely throw away what remains of our nation and culture, then what does he think we’re fighting for or defending? I just don’t understand it anymore.)

(Also by the way, it was encouraging to see that John Leo has come out in favor of our side. And, quelle astonishment, there has been some very good anti-Napoleon stuff even at National Review’s Corner, usually the ultra-lame home of chirpy, incestuous bibble-babble - with endless information about Jonah Goldberg’s dog, which personally I do not find excessively interesting.)

I tried to put an HTML link to Leo’s piece in my comment, but I see it didn’t show up. Here’s the URL:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20040112.shtml

Shrewsbury makes some good points. But there is no political party at present devoted to immigration enforcement and restriction and such a party could not be created before November. The Constitution Party is on our side of the issue, but it doesn’t seem to be a priority with them.

As you can see, if you copy a URL into a comment, it displays as a hyperlink.

Do any VFR partisans have contacts with the Constitution Party, so that we can try to make immigration more of a priority for them? Surely, Bush’s betrayal of his oath and our country should resonate, or else what is the point of having a party that is supposedly dedicated to the real, as opposed to Justice Brennan’s “living,” Constitution?

Also, is there any possibility of an alliance, or even a merger, of the Constitution and America First Parties? Again, the magnitude of the threat the Bushrovicans now pose to America should make people more willing to work together. HRS

I got an e-mail this morning from Scott T. Whiteman, Prescience@comcast.net, describing the Constitution Party platform (“God, Family, Republic”) and discussing their presidential candidate Michael Peroutka. There was a web address, but nothing is there yet. He mentions opposing Bush’s amnesty at the end of the e-mail, but it’s sort of tacked on. You could contact him and ask to be put on the e-mail list or maybe get in touch directly with Peroutka and sound him out.

I have no contacts with the Constitution Party, but any of us can contact it and the various immigration reform groups and see what ideas they have about the ideas we discussed here. The problem is the President has taken the initiative and it will therefore be very hard to effectively react and to organize in time for the fall election. (We should try anyway.) But we can certainly write representatives and get the President’s initiatives stopped for now. If we are successful, we can no longer afford to talk while the President prepares a new initiative.

Or, as an alternative, stop writing and start organizing.

I have an admittedly tactical suggestion, and that is to constantly embarass the Administration, whenever Bush or others blather about homeland security or defense, by having people ask, as publicly and pointedly as possible, what they are doing to defend our borders — and especially against Mexico.

*Conservatives against Bush*

I really don’t know much about this and *believe me* I am no political strategist but I think the Real Right should organize, and organize quickly against Bush. Scrolling through the posts I think the “third party” option is best. It must be crystal clear that traditional conservatism exists - and is not happy. I listen to a lot of talk radio and I routinely hear conservative callers saying: “Bush just lost my vote!” Now they need someone to vote for.

All “we” need to do is get the message out. I also think we should vote for Pat Buchannan. (I see Mr. Auster wince). Nor does it matter who we vote for because he isn’t going to win anyway. Pat Buchanan is an insider with a big enough name, he is bright, articulate and I think he sincerely wants what is best for the “average” American. Best case scenario is that Bush wins by a hair and the administration realizes how the “base” is really feeling and pulls right in Bush’s second term. Second best would be that Dean/whomever wins and the Republican party is stung into moving right. We’d just have to suffer Dean for a term. Or maybe the third party would really take off and perhaps get someone in office in 2008.

A lot of the work could be done online. There are *scores* of anti-immigration “america first” constitution parties and organizations out there. There are *tons* of good links on VDARE, Steve Sailer’s site etc. These often link to sites with more good links. The honey-tongued Mr. Auster could compose a three or four paragraph “Standard” e-mail articulating the proposition and send this to VFR’ers who could in turn send it to all the decent Realright sites out there. Ask them to post it and say “pass it on”.

Someone could also contact Pat Buchanan (via The American Cause website I suppose) and ask how he feels about running for president before we all decide to vote for him. If he isn’t too keen on it we could just pick someone else.

We should also court the Racialist Right. I’m sure these folks are none too impressed with Bush’s recent sellout and would love to make themselves heard in the election.

Mr. Auster’s NYT ad idea is spot on too. Any mainstream media play would be helpful. Perhaps Pat Buchanan could use his magazine (Mr Auster winces again).

Mr. Auster could link back to his site (in the e-mail) and post a banner here. *CONSERVATIVES AGAINST BUSH*

Sorry to nominate Mr. Auster for everything but he could probably come up with a good letter to start sending (e-mail) out pretty quickly. Maybe the mainstream would catch on and call us a bunch of *wackos* but it would be free advertising anyway.

Of course “Immigration/Betrayal” should be the basic rallying cry because pretty much everyone can unite on this. We can all go back to arguing about neocons and racists and Iraq later.

Of course I’m just thinking out loud and I appreciate everyone’s indulgence.

what’s with all the *stars* anyway?

Barry: If by ‘racialist right’ you mean Aryanists, Odinists, anti-Christians (as opposed to non-Christians) and transparently nasty people, I’d say the farther we keep from ‘em, the better, both for obvious moral reasons and because their support is worse than useless. And without comparing Buchanan to any of these, I’d say that he’s probably not the right standard-bearer here because many millions of Americans have got it into their heads that he’s some kind of closet Nazi. I’m afraid I don’t have any good alternatives to propose at the moment, but with Buchanan, it’s a case of “in your heart you know he’s right (some of the time), and you also know he hasn’t a chance, either”.

Paul:

Fair enough. Forget the “racialist right” part. I still think it’s better to root for Buchanan than sit on the sidelines with our hands in our pants.

Well, to give Mr. Buchanan a chance to speak for himself on this latest amnesty proposal:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36555

Regarding the Constitution Party, I took a look at their website. Immigration appears to be an afterthought with these people. And, anyway, I must tell you that some political party, sitting in Lancaster, PA, isn’t likely to understand the impact the brown horde is having on the rest of America. I just read, for example, that in less than four years, Dallas, TX, has grown from 30 percent “Hispanic” to 40 percent. I live in an area virtually overrun by Aztecs. The likes of the Constitution Party aren’t going to take serious note until their own area in the northeast has become an open sewer as is the case in vast parts of the southwest. A viable anti-immigration movement MUST originate in California, Arizona, or Texas.

Perhaps it has not happened to Lancaster, Pennsylvania yet, but it has happened to Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, Boston, Washington and plenty of smaller cities (Wilmington, Delaware for example) throughout the Northeast. There should be strong sentiment for restriction among Northeasterners - indeed, there has been on Long Island. It has not materialized as a political force, as pols of both parties pander shamelessly to all non-white immigrants, especially hispanics. HRS