There is a great deal to brood upon in Mr. Cox’s excellent post. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that Bush sees himself as some kind of Caesar. I say ‘unfortunately’ because the reality is even worse - he’s simply expressing the zeitgeist of the entire Ruling Class. They’ve ALL decided for revolution, to disenfranchise the American people for the sake of their own status and profit - and, accordingly, to use the Constitution as toilet paper. Read the utter zealotry of WSJ editorials and you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I agree with Mr.Shrewsbury that Mr. Cox made some excellent points, but that he is giving Bush & Rove too much credit in the creation of a new American empire. Ethnic voting pressure on our politicians along with a rapid demographic change account for much of what is happening. If anything, GWB looks to me to be a very narrow, simple man. Bush is not stupid like the Left believes, but a very lazy individual of limited tastes and interests. To think GWB & Rove are driving this change is to give them too much credit.

No one said that Bush and Rove are driving the demographic change, which has been happening since 1965. But his recent plan would take the immigration-driven demographic transformation of America to a new level.

Mr. Auster is correct that the Bush plan on immigration is taking us to a new level. I’m just not convinced GWB even understands this trend in any real way. I just think he sees more happy Americans, an Rove sees more Hispanic votes in New Mexico, Florida, and California. Much of what Mr. Cox said is true, it just seems the culture is, and has been driving this transformation for some time; and not a Bush-Rove policy that is conscious of where this is all taking us. The sad truth is that we are most likely now past the time we can regain the America we grew up in.

There is an ancient tenet of political philosophy (going all the way back to the pagans) which states: The more heterogenous (read: diverse) the polity, the greater the need for a strong, centralized governing authority.

With so many different ethnic and racial groups competing for favors from the federal government, our owners can practice “divide and rule.”

E. Michael Jones has written about the ethnic cleansing of American inner cities during the racial integration battles of the 1950s and 1960s. The battle cry of “Integration!” was just a cover for the WASPs to use the blacks to kick the Catholic ethnics out of the urban enclaves and into the suburbs.

The effect was to shatter the electoral power of the Catholic Church by scattering Catholics out of the high-density inner cities. The suburbs were designed to limit social interaction by putting lots of space between homes and by keeping everyone in their cars in order to run even the most basic errands (because everything is spread out across the horizon).

Between being in the car all of the time and being in front of the boob tube the rest of the time, good old-fashioned neighborlyness became a distant memory. This makes people much more vulnerable to social engineering.

Now, with immigration, this tactic has been expanded in order to marginalize anyone who could possibly resist further social engineering.

All of this has been done intentionally.

Luxancta brings up something that concerns me not only on this board, but in the population in general. The belief that social policy is driven by small, or vast groups of people who pull the strings unsceen, sort of the grassy knoll theory of life ! Random events happen, trends happen, events come together to produce bad social policy more by accident than design. I agree that alot has been going wrong in America for over 40 years; I’m not convinced that what has happened in our culture is the result of some well thought out policy to displace the American experience as we knew it. If it were all that easy to explain, we would have an easier time defeating the social chaos we find around ourselves.

On the other hand, the most effective conspiracies are ad hoc conspiracies. Example: 50,000 people leaving a baseball stadium. If you tried to organize that, providing each individual with a precise path to follow, it would take days. But 50,000 individuals, all with the same thought in mind, somehow very efficiently empty the stadium in 10 minutes.

Seems to me that a lot of the policies which Luxancta decries have operated in the same way. Somehow or other, year by year, day by day, moment by moment, they all operated to the same end, even without any central organization.

Small conspiracies like block-busting neighborhoods for racial gain have happened. The Mission-Hill and Roxbury areas of Boston Massachusetts being a prime example of this as the traditional Jewish neighborhood was displaced by corrupt realtors using Blacks to force, and scare the Jewish residents out. This block-busting was done for greed, not for some great social experiment. I’m afraid if people are looking for an easy target, or explanation for our ills, conspircacies of a grand, cohesive kind, will not explain it.

“This block-busting was done for greed, not for some great social experiment. I’m afraid if people are looking for an easy target, or explanation for our ills, conspircacies of a grand, cohesive kind, will not explain it.”

E. Michael Jones has spent quite some time on the matter. This article is a good start:

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/ethniccleansing.html

His latest book, The Slaughter of Cities, is a more thorough treatment of the topic.

http://www.culturewars.com/books.htm

Thanks Luxancta for that information.

