If this indeed is a war on the Right, waged inside the Party by Rove and Bush, and I’m not yet convinced it is, then GWB had better look to what happened to his Daddy in the 92 election. Conservatives will sit on their hands in the next election like they did in 92 if pushed too far. I just don’t think Bush, or even Rove for that matter, are thinking along the lines of a grand showdown with the Party base.

A very perceptive analysis that I expect is at least partially the case. I think we’ve established beyond any reasonable doubt that Bush is a liberal whose worldview is ultimately utopian in nature. Thus, the remnant of traditional conservatism is the real traget as it potentially stands in the way of heaven on earth. Bush’s treatment of conservatives in general (betrayal) and immigration opponents like Tancredo in particular (excommunication) bears this out, as does his refusal to engage the Democratic leftists in any sort of a fight on judicial appointments.

In this possible Bush-Rove strategy to destroy conservatism for once and all, the end result would be a drift to the left regardless of who wins the election. If Dean or another Democrat wins, the goals of liberalism still advance with the only possible disadvantage being 1) a possible takeover of a defeated Republican Party by conservatives; or 2) a breakup of the Republicans into a new conservative party and a rump “moderate” (liberal) party. If Bush wins thanks to clueless Republican rank and file voters being terrified at Dean’s hard core leftism, we get treated to another four years of ‘bipartisanship’, alien invasion, and general march to the left. To put it mildly, we are between a rock and a hard place unless enough public outrage over the ongoing betrayal of this country by its ruling elite can be generated from now through election day.

That is why I think a move to the Constitution Party or a similar truly conservative party represents our best chance of survival politically. Bush may well be enough of a liberal idealogue to actually welcome the prospect of conservatives voting for Howard Dean out of protest, though he would no doubt prefer to actually win a second term to personally move us towards utopia.

The one problem with Mr. Hagen’s comparison to 1992 is that this year there is no H. Ross Perot.

2004 would be a great opportunity for a populist conservative running on the immigration issue to make the sort of inroads Perot did in 1992. I admit, after giving it a lot of thought, that I’m stumped over who that renegade candidate should be. Emotionally, I would welcome it if Buchanan grabbed the lance, but I don’t think he will. HRS

What I’m saying in the last two sentence of the article is that Bush sees people like us—immigration restrictionists and even just plain immigration law enforcers—as the American equivalent of the Ba’athist dead-enders in Iraq. He _wants_ us to come out of the shadows and attack him, which he sees as the prelude to our final elimination. It’s up to us to prove him wrong.

It is often said that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election, but every exit poll (and polls of likely Perot voters just prior to the election) showed that more of them would have voted Democratic than Republican if he had not been in the race. Yet this canard about Perot was spread by the Republican establishment as an excuse for the loss.

What cost Bush the 1992 reelection bid was the fact that conservative organizations and individuals sat out the campaign. The NRA endorsed no one, because of Bush’s betrayals, and conservative voter turnout was light.

I have been thinking about this episode recently because Rush Limbaugh has always told his listeners that there is no point in casting a vote for a 3rd party candidate, it is a waste of your vote, what if the Democrat gets elected, etc. Let’s look at 1992 and its aftermath. The NRA sent a message that it was not to be trifled with. Bush had made the statement, “Where else are they going to go?”, and he got his answer. From that point on, even Republicans with near-zero conservative beliefs (e.g. Dole and Dubya) have toed the line on gun rights. Meanwhile, Clinton’s election helped lead the Republicans to rethink their strategy, come up with the Contract with America, and win Congress in 1994.

If everyone had gone along with Bush in 1992, the Congress would have been not too innovative, they would have been part of the status quo, no Contract with America, no 1994 success. We would have had an ineffectual Republican president / Democratic Congress combination for four years, then it probably would have been Dole versus Clinton or some other Democrat in 1996, and Dole would have lost anyway, because he was not a good candidate. We might be in the second term of a Clinton presidency right now, or of some other Democrat.

So, what exactly did conservatives and the NRA lose by not working for Bush in 1992? They moved their party rightward on one key issue, and lost NOTHING in the long term. We might still have a Democratic Congress today if it had been done differently.

