Quote notes (#4)

Outside in‘s favorite AoS blogger DrewM has some (righteously sarcastic) advice for the GoP:

Want to lose Hispanics by a smaller than usual margin? Great nominate a guy like W. who governed as he advertised, “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.”

June 22, 2013admin 8 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

8 Responses to this entry

  • Handle Says:

    Maybe it’s best to use a domestic “internal migration” example instead of foreign “external immigration” one to illustrate the case.

    Consider the original Great Migration of Southern Blacks to Northern industrial cities as a kind of rough analogy for the current “Grande Migracion” of Mestizo Mexicans to the US.

    Imagine the city fathers of say, Chicago or Cleveland or Baltimore or St Louis or New Haven or Camden or Newark (the list goes on and on). Let’s consider Detroit, where Republicans usually dominated Mayoral elections from the 1880’s, and consistently through (and despite) the New Deal and Great Depression and early UAW era, until 1957, and then never won again. And nor will they. Ever. And that was clearly obvious a generation ago.

    Imagine Republican mayors of a century ago such as, say, Oscar Marx, James Couzens (who helped with the initial financing of Ford Motor Company), or John Lodge trying to think and strategize about the long-term impact of their new arrivals – especially the political impact regarding the future fortunes of their party.

    Now, imagine them parroting the 1913 equivalent Rubio and Gerson and Priebus and McCain and Rove and Bush and Bush and Bush, etc. talking points about persistent outreach and potential hopes of “adjusting the political coalition” and losing the Hispanic vote not so badly in the future if only we support perpetual Amnesty today.

    Wouldn’t want to enforce equal justice under law conduct an “active campaign to alienate rising demographic groups”. “Such an adjustment depends on Black voters being gettable by Republicans”. “Clearly there is some elasticity in Black political opinion”.

    After laughing uproariously in their faces, you would grab these Mayors by the lapels and slap them silly for their folly until they came to their senses. Failing that, you’d suspect them of either insanity or some strange form self-destructive treachery.

    And that’s what this is. Delusional Suicidal Treason.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This argument is only controversial on the ‘right’. The left know what is going on and laugh at their enemy’s stupidity.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Amusing to see so many copies available for $0.01 plus shipping. Then again, how much can a book adequately summarizable as “completely predictable utter demographic dominance coming soon, a work in progress since 1965” really be worth?

    Now, I mentioned over at Foseti’s that after l’affaire Richwine, I contacted a girl I once knew who once worked at Heritage’s nice DC digs (Just near Union Station). Her take on the new “party machine inner circle conventional wisdom” was that permanent demographic defeat was already an inevitability, as has been known by this crew and their modelers (and Judis et al) for a long time, and regardless of even the most extreme immigration restrictions that could have been feasibly imposed even as far back as 2001.

    It’s not a matter of looking for windows of opportunity in public opinion – this has been the Democratic Party’s “Grand Strategy” forever, and whatever you try to do to defeat it will only be met by equal and opposite countermeasures by the Cathedral Machine. Given that, there are two possibilities for the future of the Republican Party – neither of which involve accomplishing anything like a “conservative” agenda. Instead of Athens vs. Jerusalem, it is Sacramento vs. Stockholm. (Stockholm because It’s catchier, but any high-immigrant population Western European capital will do.)

    1. Sacramento: Close up shop as a national party with any hopes of getting its fingers on the levers of power, having a “deep bench” of competent experts that constitutes a ‘shadow government in waiting’ or installing its loyalists in important positions of authority and influence. Liberated of the need to compromise, “Republicans” will probably become more devoutly and explicitly conservative in those districts where they win, but so what? As always, California (and perhaps Chicago) has shown us the future. The Republicans there are good conservatives, Dana Rohrabacher’s a great guy, but the entire government is a one-party state where all debate and discussion goes on entirely within the Blue Wing of Sacramento.

    Or:

    2. Stockholm: In the hope that by bending over backwards to show you care so much you’ll sell out your base, that you could win some tiny amount of “elasticity in natural-Democrat political opinion”, embrace Brazilization and become the “less leftist” party that resembles what passes for ‘the right’ in the UK, France, or Germany.

    To show they aren’t complete strategic idiots, the inner-circlers believe that 2 is at least worth a shot, and if it fails, you get 1 anyway. If you choose 1, the Democrats will use their power to pass an even worse Amnesty anyway, so there’s really nothing to lose, and maybe some brown-love points to gain, by supporting something now. The game is about power, not about sacrificing it to maintain respect or for one’s principles. Anything is worthwhile if it potentially avoids being permanently shut out of national-level power. Not just for the sake of the interests of conservatives, but for the sake of the country, which without even a near-progressive but sometimes competitive opposition party will go completely off the rails towards Leftist Singularity. Like California will. Or maybe even like Detroit already has.