The classic conspiracy model really doesn’t explain the destruction of Western societies we’ve all seen before our eyes, though many have attempted to apply that model - often in a variation of the “Protocols of the Elders” schema.

Shrewsbury’s point is more accurate to my mind. There isn’t a great secret plan hatched in the basement of a Synagogue somwhere, but a fairly large number of people who share a common worldview and ideals - a worldview completelely opposed to the basic beliefs of our civilization. I personally tend to view this as an alternate religion - a counterfeit of Christianity which promises heaven on earth along with a special dispensation of moral freedom for the truly annointed. Unfortunately, this heretical, blasphemous counterfeit religion is disproportionally concentrated in the wealthiest and most politically and culturally influential segments of our society - usually referred to as the “ruling elite” or “the oligarchy” on this site.

In the last 50 years or so, the West has seen a combination of 1) a vast increase in the political and cultural influence of this ruling elite along with 2) a great decline in tradtionial ties of faith, family, ethnicity and community among the middle and working class which tended to moderate the influence of the elites in previous decades.

I don’t think Bush sees himself as a revolutionary leader, but to some extent he may be one. After 9/11, a complete reassessment became necessary. The possibility of various thug states in the third world, which is largely a world of savages, aggrandizing themselves through surreptitiously dabbling in terror became a huge threat. It became necessary to demonstrate that foreign regimes could and would be taken down swiftly if we became concerned with them. We did this in Iraq, and thereby put a steep price on the braggadocio and misconduct of such leaders aimed at the U.S. Many paleos, observing their traditional (and laudable) disinclination to meddle abroad, shied away from the new reality, and blinded by an obsession with the supposed machinations of the neocons, opposed our doing anything. We were just supposed to wait for the next megadeath shoe to fall, I guess. Same position as the hate-America left, just for different reasons. Of course Bush’s actions have been accompanied by much distasteful Wilsonian rhetoric. A mass democracy cannot be moved to action without idealistic appeals, unrealistic though they be. And after all, who but the neocons were supporting Bush in what needed to be done for the good of all of us? But I don’t think Bush really shares their more grandiose views.

I have argued all along that Bush doesn’t share the more grandiose views of the neoconservatives on foreign policy, that the neocons were one faction among others within the Bush camp trying (and often failing) to influence him, and so it was a total distortion by the anti-war right to call Bush a tool of the neocons.

However, on immigration policy, Bush himself is “way out there,” with a grandiose sense of a transformed America that, as said above, is outside the realm of historical American politics. On immigration, as on affirmative action, Bush was TO THE LEFT of the neocons, pushing policy toward multiculturalism and group rights, whereas the neocons had always opposed those things. In those areas, it’s the neocons who have surrendered their previous position and followed Bush, rather than Bush following the neocons.

These realities can’t be grasped by people who are consumed by hatred of the neoconservatives.

There has been considerable recent discussion of immigration on VFR. The rules for immigrating, i.e., becoming a citizen in Switzerland are interesting to compare with ours. There, you must be approved by the town in which you live (or in bigger cities, by a council set up for the purpose). So you become a resident of a town, learn the language, get yourself known, prove what kind of a person you are, and then seek the approval of your fellow townspeople. Then if approved, you automatically become a citizen of that town’s canton, and of the nation.

Per the 4:26 PM comment by Thucydides, if one wants to immigrate into Liechtenstein, one must have a sponsor from within the country, try to arrange a place to live, and have the written approval of the residents of the neighborhood in which one has tentatively arranged to live, before the central government even applies its own background checks, language proficiency test, and other criteria.

I wonder what John Podhoretz would say about all that!

On the supposed dominance of the neocons: It should be sufficient to note that neither Bush nor the top men (Cabinet level) in his Administration are such. Rather, like Rumsfeld, they are conventional Republicans some of whom date back to the Nixon years.
As for conspiracy models in general: there are too many cases where the most destructive impacts on our society appears to be a product of the interaction of different, but irresponsible groups. Note the interaction between the legal profession and criminals since the 1950s in producing the crime problem. Mass homelessness is the product of cheeseparing attempts to cut down on state mental health systems, civil liberties fanatics trying to assure the “rights” of the mentally ill, and the spread of addictive drugs. Noone could be responsible for all initiating all three of these things, though there is the common factor of a feckless society failing to counter them.

Concerning the first link posted by Luxancta at 12:02 AM, it would seem that a certain “E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.”, is a totally incoherent writer who needs to get into a new line of work. He cannot explain a story so that the reader gets a sense of the chronological order of events, and he continually talks about “20 to 50 white men attacking” some black mother, when the opening scene described the black mother claiming that the men attacked her son, not her.

I don’t know in what field Mr. Jones’ Ph.D. was earned, but the story reads pretty much the same as any number of stories written by KKK or Aryan Nation semiliterate country bumpkins. Surely this kind of writing does no good for the cause of whites.

I agree with those who note that neither Bush or his advisors think of themselves as revolutionaries. I don’t imagine either Brutus or Spengler would have considered Bush to be a sucessor to a republic. I consider him to be a revolutionary de facto, because the interest he serves has changed; from a people to an idea and from a nation-state to a state. By an idea, I mean the notion of the “creed” state which Gunnar Myrdal and more recently, Arthur Schlesinger talk about. As a utopian and universal idea, the creed state can encompass the entire world and remain ideologically consistent. For the same reasons, the creed state cannot exclude anyone. Therefore, Bush sees no need to preserve the historical population. Indeed, he is obliged to open the borders to all who he feels would or should, embrace the creed.

The creed is jealous mistress however. It considers the group identity and allegiance of the historical population which gave it birth to be a competitor,whose remaining mission is to extinguish itself, or at least to deny its right to self-interest, so that the creed state can succeed it.

Looked at in this way, he seems pretty revolutionary.

Regarding Mr. Coleman’s post of 4:49, I got part-way through the article. His contention in the part I read was that the whole integration push by the Philadelphia government of the early and mid 60s was at bottom a plan hatched by the old ruling-class WASPs (a plan whose roots he traces back to the 20s) to dislodge working-class urban white Catholic ethnics like Irish and Poles, the ultimate aim being to drive them out of the city by moving Negroes into their neighborhoods and get them finally into the disjointed suburbs where they couldn’t effectively organize to exert Catholic influence on politics, since in the suburbs there is no true community, you have to do everything by car, and the dads sit around all day in front of the TV drinking beer out of pure ennui and absence of community feeling.

What the Protestant ruling class is doing today, importing Catholic Mexican ethnics by the tens of millions, would seem to completely disprove that thesis: why would the WASPs drive Polish, Irish, and Italian ethnics out of the cities during the 60s and 70s, for the reason that they are Catholic, only to start filling the same cities up, beginning in the 80s, with Mexicans who are also Catholic?

Mr. Cox’s de facto recasting of GWB & Rove regarding the revolutionary actions that they find themselves in service to make his points more clear to me. The creed-state, the America as an idea cult are an important part of the puzzle of what has overcome the American elite class.

“Why would the WASPs drive Polish, Irish, and Italian ethnics out of the cities during the 60s and 70s, for the reason that they are Catholic, only to start filling the same cities up, beginning in the 80s, with Mexicans who are also Catholic?”

Most of those Mexicans are only nominally Catholic. Much of Latin America has been devestated by revolutionary governments during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They have taken their toll. As late as the 1970s, the Mexican government was still hunting down Cristeros who had fought for the freedom of the Church.

The high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and unwed motherhood are another indicator that most Hispanics are so-called “cultural Catholics” at best. Outside of New York City and San Francisco, Latin America has some of the most flamboyant homosexual subcultures in existence.

As E. Michael Jones has pointed out, the whole reason behind the pressure placed on the white ethnics was that they resisted WASP values, especially sexual values. Present-day Hispanics pose no threat either to the Sexual Revolution or to the expansion of the leviathan State.

I am afraid that Luxancta’s arguments do not refute the point made by Unadorned. Mexicans and other Latin Americans may not in fact be good Catholics; but there is little evidence that the crazies in the American upper class appreciate the fact. It is worth pointing out that even anticlerical and unobservant Catholics, who have been long well represented not only in Spanish-speaking lands but in Italy and France, do partake of what might be broadly called a Catholic social and political outlook, even while reacting against the Church. Once upon a time, WASPs did not care for this element much more than they did for devout Catholics.

Alan Levine said: “Mexicans and other Latin Americans may not in fact be good Catholics; but there is little evidence that the crazies in the American upper class appreciate the fact.”

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Look at how Hispanics vote. Look at how they (as a group; there are many individual exceptions, of course) are so easily used as pawns by Leftist pressure groups at the national level as well as on university campuses.

The old-line WASPs may well have worried about “a broadly Catholic social and political outlook,” but their children seem to be immune to its effects. It’s telling that our current immigration regime was ratified in 1965; I don’t think that that is a coincidence.