Thinking over these scenarios from 1992 onwards, I am personally finished with worries that my vote for a third party candidate might cause some Democrat to be elected. The supine Republican Congress will come alive and be a real force if a Democrat is in the White House. Today, they dare not oppose Dubya because that would publicly embarrass their own party’s leader, etc., etc.

“2004 would be a great opportunity for a populist conservative running on the immigration issue to make the sort of inroads Perot did in 1992. I admit, after giving it a lot of thought, that I’m stumped over who that renegade candidate should be. Emotionally, I would welcome it if Buchanan grabbed the lance, but I don’t think he will. HRS”

********
Buchanan would be the kiss of death. What is needed is someone genial, soft spoken, a master of the economics of immigration as well as the cultural impact. In short, someone telegenic. That person is Lou Dobbs. He would be crazy, of course, to leave a good job for a suicidal run for some third party’s presidential nomination. Besides, Dobbs is the only consistent and pursuasive source on immigration our side has in the mass media. Losing his one hour per day assault on Bush and immigration is too high of a price to pay for a presidential candidate.

The point that a Bush loss would re-energize the congressional Republicans as a force against Democratic liberalism (instead of being, as they now are, a force for Bush liberalism) is key to this discussion.

I also must say that people who dream of Buchanan as the third party candidate are blind to what a turnoff this man has become, not just to liberals and centrists, but to many conservatives. In the 2000 election Buchanan’s candidacy was pathetic. Since then he has become not just pathetic but poisonous. And this is the man Mr. Sutherland sees as our standard bearer? Please. Even if Mr. Sutherland himself personally likes and admires Buchanan, which I won’t criticize him for, there is no excuse at this point for him to fail to see how OTHER people perceive Buchanan.

“In other words, is Bush’s real purpose simply the standard liberal project of ‘eliminating all racism’ from our society?

If so, it would qualify as one of motives you listed (sheer stupidity). Because if anything, an amnesty of this magnitude would only exacerbate existing racial tensions. That much should be obvious.

Mr. Coleman is correct that the defeat of Bush 41, because of the Perot vote, is part of the Republican Party talking points to cover up the fact that the base of the Party sat out the election. Mr. Coleman also shows how the 94 conservative revolution in Congress, helped along by the NRA, on issue of guns, ended the Democtatic Party from using this issue any longer. I think Rove understands these past political lessons, so I tend to believe this immigration push is an attempt to get a larger share of the Hispanic vote in key States, and not a plan to kill the Party base off. They need the base more than the base needs them.

According to Scott’s reasoning, ALL liberal schemes of inclusion and anti-racism and pro-minority racial preferences could be simply written off as “stupidity,” since all of them are thought (by conservatives) to increase rather than diminish group tensions. Obviously there’s something much larger than simple stupidity going on here. There is the concerted transformation of our whole society, including the silencing and co-option of the former majority culture. And THAT project is clearly SUCCEEDING. Far from the liberal pro-minority agenda increasing tension between the majority and the minorities, it makes the majority more and more cowed and silent and accepting of the pro-minority agenda. So obviously liberalism is not merely stupid.

Even at this late date, many conservatives fail to understand what liberalism is about. They judge liberalism by some standard of their own, not seeing that liberalism operates by very different standards. For example, conservatives argue incessantly that “racial preferences hurt blacks,” when it’s clear that from the point of view of the overwhelming majority of blacks, racial preferences HELP blacks. Similarly, conservatives say that minority preferences increase white resentment of minorities, when it’s clear that, whatever marginal resentment may exist among whites toward these policies, the main effect of these policies is to silence and defeat whites. In short, conservatives assume that liberals at bottom share the conservatives’ own values of comity, fairness, rule of law, and so on; so, when liberals persist in the liberal agenda despite the fact that it has failed according to conservative values, the conservatives can only assume that the liberals are “stupid.” The conservatives do not understand the true radicalism of liberalism.

Mr. Auster again reminds us of a very important point regarding liberals: they are often irrational, and in some cases insane. Trying to deal with liberals in political debate, or on an intellectual level in the past has often left me confused, and out of sorts, until I’m reminded that much of the political Left is driven by various pathologies that float around in their heads. Conservatives do often make the mistake that they are dealing with sane, stable people, when in reality we are up against a death cult intent on the mass suicide of the West !

Thanks to Messrs Coleman & Hagan for clarifying the Perot factor, which I had misunderstood since the 2000 election and the media spin in connection with Ralph Nader, (who clearly cost Gore the election.)

The motivation to ‘end racism’ by legitimizing illegals and bringing ever greater hordes of Third Worlders into this country certainly will exacerbate racial tensions, and not just with whites. The increasing antagonism between blacks and the Mexicans who are displacing them in big cities is one of the great underreported stories of our time.

I would add to Mr. Auster’s take on how these liberal devices are silencing the white majority and dissolving our core culture, the fact that these facts together can only lead to an increase and consolidation of unrestrained government power. This too is an intrinsic goal of liberalism, as the mechanism to enforce its insanity on the populace.

This new plan is antithetical to the very concept of limited government.

I have to say that it is the mainstream conservatives who are the truly stupid ones.

Yes, GHWB would have lost to Clinton in 1992 if Perot had not been in the race. Clinton would have won a two-way race over GHWB in 1992. The Elder Bush had alienated conservatives enough for that to happen.

In the fall of 1992, I was at a University of Tennessee football game in Knoxville. I saw many Clinton-Gore bumper stickers and badges. I had never seen pro-Democrat stickers at a UT football game before in decades of attending them. I knew then that Bush I was a loser. In 1969, Albert Gore Sr. was booed at a Tennessee-Vanderbilt game.

For those of us fearful of helping a Democratic fascist or a Clintonite to get elected, we should remember that the country did not dissolve or become fascist under Clinton or other Democrats. There was and is still the legislature, which is listening to us and helping us.

Now, I can’t guarantee that my vote for the Democrat in November will help us. No one knows what the future holds. But it is essential that we continue to discuss the ups and downs of helping to elect a Democrat or creating a third party so we can make a reasoned decision.

One of the ups is getting Bush out of the Republican Party, which can then develop and implement a plan for getting immigration reform. A reason for not fearing to vote Democratic is I see no difference between Bush and the Democrats on anything nearly as important as immigration reform. Indeed, the whole debate very possibly hinges on what we value most. For example, do we value fewer tax increases more than our culture, religion, and race?

Perhaps President Bush developed his brilliant guest-worker plan in consultation with his good buddy “Prince” Bandar:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/krikorian200401131130.asp

I begin to agree more and more with Mr. Murgos’s assessment over the potential damage a left-wing Democrat President could wreak as opposed to what our current Chief non-Executive is doing.

The harm that can be effected by a President is certainly enormous. The unconstitutional exercise of power that has evolved in ‘executive orders’ and even more in making agreements of nearly treaty-like power with other national leaders, (which can be done in secrecy, virtually superseding current U.S. laws and even constitutional provisions), are extremely serious in their implications.

But it’s clear that for all his posturing, (1) Bush is a liberal, (2) Bush is a globalist, and (3) Bush is leading us down the Path to National Suicide. And that old saying about how the Republicans would stay within the speed limit has become anachronistic joke.

I can hardly fathom a greater degree of relative harm, overall, from a leftist President than Bush is inflicting on us here and now. Mr. Auster has this right: the net effect of a Democrat President would be the potential for a conservative opposition, one that might even show traces of principle.

I used to be paralyzed by the fear that a liberal Democrat would get elected and nominate leftist Supreme Court justices. But, many Republican nominees have been a disaster. I really don’t care who is nominated unless he is similar to Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist.

So, the question I have to ask myself is: What kind of nominee would Bush give us in the next 4 years? Another Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist? Or, more likely, another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, or David Souter?

Unless someone can persuade me that there is a big difference between the likes of Kennedy, O’Connor, and Souter, on the one hand, and Breyer and Ginsburg on the other hand, then I cannot be kept up at night worrying about the effect on the Supreme Court of my voting for a 3rd party candidate. I really cannot see Dubya nomination a Scalia or Thomas and hanging tough through the confirmation process.

