Part 1 of 8

There's no need to theorize what will happen in America when Whites become a minority. Instead, simply scan the Internet for news from South Africa and Zimbabwe, which offer object lessons in the stage-by-stage devolution of societies under Black control.

Zimbabwe was turned over to the Blacks at the end of the seventies. Since then, the white population has declined by two-thirds. Only about 80,000 of the country's quarter-million Whites remain, and these people, the productive core of the country, are subject to confiscatory taxes and predatory land grabs by a Mugabe regime intent on achieving economic justice by killing every golden goose it can find. The fewer the White-led entities that remain, the louder the clamor for their despoil from the landless and moneyless Mugabe backers -- the multitudes who buy the lie that their conditions are the result of white oppression. The white media in Zimbabwe, reading the writing on the wall, tend to self-censor where they aren't openly promoting the very policies that are turning the former Rhodesia into the rest of the continent. Political freedom wanes as Zimbabwe becomes the one-party state Mugabe swore it never would. Serious voters buy plane tickets. Out in the boondocks, witchcraft, long suppressed, comes into flower.

The same forces weakening Zimbabwe are at work in South Africa. Some 3,000 Whites, including many professionals, emigrate each month, replaced by thousands of poor, uneducated Blacks from the north. The rate of violent crime is higher than anywhere else in the world outside an active war zone. The rate of murder is eight times that of the United States. Middle class residents huddle behind walls and bars and stay out of the large sections of major cities that have been turned into squatters camps. Everywhere Blacks, newly empowered, erase White culture, first by Africanizing names (of everything from provinces to rugby clubs) and then by Africanizing standards. The nervous, civilized minority can only hunker, praying that things will get worse slowly. There is no reasonable hope they will get better.

A Reuters report from spring 1996 describes democratic South Africa:

Social integration has not happened and Whites and Blacks still live and often work worlds apart. ... Social commentators say it will probably take a generation or more to wean White South Africa off ideas of racial superiority drummed into their people from infancy... Poverty has also brought a tidal wave of violent crime in a country awash with guns from the liberation struggle. Car owners pray they won't be hijacked and home owners pray burglars -- who like to refer to their trade as ``democratic shopping'' -- will pick on the house next door instead. The desirable suburbs, where towering walls and electric fences protect the villas and swimming pools, are still dominated by Whites who drive BMWs and Mercedes, own the lion's share of the land and have a stranglehold on the economy. Poverty has also brought a tidal wave of violent crime in a country awash with guns from the liberation struggle. ... Downtown Johannesburg has been invaded by squatter camps and fortune-seeking immigrants from across Africa who, locals complain, have brought drugs and prostitution with them. ... Change may be too slow for blacks but it is too fast for many Whites, feeling like has-beens and streaming abroad to settle in ``White'' countries.

Afrikaner civil servants complain that affirmative action means their once protected jobs are now earmarked for Blacks.
[4/26/96 Reuters (Richard Meares)]

While de Klerk enjoys his Nobel prize, these are the conditions his White countrymen enjoy. His political party has evaporated, and opinion is nearly universal that things will worsen once Mandela departs. Perhaps more significant than the ground-level facts reported by Reuters is their couching in loaded words: While Blacks steal, rape and murder, poverty and Whites unweaned of "ideas of racial superiority" are the real problems. Whites, we are told, have a "stranglehold" on the economy. Why Whites would wish to strangle the economy is difficult to say. Better written, the story would read: ...the 'beleaguered remnants of a civilized order shrink from the murder and rapine, nepotism and corruption that plague the new Black democracy.' But if we had the gumption to make the value judgments implicit in that formulation, South Africa would still be free and orderly and democratic, instead of just democratic.

The White race -- this is true worldwide -- is the one race that is never allowed to advance its interests as such. Indeed, to assert that White people as such have interests is anathema both to the left, which, for ideological reasons, defines whites as oppressors, and to the right, which insists on color-blind individualism. In a very real sense, both sides of the political equation have moved a space to the left since the sixties. Right-wingers now quote Martin Luther King and see in his plagiarized platitudes the veriest wisdom while the left has moved from color-blindness and equality to an anti-White regulationism, a soft but setting totalitarianism.

Whites in South Africa are becoming a smaller and smaller minority within a less and less civilized society. Unless things change -- and this is about as likely as water running uphill -- the country is well on its way down the path of Zimbabwe back into the third world -- the Ur-world from which Whites wrought civilization three hundred years ago. Perhaps America can learn from South Africa's recent history the lesson she failed learn from our civil rights struggles of the sixties. The lesson South Africa failed to learn was that a genuinely colorblind society is as unlikely as a flipped coin landing on its edge. Inevitably, the coin falls on one side or the other. It is better that the White side is on top, no matter the plaudits you gain from the world press for bowing to the (always) "inevitable" claims of 'democracy' and 'simple human justice.' How magnificent the words! How awful the reality!... Here's official white South Africa now that the shouting's died down:

South African opposition parties, including the creators of apartheid, accused President Nelson Mandela's ruling ANC of racism...and said the country was slipping into decay.