Is Bush feeling a little heat about his revolutionary pronouncments? I have to wonder in light of recent events.

Word leaked out of Karl Rove territory that Bush would make a significant announcement every week of 2004 until election week in November. After that disclosure, we had (1) the amnesty announcement, (2) the mission to Mars announcement, and then (3) the federal government program to promote marriage announcement. Zogby polls indicated a clear majority opposed each of the three proposals. The Mars hoopla is a way to seem to be visionary while proposing something that has all the big spending increases way off in the future; in other words, it is not likely to ever happen, but you get credit for being visionary today. No one will expect anything to actually happen in 2004, then it can be ignored or dropped in the second term, as GWB has no more election plans.

The marriage promotion business is another one of those “compassionate conservatism” ideas that sounds like pure Karl Rove positioning. For “only” $1 billion, you get warm fuzzy feelings from the soccer mom set (and even the single mom set that votes Democratic) for “caring” and being positive on the emotive domesticity issues. A little rhetoric, very little spending or effect, but good PR with some targeted niche of the electorate. Sounds more like Rove’s kind of idea than GWB’s.

Now, the amnesty fiasco is toned down and mentioned only in about 2 sentences of the entire State of the Union speech. Could it be that the feedback through various channels from voters has been overwhelmingly negative? There is no particular legislation attached to the public proposal, and there might not ever be any.

I wonder if Rove is going to cook up a warm fuzzy announcement every week like this, as is rumored, and simply gauge public reaction to see if he guessed right or wrong and then decide which ideas to quietly allow to die and which to stick wih during the campaign. In which case, it is up to us to make our voices heard in order to influence GWB and Rove to drop the worst ideas.

On the positive side, Social Security reform through partial privatization could be a huge win over the coming decades, and we need to voice positive support to push the campaign to focus on things like that rather than on clueless cleverness from Rove on the soccer-Mom issues.

All this talk about a WASP conspiracy? Hah. WASPs lost their political control over the U.S. in the first decade of the 20th century. They lost economic control in the 1930s. If you want to determine who is responsible for today’s America, look no further than the descendants of the immigrant wave of the late 19th and early 20th century.

I think Mr. Coleman may be on to something. Still, I would caution against letting down our guard at all about the national suicide amnesty/guest-worker program. The basis of the legislation is already before the Congress thanks to the Arizona traitors (Flake, McCain and I can’t remember who the third traitor is), and Hastert and Frist are on board. The Democrats will press for even more concessions to alien criminals. Absent noisy protest from voters, the two wings of the governing party will craft a compromise that will sell out Americans, which is what they seem to be best at these days. HRS

Paul C raises an interesting question. Who exactly constitutes the ruling oligarchy in the United States? It’s not all old WASP families (though there are still a number of them, like the Bushes). Conspiracy isn’t term I would use to describe what is taking place. My perception is that the majority - not all - of very wealthy and influential people share a common worldview, which is dedicated to the destruction of Chrstendom as traditionally defined. As far as the WASP component of this group goes, this is at least somewhat traceable to the Unitarian Universalist progressive movement that got under way in the post-Civil War era.

As Mr. Auster mentioned on another thread, our society as directed by the ruling oligarchy is rapidly becoming the very thing denounced by the Islamists. At some point on this path, it will become impossible for any traditional conservative - or devout Christians and Jews, for that mattter - to defend the West as it will have completely morphed into the Frankenstein envisioned by the liberals. (Are we there yet?)

All of this conspiracy talk is starting to degenerate into paranoia and insanity. Carl starts to sound reasonable when he rejects the term “conspiracy”, then immediately turns to the explanation that “the majority - not all - of very wealthy and influential people share a common worldview, which is dedicated to the destruction of Christendom as traditionally defined.” Well, at least there is no sinister conspiracy here!

The effects of certain policies might be the destruction of the West, but only a hard-core few leftists actively contemplate that end, and most of them are in academia or otherwise out of the political mainstream. The effects simply follow the law of unintended consequences, and the vast majority of the liberals, both voters and politicians, are motivated by certain views of the nature of man, which then inspire certain views of what is possible for government to achieve. These views are radically at odds with conservative views, which also means they are radically at odds with the reality of human nature and the actual limits on what government can possibly achieve. I refer interested readers to “A Conflict of Visions” and “Vision of the Anointed” by Thomas Sowell for an historical and philosophical inquiry into all of this.

Let me make this concrete with a single example. My town is now being blessed with the arrival of 100 Bantus from Somalia. A certain refugee organization is active here, and this kind of thing happens from time to time; we have received refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the past.

To a conservative, it seems obvious that the Bantu would be better off in a place like northern Mozambique or the Zanzibar region of Tanzania, the two primary locations of their origin before they were taken as slaves to Somalia by Muslim slave traders (mostly in the 20th century, by the way). There are still many Bantu in those places, they would fit in there, and they do NOT fit in here. They have never lived with flush toilets, sinks, appliances, grocery stores, etc., and social workers have to teach them about such things as stairs and car traffic and electricity so they don’t meet a quick accidental death upon their arrival here. Obviously, they are destined for the welfare rolls, having no modern urban living skills and not speaking English. If we had to, we could bribe Mozambique to take them, because it would be cheaper to help them get started on a new life over there than in the USA.

However, the typical liberal thinks that we are being “compassionate” to accept them. America accepts more refugees than the rest of the world combined, and this proves how compassionate we are. Acting like we don’t want them, even acting like we don’t want them so intensely that we would rather pay money to have them go somewhere else, is mean-spirited and uncompassionate. The motivation for the typical liberal go-gooder sap is to give yourself a great big pat on the back for being such a wonderful, compassionate person. The motivation for advocating a policy is NOT to actually help someone; you could do that by resettling them in Mozambique. Besides, isn’t America a better place to live than Mozambique? Aren’t we a nation of immigrants? What about the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Alternatively, you can believe that these people are brought here because there is a secret cabal conspiring to bring non-whites here until they outnumber us, and these hard-core leftists have got hold of the reins of power, and the liberal do-gooders are just their unwitting dupes. (Of course, the same refugee organization do-gooder saps have been bringing us WHITE Yugoslavians, but let’s don’t let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!)

I suspect that a large number of Yugoslavian immigrants are Bosnian Muslims or Kosovar-Albanian Muslims. Just the sort of easily assimilatable White immigrants we want!

Of course, one can accept everything Mr. Coleman says and still perceive a sort of conspiracy. As I’ve suggested before with the Baseball Stadium Paradigm, the most effective conspiracy is the unorganized conspiracy, where millions of individuals are all acting with the same intent. They can act collectively like a super-powerful computer and be highly effective at destroying a society for precisely the same reason the free market works so well at setting prices and providing goods.

So I think there certainly has been *a kind of* conspiracy to dissolve the traditional society of the United States - that this is the goal which a great many loosely- and not-so-loosely-connected agents have been working toward like indefatigable termites.

Does Mr. Coleman believe that there’s no point at which naive innocent compassion or “good intentions” turns into a more or less conscious animus against one’s own society? Indeed, can he say for sure that the seeds of such an animus are not present in the liberal psyche from the start?

(Also, somewhat briefer comments would be appreciated if possible.)

“Unorganized conspiracy” is an oxymoron. When people use the word “conspiracy”, it carries certain implications. In a political discussion such as on VFR, the use of “conspiracy” occurs in a context that precludes the unspoken, unorganized sort, so I was obviously referring to the kind of postings that I have been seeing here with regularity.

Yes, I believe that liberals can and often do have a conscious animus against their country. They view their country as historically oppressive, etc. But I think only a minuscule number of them think, “Let’s destroy the country”. Rather, most of them think, “Let’s make this country more egalitarian, more compassionate, and less oppressive, i.e. the way it ought to be.” The results they get are something else altogether. As I indicated, results are not always as important as feeling morally superior, e.g. more “compassionate” than those heartless conservatives.

Well, if it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a syndrome, and that’s bad enough.

I agree with Mr. Coleman, and the word syndrome is perfect. What makes it so insidious is that the ones that have it, like it.

So it is up to us to carry the fight all alone if necessary. As Mr. Auster and Mr. Kalb have said, we need to know what we stand for. People look up to those who stand for something. Reagan is a perfect example. Hopefully we will get help from unlooked for places and a leader that is crafty like Clinton but good like George Washington. Such a leader could emerge suddenly just as Arnold did in California and Yeltsin did in Russia. In fact, things could start going in our favor very fast, which is why we can’t be tardy when discovering and rediscovering what we believe in.

“People look up to those who stand for something. “

I like that.

“Hopefully we will get help from unlooked for places and a leader that is crafty like Clinton but good like George Washington.”

Now that is hoping for a lot! But why not? It could happen.

Mr. Coleman, I think Shrewbury’s baseball stadium paradigm is much closer to the truth than a cabal of leftists thinking of ways to destroy the tradtional America. I guess the area where we differ is in our evaluation of the intentions of the liberals like the refugee promoters who are importing Somali Bantu into your town. If the motives of these people was really naive and idealistic, why are they so adamant at showing their great compssion with other people’s money (the taxpayers) instead of their own? Why don’t they personally sponsor these people and take them into their own homes instead of using the force of government to provide them with section 8 housing? Why are they so insistent on bringing them into this country in the first place when (as you pointed out), neighboring countries are much more compatible in culture?

According to some articles at VDARE, the whole refugee program is an example of yet another opportunity for the liberal nomenklatura to enrich itself at government expense. Refugees, of course, are entitled to welfare and are exempt from things like welfare-to-work limitations, etc. They are “helped” by all sorts of well-paid immigration/refugee lawyers, social workers, etc. etc. The Bantu the liberals supposedly are helping are harmed by being in this culture just as surely as ours is harrmed by their importation at taxpayer expense. Overlying this is the attitude that white folks in places like Lewiston, Maine just need to “get over it” and that the Bantu will being in the multiculturalism and diversity whose absence made them such unbearable white-bread places. I would submit that there is indeed an animus, a hatred of traditional America in general and of Christianity and whites in particular, that drives those promoting this - even if it’s at a subconscious level - in addition to plain old greed. Liberals demonstrate a religious zeal comparable to that of Wahabi Islam.

This reminds me a a description of evil given by CS Lewis. Those who practice evil seldom do it for its own sake. The greatest evils in history have been done in the name of good, to achieve utopia here on earth. Man’s perfectability is one of the underlying falsehoods that unites the many branches of liberalism’s poisonous tree.

I agree with much of what Carl said in his 12:31 AM posting. As to his question of why liberals don’t just help refugees out of their own pockets, this goes to the heart of all welfare state issues. The typical liberal thinks more in terms of collective responsibility than individual responsibility, and this is one cause of huge differences in public policy. I know sincere liberal Protestants who cite Biblical passages about helping the poor and apply these commands to government welfare programs. As obvious as it is to me that the passages were directed to each individual listener, they are quite sincere in thinking that they are doing the things that God commanded.

Yes, there is a selfish motive, as you pointed out, in that the welfare and refugee workers get jobs out of all this. Liberals are disproportionately attracted to jobs that are NOT involved in the direct production of goods: entertainment, journalism, government, non-profit agencies, social work, etc. Part of this phenomenon is a seeking after worldly influence and power, thinking of themselves as “changing the world”, etc., but there is probably more to it than that, also.

For the other side of the coin on my remarks, see the excellent article by Robert Locke, “The Open Borders Conspiracy”, at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1880

As I mentioned, the hard left is every bit as conspiratorial, and every bit as hateful of America, as they have been portrayed. Locke documents this so that it is beyond mere suspicion or speculation.

However, their numbers are few. If they disappeared overnight, would cheap-labor business interests stop lobbying for more cheap labor? Would business interests stop lobbying for weak or nonexistent employer sanctions? Would the liberal man-on-the-street stop thinking of mass immigration as “compassionate”, and restricted immigration as “racist” ? Would Bush stop thinking of Mexicans as being like the elite that he knows personally, instead of picturing them as unskilled, uneducated, “no habla Ingles” day laborers who are depressing the wages of the American lower class? Would the platitudes about “jobs Americans won’t do” disappear from the pens of even conservative commentators?

My point is that the battle is primarily in persuading the “useful idiots” on their own terms. It rarely works to try to persuade them that they are being the useful idiots of the left, especially since the business interests, for example, know their short-term self-interest quite well and know that the Marxists did not convince them of those interests.

It seems we have to come up with short and true rebuttals to liberal slogans. For example, to rebut the liberal insistence on helping those liberals choose to help with other’s money is to say they are stealing, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Perhaps relentlessly saying this in polite company and reporting the typical liberal abuses in accomplishing this will help. Similarly, we need to come up with a short, accurate description of Bush and his supporters. We have to name the demon before we can fight it. Maybe “destroyer of America,” “Mexican invader,” “Mexican leader,” “Mexican revolutionary,” “Hispanic expansionist,” or “brutal regime head.” I am sure others here can come up with a name that sticks.

Coupled with this tactic, we need to challenge liberal counter-rebuttals such as “now, now liberals are just good people trying to follow their conscience.” I don’t accept this as an excuse. Good people don’t steal or assist invaders. The leaders and enforcers of many tyrannies were church-going, loving parents.