Now, the lower reaches of the judiciary are another matter. Bush has to just take the recommendations of his aides, who are apparently pushed in conservative directions by various judiciary-watchers within the conservative wing of the Republican establishment. I have tended to hear good things from true conservatives about the lower court nominees of Republican presidents such as the two Bushes. The question is whether I can let such a matter be decisive in my vote, when the nation is being sold down the river on more important issues.

A very likely Bush Supreme Court nominee would be his White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales. Bush would like to be the first president to appoint an hispanic to the Court, and Gonzales is a Bush crony from Texas (Gov. Bush appointed him to the S.Ct. of Texas). It was Gonzales who gutted Solicitor General Olson’s briefs in the Michigan affirmative action cases and brought the Bush administration around to tacit support of anti-white racial quotas in university admissions. No one GW Bush would nominate to the S.Ct. is likely to pass muster with true conservatives as he will use the opportunity to make more liberal diversity gestures. If O’Connor retires, rest assured he will replace her with a woman just as liberal. I would be willing to bet that his first S.Ct. nominee will be hispanic, qualified or not - especially if his national suicide amnesty plan should (please God) fail.

All of which is by the way of agreeing with Mr. Coleman that fear of Leftist judicial appointments is no reason to waste a vote on Bush. The federal district and circuit courts do matter, but the ruling legislature of the United States is the U.S. Supreme Court, and Bush is not about to fight for a conservative nominee there. HRS

“[T]he ruling legislature of the United States is the U.S. Supreme Court…”

A terrifying reminder by Mr. Sutherland of just how subverted our Constitutional Republic has become. A nine-person, black-robed tribunal has made itself “law” rather than being limited to the judicial review it should be. And this ‘legislature’ has done more than its fair share in contributing to this disastrous problem we discuss.

And yes, a Bush appointee would be no better in this regard than that of any Democrat. Simply put, this issue has demonstrated for once and all that there is no good reason to support Bush over any other of the atrocious candidates currently in the running. President Bush has to go.

There is one issue only: abortion, but I would not be surprised to see a sell-out there too. Signing the partial-birth ban notwithstanding, the president has made no effort to reach Americans’ hearts and minds to make the pro-life case.

I am inclined to Mr. Coleman’s concern that court appointments are not nearly as important as having a country in which to litigate. Bush is literally leading an invasion by a foreign country, Mexico. He wants to unite with Mexico and wants Hispanic rule. He is trying to follow Europe’s example except he wants Hispanic culture to dominate.

I am in full agreement with the remarks of Mr. Auster and Mr. Hagan.

It is worth recalling Buchanan was also made a scapegoat for the defeat in 1992. (That he has done a good deal to live down to the charges made by his enemies since then is irrelevant.)It is likely that any conservative break with Bush will receive the same treatment by the Country Club types running the Administration. Alternatively, or possibly at the same time, if things abroad go sour enough, the neocons may just find themselves in the same boat. Rove may decide that the CCR’s should discard both wings of the party to run with a purified, “moderate” center. That is how Truman won in 1948 — but he is likely to find that Bush one and a half isn’t a Truman.

If Bush 43 can be defeated as Bush 41 was, it will be hard for the liberals in the Republican Party to spin this second Bush defeat as anything but a rejection of Bushism, and its moderation on immigration, and issues of cultural decline like wlking away from the right on the Michigan Law School rulings.

A leader seems to be needed. Does anyone know whether major political change has occurred in a democracy without a leader? We know there is massive grassroots support for immigration reform, but this reform lacks a face and a voice. (Pat Buchanan, though I like him, is out of the question for many reasons.) Perhaps our efforts should focus on the goals of 1) persuading someone to be a leader regardless of whether this leader runs for president this year or whether he is a Republican or Democrat and 2) in the meantime, getting our many allies in Congress to slow the Bush-led invasion. (Someone on this site has already suggested trying to get Congressman Tancredo to run.)

I view Bush’s pro-life stands as nothing more than cynical opportunism. To his credit, he reversed a few of the more egregious Clinton executive orders. While it is true that he actually signed the partial-birth abortion law, this law was stillborn from day one since our nine-member ruling legislature already decided the issue the year before in Steinberg v. Carhartt. The only real way political progress could be made on the abortion issue would be to secure the appointments of pro-life judges, a battle neither the White House, Hastert or Frist are willing to fight despite their majority in both houses of Congress, along with the repeal of some of the more egregious legislation passed under the Clinton regime such as the FACE Act which has effectively made it illegal to protest abortion clinics. Thanks to the legal establishment’s overwhelming support of abortion, pro-life leaders like Randall Terry have been bankrupted even though the Supreme Court ruled against the use of RICO laws to destroy abortion protesters.

I’m not convinced that the Republicans in Congress would really turn to fight should a leftist Democrat gain the presidency. Despite the great wave of 1994, the Republicans ended up being largely inneffectual against Clinton and the Democrats thanks in large part to betrayals by the country club wing of the party, who are now in control. Taking the Republican party back form the Country Club/Neocons would be ideal, but it will be a long and difficult battle. I’m not sure we have enought time left to accomplish such a goal before the number of invaders hits critical mass, which is why a viable third party is crucial - especially one that will concentrate its efforts on gaining legislative power at both the federal and state levels.

Lawrence,
Your analysis of the Rove/Bush mindset & game plan wrt this amnesty is compelling. However, you are probably stretching things to believe that the ultimate goal is the expulsion of cultural conservatives and immigration reformers from American political life. When analyzing politics and history, my mother used to always advise me to first “follow the money trail”.
Bush is clearly a privileged man, part of the American aristocracy. He doesn’t give a damn about the middle class. Rather he is loyal to an international peer group which includes Vicente Fox and the ruling elite in Mexico. By keeping down wages, & boosting profits in agribusiness, and the hotel, construction & restaurant sectors (read: vast corporate entities such as Tyson, Sheraton, Toll Brothers, McDonalds), he can please many in his donor base. Other plutocrat donors who will surely be pleased by explosive population growth partly fed by this amnesty are the milieu of real estate developers feeding off suburban sprawl (& middle class flight) & the transnational progressives who’ve infected companies like those who filed amicus briefs FOR Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan.
I commend to you the “Clusterfuck Nation” diary of James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com. Having just read his books “The Geography of Nowhere” and “Home from Nowhere”, it is becoming clearer just how predatory & culturally Marxist so many sectors of the economy have become (beginning with the developers). They seek short term profits at any cost regardless of long term societal damage…the money helps them rationalize, a la Julian Simon, Tamar Jacoby & Stephen Moore, that it is all in the spirit of the American Dream, etc, etc.

Mr. Sutherland referred to Bush’s anti-abortion posture — I believe that’s all it is. Signing the partial-birth abortion ban was worse than merely a useless gesture. I see that whole episode as trap that the pro-life movement walked into, desperate for even a symbolic victory. What that legislation REALLY symbolizes is that Federal jurisdiction on abortion has now been conceded, which represents a wholesale abandonment of an important constitutional argument against Roe that had been made for 30 years — that this should never have been a Federal issue.

Well it is now. And if we see another liberal Congress in the next decade or so, they will sure as shootin’ enshrine all forms of abortion into legislative statute. Then it won’t matter whether Roe were overturned or not.

Mr. Sutherland’s observation that Bush has done nothing to advance a pro-life consensus completes this point. Abortion is not an issue that leaves Bush with any saving graces. He has betrayed millions of Godly, moral, and patriotic Americans who entrusted him with high office, on issues spanning the whole socio-politico-legal spectrum. I regret that I cast my vote for him.

Here is a new site by a Christian organization urging a vote against Bush on the basis of his betrayals: http://www.bushrevealed.com/

The site also counsels Christians not to be limited by the two-party system.

Conservative critics of Roe vs. Wade pointed out that it meant that all of the state’s legislatures were declared to be wrong. The point was that this is elitist and preposterous. State legislators have good reason to do their own interpretation of the federal Constitution, to ensure that their laws are not struck down. To think that thousands of state legislators were wrong, and a half dozen justices were right, when you consider that most state legislators were also trained lawyers, is absurd. This point was made to highlight the fact that law was being made afresh, rather than old law being interpreted.

The point was NOT that this was a states’ rights issue. In any society, there has to be a consensus on defining who is a member of that society and thus receives the full legal protections of that society. Letting each state decide that, even unto matters of life and death, leads us to such gems as the Dred Scott decision.

Chris brings up the important issues of sprawl, cultural drift, and the “Economic Man” model of society that the American elite believe in. All of the above, and more, are destroying what little “Kinship” the American public feels for each other; which of course will make it easier to bring in a “New People”. Last year at my gym while working out on a row of bikes, and watching the mornng news, the guy next to me laughed off a terrible storm that hit South Florida, and ruined many homes and familes by saying “why should I care “! ” these people don’t speak English, and the whole place seems like Mexico, or Cuba to me”! As a unified kinship, and a greater sense of family devolve, more and more Americans are just not going to care about the Nation in the same way their parents and grandparents did.

I disagree with nearly everything Mr. Coleman asserted in his 06:04 PM post, but don’t feel that this is the proper thread to debate the issue. Perhaps when Mr. Auster finds occassion to open another thread on Federalism we can duke that one out.

The point remains that there is nothing in Mr. Bush’s conduct regarding the fight for life that indicates any real conviction in that regard, and I don’t see his posturing on the issue as redeeming his reputation. He has to go.

Someone complained yesterday that all discussion about Bush’s motives was besides the point; and now, I’m afraid, I’ve helped unleash more of it. Yet the speculation as to the motives driving Bush’s policy serves the practical purpose of helping reveal the meaning of the policy itself. Thus, whether or not Bush’s conscious motivation is as I suggested, i.e., to wage a war to the finish against any remaining national consciousness in American politics, his policies will have that effect. If his immigration plan succeeds, a new and more radical dispensation will have taken over America which celebrates and “includes” not just legal immigrants, but illegal aliens. Once that happens, any kind of opposition to the ongoing transformation of America will become impossible.

Bush’s plan will fail if we relentlessly write legislators, sign petitions, and encourage others to do so. Look no further than that this issue is about raw political power; Bush’s inner motives are not important at this time. The motives of an invading army are not relevant to the job of defending ourselves. But it is hard to convince people that this is pure politics and that they are powerful, if only they would act.

(I don’t dispute an assertion by Mr. Auster that understanding Bush’s motives has some value. I don’t have a counterargument, and I trust Mr. Auster knows what he is talking about.)

Mr. Murgos is right. But let us remember that this is, after all, a discussion forum and not an activist organization.

I’m confused by Mr. Auster’s statement of 09:14 PM. Does this mean that we should limit ourselves to discussing the situation but stop short of encouraging one another from taking whatever steps we can, discussing possibilities for what actions to take, providing examples, et.al.? I would think that’s the most IMPORTANT place these discussions could lead.

If all we’re here for is to find as many ways as possible to eloquently articulate these disasters while sipping coffee, then I might as well put on my tin-foil hat! ;-)

I stand corrected. It was pretty cheeky of me to say that it is of little value to discuss Mr. Auster’s topic about Mr. Bush’s motives on Mr. Auster’s Website. I should have placed the comment on a thread concerning what to do.

My comment wasn’t warranted either. Sometimes I should read things twice before replying. Apologies to Mr. Auster. :-/

Joel LeFevre - you are absolutely correct.

“The sickness of the late twentieth century is cowardice. Anger is the only cure for cowardice—anger strong enough to overcome fear.”
— Eric Hoffer

Yes, well, we all want action.

It’s amazing that there’s not one even semi-charismatic politician in all of America’s 291 million to act as tribune for the people. Think of the instant power, fame, influence that would immediately accrue to anyone who would give voice to the majority’s pain. But no one will do it. And it’s similarly amazing that there’s no longer a single Democrat who will step forward to defend the American worker from being submerged in a global labor pool. What is this astonishing hold that the idea of unrestricted immigration has upon the upper classes?