    So, the Republican Gangers probably hate the Amnesty too, but believe they have to suck it up and publicly pretend to love it to even hope to be able to save themselves and the party (and even ‘the country’) in the future.

    If any of that is true, it is coherent and respectably Machiavellian as a “Republican Stockholm Strategy”.

    My view is that this is opposed to my preferred “Reactionary Strategy”. My position is that there are a lot of per-reactionaries out there who are just about to give up on the idea of even having real representation or hope of enacting small-government conservative programs in the future. Just a nudge away. I want them to being their path to Dark Enlightenment.

    I want them to have that ‘epiphany’ moment when they see that not only can they not solve their problems because they can never again win the game, but that the game itself is the real problem.

    I’m curious that few people (except the great Peter A. Taylor and Neoneocon) have written about the real trauma and Kubler-Ross stages of grief that modern folk experience when they have significant shifts in their fundamental ideas like religion or politics. I don’t want to get too Psychiatric about it – but I think that trauma is necessary for change. I want all the pre-reactionaries to be deeply betrayed and disillusioned and depressed beyond any hope at all. I want them to be inconsolable and in a furious rage at the Republican party and all those of the past to which the present was a distant future conveniently betrayed.

    The Stockholm Strategy works against that because it preserves even a corrupted form of hope. Smeagol has to become Gollum, but he gets a shot at holding the Ring. The Precious is alluring enough to allow the per-reactionaries to remain in the rigged game and swallow the bitter pull of their betrayal. It’s a seductive and Faustian bargain sacrificing one’s integrity for the sake of expediency and relevance.

    I don’t want that. I want them to watch the Ring firmly affixed on the finger of a Sauron which can only be opposed and with whom it is pointless folly to resign oneself to perhaps one day being able to persuade him on some trivial matter into some reasonable moderation.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I so entirely agree with everything you say here that a substantial response is impossible.

    My own emphasis, which differs slightly from some alternative but widely-held conceptions of realistic neoreactionary strategy, is that the radical trauma you anticipate has to be channeled away from dreams of regime transition, towards a focused preoccupation upon escape. Getting the hell out comes first. The most productive route for despair is secessionism (in whichever of the many ways this might be eventually achievable).

    Posted on June 22nd, 2013 at 6:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Yes, “getting the hell out” certainly sounds appealing, but for a neoreactionary secessionist enclave to be sustainable across future generations, the initial breakaway would have to involve a more or less equal number of males and females – and what are the chances of that ever happening?
    Sad fact is, of course, that within the neoreactionary blogosphere at least, one only ever encounters blokes. Is it that their significant others are all too busy cooking and cleaning and taking care of the kids to make any intellectual contribution, or do a lot of them not even have a significant other?
    Whatever became of cyberfeminism?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You don’t see one of those ‘one apartment in Libero-Harshia and another in San Francisco’ yuppie-marriage deals working?

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    “Yes, “getting the hell out” certainly sounds appealing, but for a neoreactionary secessionist enclave to be sustainable across future generations, the initial breakaway would have to involve a more or less equal number of males and females – and what are the chances of that ever happening?”

    Not entirely true.

    If a neo-reactionary secessionist enclave made a lot of money (as a tax haven for example) but suffered from a gender imbalance, it could simply bring in foreign brides who are not particularly interested in politics.

    Romulus and his followers were mostly male. They didn’t let that stop them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

    “The Rape is supposed to have occurred in the early history of Rome, shortly after its founding by Romulus and his mostly male followers. Seeking wives in order to found families, the Romans negotiated unsuccessfully with the Sabines, who populated the area. Fearing the emergence of a rival society, the Sabines refused to allow their women to marry the Romans. Consequently, the Romans planned to abduct Sabine women, during a festival of Neptune Equester and proclaimed the festival among Rome’s neighbours. According to Livy, many people from Rome’s neighbours including folk from the Caeninenses, Crustumini, and Antemnates, and many of the Sabines attended. At the festival Romulus gave a signal, at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men. The indignant abductees were soon implored by Romulus to accept Roman husbands.

    Livy is clear that no sexual assault took place. On the contrary, Romulus offered them free choice and promised civic and property rights to women. According to Livy, Romulus spoke to them each in person, “and pointed out to them that it was all owing to the pride of their parents in denying the right of intermarriage to their neighbours. They would live in honourable wedlock, and share all their property and civil rights, and—dearest of all to human nature—would be the mothers of free men.”

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Profound disinterest in politics should be a minimum requirement for any bride.

    Whatever became of cyberfeminism? Isn’t that just… the internet?

    In answer to John’s other question, women will follow good men, wherever they go. And good men are the sort you want in your enclave.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2013 at 11:42 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment