We know that President Bush is no friend of God-given individual rights (the protection of which is the reason governments are to be instituted among men). Nor is he is a friend of constitutional government (the rule of law), nor of national sovereignty (based on a sense of national identity). Four more years of a Bush administration could very well mean the death knell of freedom in the United States. But so could four years of a Democratic administration. If there is an answer to this dilemma, does it transcend politics?

Carter Pittman cited 2 objectives pursuant to which he believed an organization was desperately needed:

1. To preserve the integrity and dominance of the Northwestern European racial types in America.

2. To preserve liberty under law in our Constitutional Republic.

I would have started with preserving the Christian basis of our society, but at the time he wrote the above I think he had taken this for granted. (His writings are replete with pro-Bible references.) I think both his propositions are on point.

As I said in my earlier blog entry on Vazsonyi’s principles, I don’t think they are comprehensive, as they leave out the cultural dimensions. Nevertheless, they offer a very good common basis around which people could rally, including (unlike modern conservatism) the idea of a shared historically based heritage.

Bush doesn’t even pass a Neocon smell test.
He is the reactionary shadow to the PC left assault on America. Bush does not address the leftists on principle. He seeks a moderate solution, two steps behind the Democrats.

Bush is stil the lesser of two evils.

Indirectly, Bush has attacked property rights. Supporting affirmative action is partly a support of redistribution of wealth.

Touché, Mr. Coleman! HRS

One question that has troubled a lot of people, including me, is why the September 11th attacks only increased the Bush administration’s devotion to immigration and multi-culturalism, to say nothing of its grovelling tributes to Islam, when those murders were carried out by multi-cultural immigrants and illegal aliens. Multi-cultural, I mean, compared to most of us. Amongst themselves the murderers were thoroughly mono-cultural - what does that say about “diversity is our strength”? In any case, Jim Kalb has a good essay on Turnabout (http://jkalb.freeshell.org/tab/archives/001823.php) exploring that very question. HRS

Howard Sutherland wrote: “One question that has troubled a lot of people, including me, is why the September 11th attacks only increased the Bush administration’s devotion to immigration and multi-culturalism, to say nothing of its grovelling tributes to Islam, when those murders were carried out by multi-cultural immigrants and illegal aliens.”

Probably, the only clear answer lies in Bush’s psychology. Not only do I believe he has dynastic ambitions, I also think he suffers from Ben-Hur syndrome. As a recovering addict, he has latched on to a version of Christianity that lusts after martyrdom. In effect, he sees Christian America as a light unto the world. And he intends to feed us to the lions, turning the U.S. into some sort of Third World Colosseum, in order to prove just how pious and “loving” towards humanity he is.

To Mr. Sutherland’s large question, Paul C. offers a psychological answer pertaining to Bush’s own motivations which I think is at best of secondary importance. The increased devotion to immigration and multiculturalism after 9/11 was not at all an unusual phenomenon. Rather, it follows the familiar pattern of liberalism as enunciated in my First Law of Diversity under a Liberal Society, which states that the WORSE a particular minority group behaves, the MORE the majority must cover up for it. Since liberalism assumes the equal value and equal assimilability of all groups and cultures, the worse a particular third-world or non-white culture shows itself to be, the more it threatens the liberal world view. Therefore the bad or threatening nature of that group must be covered up all the more. The very survival of liberalism depends on the cover-up.

Remember that liberalism in its core is anti-life, anti-existence, at least as pertains to the life and existence of our own people and civilization. So if any entity shows itself to be against our existence, liberalism must side with it.

An early illustration of the Law of Diversity under Liberal Society was America’s response to AIDS. The commonsense assumption at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic was that this would discredit homosexual liberation. In fact, against all common sense, AIDS led to the full public acceptance and official institutionalization of homosexual liberation. It’s the same with Moslem jihad and terrorism.

And, as we can see from Heather MacDonald’s article on illegal alien criminals, liberalism must now even cover up extremely dangerous forms of criminality, while punishing responsible officials who try to apprehend the criminals.

According to Mr. Auster: “The increased devotion to immigration and multiculturalism after 9/11 was not at all an unusual phenomenon. Rather, it follows the familiar pattern of liberalism as enunciated in my First Law of Diversity under a Liberal Society, which states that the WORSE a particular minority group behaves, the MORE the majority must cover up for it.”

*****

I guess it would depend on just what you consider to be a Liberal Society. Certainly, the threat of Communism and anarchism following World War I did not generate tolerance for the immigrants who were the ones primarily behind those movements. Many were deported and immigration came to a complete halt. And no less a liberal than Franklin Roosevelt held the line on immigration harder than any other twentieth century president—not to mention that with his 9-11 (Pearl Harbor) he not only rounded up the misbehaving minority (Japanese) but jailed Germans and Italians for good measure.

No, I don’t think the issue of Bush’s psychology is secondary, because I think it also reflects the psychology of a majority of current society. And no small part of that psychology is the replacement of the muscular Christianity of Victorian America with a milksop version popular since the Sixties. A sort of hippy Christ.

Just last night, for example, I tuned into what used to be the second PBS channel in my area (KDTN in Denton, TX) and discovered its bandwidth had been sold to an evangelical broadcasting company. What were they showing? An interview with Juan Hernandez and his daughter. (If you don’t remember who he was/is, check out this link: http://odin.prohosting.com/~lamigra/MEXICO/juanhernandez010211.html ) The evangelical host of the program was literally bubbling with enthusiasm over the Bush amnesty proposal and kept asking Hernandez and his daughter to speak in Spanish to the TV audience. The daughter also explained that Christianity was not only about spiritual matters but about “economic justice for the poor of the earth.” Never mind that such a statement contradicts the entire historical tradition of evangelical Protestantism. THIS is exactly the sort of mush that Bush and his followers eat up.

No, the psychology of Christianity itself has changed in this day and age. And what an age it is when even Franklin Roosevelt would roll over in shame at what a perceived “conservative” president has done to annihilate the concept of an American nation.

Paul C.’s reference to FDR is besides the point. Obviously when we speak of liberalism in the current context we are speaking of the post-1960s liberalism of anti-discrimination and inclusion, not of New Deal, nationalist liberalism. If I said that liberalism seeks the Nanny State, would Paul C. reply that no, liberalism according to John Stuart Mill seeks to reduce the size of the state?

If we are to be required to rehearse the well-known distinctions between the various kinds of historical liberalism every time we say anything about liberalism, the conversation is going to take a lot longer.

PaulCCC raises a point regarding the degradation of Protestant Evangelical Christianity in the US. Multiculturalism, anti-racism, social justice, and other leftist ideologies have made shocking inroads into supposedly conservative churches. The only issues in which the line is currently being held are abortion and homosexual marriage. Here in flyover country, major efforts are constantly being launched to merge or form some sort of alliance with black churches, who are portrayed as conservatives at heart. Interestingly, there are a number of immigrant-based Evangelical churches such as the Korean and Chinese Presyterians who insist on maintaining their racial and cultural identity. Because they are uebermenschen, the Waffen PC tends to leave them alone. Perhaps one of our traditionalist Catholic posters was correct in his theory that Protestantism leads inevitably to liberalism. That’s the way it appears to be working out in this region, at any rate.