Perhaps conservatives make a strategic error by focusing on politics at the national level. Perhaps they should focus on what can be done at the level of state, county, town. Form citizens’ committees to talk with businesses who are importing aliens. Toughen zoning laws to prevent those workers from living in barracks. Require law enforcement to check the immigration status of every suspect they encounter - quite the opposite of the current regime. Above all, stop apologizing for the crime of “living while white.”

(One slightly feeble place to start might be to write letters to those companies which obsessively use recent-immigrant minorities in their advertising. I’m sure we’ve all noticed that this advertising fad is now ubiquitous. One can politely inform them that one has decided no longer to be a party to one’s own destruction and will henceforth boycott their products.)

Our best long-term hope is perhaps a movement, organized or unorganized, toward the geographic concentration of European-Americans. (To a great extent this is already occurring - more than a million whites have already emigrated from the former Golden State to Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Nevada.) Then when the U.S. breaks up like the U.S.S.R., and it certainly will if Bush has his way with it, we will still have some three-quarters of its territory as a homeland - and maybe English-speaking Canada as well. I won’t attempt to draw the precise boundaries of a New America, but if all this were to happen, rather than being buried in the collapse of the U.S., we would likely emerge more truly powerful than we are now, and immeasurably better off culturally. And the Spanish-speaking Bush clan can live proudly as the leading caudillos of the Mexican state of Texas, and their innumerable peons can bat the piñata on George VI’s birthday.

Is this a science-fiction scenario? Yes, but no more so than the president of the United States throwing open the nation’s borders to the entire Third World and braying, “Come on down!” I mean, science-fiction is where we are now. Maybe we should work with that.

Thanks to Bartelson for the excellent Hoffer quotation.

I don’t know exactly what the apologies are for, but that’s ok. :-)

I meant that both things are suitable here, to discuss possible political strategies, and to continue discussing speculative things like what makes W. tick.

The absence of political leadership certainly is a major problem, as Shrewsbury points out. Somewhere perhaps such potential leaders exist, who haven’t yet heard the call.

Responding to Bartleson: yes, “the sickness of the late twentieth century is cowardice,” but the sickness of the late twentieth century also has to do with needing to be more of a philosopher to be on the right than on the left: right’s harder, so fewer people manage it. Being on the left is — as Rush Limbaugh often used to say, though I haven’t heard him say it lately — the easy way out, a position you can take without having to think (and a position which cannot be maintained once you actually do start to think). Result: there are way more people on (guess which side)?

Shrewsbury’s letter of 01:12 AM is from start to finish a very good statement — every word of it, including the part about the threatened break-up of the United States if Bush’s deliberate, carefully calculated attempt to Hispanicize, Africanize, Orientalize, Muslimize, and in every conceivable way non-white-ize and non-Christianize the country advances much further. People, I believe, will take action after a certain point. As for no leader rising up against the tyrant Bush — and tyrant is the only word for what he is now become — the Lord God Almighty will do it, after He’s had just about enough. God who is watching will intervene to help the people (and let each of us in his everyday life continue to strive his best to live righteously so as not to diminish God’s sympathy for our side’s plight). Bush of course will not be history’s first tyrant who, utterly deaf to the people’s every legitimate entreaty, will have put himself on the path to his own personal downfall. It occurred to me yesterday while reading through some passages in Samuel and Proverbs that if we continually do our best, God will not abandon our side. Let each one of us, then, continue do what is right.

Unadorned touches on an important point. It is extremely hard to oppose the powerful forces against us. So it important for those of us that don’t take stress very well to pace ourselves. Some of us need to avoid staying burning mad about this issue even though it is vital to the survival of our culture, race, and country. We don’t want to burn ourselves out and give up as so many people have done. Simply make a commitment to take some step everyday towards immigration reform. (Also, everyone is entitled to time off.) That step serves as a release for our anger and helps us to feel a sense of accomplishment, which will encourage us to continue. One step could be as small as obtaining the address of a congressman or writing the first sentence of letter. Another step could be checking in here for Mr. Auster’s insights about the issue.

It seems some of us also must learn to accept the rational idea that our efforts could fail. Some of us that suppress this idea will only increase our stress to the detriment of our cause. We will win if we try, but we will be able to handle it if we fail.

If you know people (relatives and friends) that feel the same way as you do, prepare for them letters and stamped envelopes. Have them sign the letters, and put the letters in the mail. This will increase your power by two, three, or thirty-fold. Know that by far the biggest challenge for a petition campaign is getting the petition into the hands of potential petitioners, who we know, based on the polls, are legion.

In my view, Bush’s immigration announcement confirms that he has left the realm of historical American politics and planted himself as our first revolutionary leader. He has undertaken to establish the empire as a sucessor to the nation both within our borders and abroad.

A nation, as Mr. Auster has pointed out so well in his works, is characterized as being an actual common people, sharing historical, cultural, racial and other basis of common identity. A national government defends and protects thier interests. An empire, on the other hand, is composed of many different peoples. The government of the empire has no special interest in and no allegaince to any one of the groups. To it, they are all simply different nations which it rules. Because the present United States government does not even identify with its historical population, I would characterize it as an occupation government of empire as well.

President Bush is a revolutionary because he has actually launched the empire while others have just talked about it. More, he has now undertaken it on two fronts simultaneously. One, to create the empire as a universal state externally, ie abroad, initiated by launching what he calls a pre-emptive war to bring the offending nation into a state of “freedom.”

He has also undertaken to agressively create a domestic empire within our borders, with the goal of extinguishing the nation as a common people. He rejects the idea that the historical population has a legitimate right to have their land, culture and interests protected and preserved. In fact, according to his speech last week,it is the alien popualtions whose rights are being ignored, by resisting the invasion!

The internal empire is created by by inundating the land with so many different nations of people that the historical population is reduced to just one people among many. Since Bush considers his duty to be to an idea nation,(the propositon) not to an actual people, perhaps he feels all of this is not only justifed, but required in its service. Then the land will have to be ruled as an empire of many nations of peoples.

Until an actual opening of the borders is announced, legalizing the never ending migrations works pretty well to get the universal state under way. So far, W has managed to start the revolution with few even noticing!

Mr. Cox writes:

“In my view, Bush’s immigration announcement confirms that he has left the realm of historical American politics and planted himself as our first revolutionary leader.”

Mr. Cox’s statement is chilling and may well be true. Just the other day a friend was saying to me, “Bush doesn’t UNDERSTAND America at all. For him America is just about openness and diversity. He has no sense of what America has always been and always stood for.”

As for Bush as a revolutionary leader, has anyone noticed how his bossy, peremptory manner of expressing himself increases that impression? He has this way of announcing, as a fait accompli, some radical change, and then just saying, “This is the way it is.” That was the tone of his August 2000 speech which I referred to in the original entry: “By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.” But of course no such choice had been made by anyone. In declaring that it had been, he was making a dictatorial, revolutionary statement.

The position he outlined in that speech was one of the two principal reasons I voted against him. And his recent announcement on immigration is even more radical.

To use Orwell’s old distinction; objectively—judged by the effect of his actions—Bush is a revolutionary; subjectively, he’s no revolutionary—he’s just acting on the assumptions he doubtless believes are common to all reasonable folks. At most, just a rebel without a clue…

Re Mr. Cox’s incisive analysis:

Dubya as Senator Palpatine?

Where are the Jeddi?

To be the revolutionary Mr. Cox supposes GWB to be requires me to believe that GWB and Karl Rove truly understand, and are putting into place, an American Empire…….I don’t give either of them that much credit. It would seem to me that demographic changes alone, along with ethnic voting pressures on our politicans are moving us along the path Mr.Cox states without the overt guidence of Bush & Rove.

Asian immigrants feel slighted by Bush’s speech:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0117immig-asians17.html

Asian illegals feel slighted but they will happily take all immigration slots coming their way.