Official leader of the opposition F.W. de Klerk, whose National Party introduced apartheid in 1948 and began dismantling it in 1990, made his attack in a parliamentary speech replying to Mandela's opening address last week.

"The African National Congress, despite its lip service to non-racialism and reconciliation, plays a hard game of racist politics and incites racist emotions whenever it suits itself," de Klerk said.

"I want to accuse the ANC today... [of] plunging the country into a form of new apartheid and...fomenting colour prejudices." ... "If the promised privatisation doesn't materialise on schedule, confidence will again be shaken. If no definite steps are taken soon with regard to the removal of exchange controls, confidence will the end will be growing poverty, failure in delivery and finally anarchy," he said.

Tony Leon, leader of the largely white liberal Democratic Party, echoed the charge that the ANC was now practising the racism against which it had fought as a liberation movement.

"I see a revolutionary movement, which stood for perhaps the greatest universal good in the 20th Century -- the eradication of racialism and the elimination of the scourge of apartheid, now practising a new racialism instead of the new patriotism," Len told parliament.

He cited verbal ANC attacks on critical journalists and the official policy of hiring people for their skin colour rather than merit as evidence that the ANC was "saddling up entitlement, resentment, envy and prejudice."
[02-11-97, Reuters]

Further comments along the same lines are now coming from Helen Suzman, one of the country's best known liberals:

...[F]or years a lone voice against apartheid in South Africa's Whites-only parliament, [Helen Suzman] got used to hate mail from her fellow Whites. Now the verbal attacks are coming from within the new Black establishment and the doyenne of liberalism is ruffled.

``I am surprised at the hostility to liberals these days, even from moderates in the African National Congress....I expected it from the right and the far left, who have always called us 'Lenin's useful idiots', but I didn't expect it from them. It seems it is politically incorrect to be liberal.''

Some of South Africa's new Black elite are caustic in their contempt for those Whites who battled the apartheid regime. ``Liberalism is rooted in individualism and that is part of the problem in our society,"... said Professor Ithumeleng Mosala, of the black consciousness group, the Azanian People's Organization.

``Instead of having a proper revolution in this country, we've had a liberal revolution and that is why Blacks are still where they are today, in the gutter, and why Whites are still rich.''

He said White liberals were people ``who love Blacks more than Blacks love themselves...''

[Suzman says,] ``We don't claim the kudos for the transformation [to Black rule] but we did play a part,'' she said.

``Liberals are a sort of endangered species, but as far as I am concerned we have won -- look at the constitution, the bill of rights, they are everything we stood for -- so let them rant. I am surprised, but I am not worried.''
3/18/97, Reuters (Richard Meares), South Africa

The woman is a fool, valuing words on paper over the testimony of her eyes, but her foolishness -- that the Bill of Rights can be sustained in a Black context -- is a utopian foolishness that every white American public conservative adheres to. Her country collapses around her while she covers her eyes with her paper constitution and clicks her heels like Dorothy. A pitiful sight, but it is not our job to judge her -- it is our job to prevent the same fate from overtaking America. And that fate, make no mistake, is overtaking America. Every day we become more of a third-world country. It will take another fifty years to complete the process, but that we are turning into a sort of Northern Puerto Rico is easily verified with a trip to the big city or the borderland. Our devolution is inevitable as long as the right accepts the left's premise that race doesn't matter. The left says that race doesn't matter because they know that it does: they want a Third World America; they are actively working for a Third World AmeriKwa. Let's be clear on this: As long as we on the right deny the connection between race and the kind of country we want to live in, we are simply digging our graves when it comes to politics. Until we defend our White civilization as such, we are playing sham politics -- and we are going to lose. The left well knows this, and this is why it does everything in its power to ostracize, ridicule and abuse anyone -- in media, sports, politics, gardening, whatever -- who dares to make the obvious connection between Whites and civilization. The upside is that the galvanized few who have the courage to endure that wrath while insisting on the truth have the opportunity to create a movement that offers genuine opposition to the liberal orthodoxy that is turning our country into something it wasn't meant to be, which is to say, destroying it.

The American political right circa 1998 is a putative, spurious opposition. It is not a genuine opposition because it has ceded the intellectual and physical grounds it exists to defend. For example, the public right controls the most powerful political institution in the country, Congress, while simultaneously ceding the American southwest to Mexico. Having the power to resist, it refuses. As for intellectual cession, Bob Dornan, ex-Congressman, sees no connection between American success and the white race. He has said he has no problem with our traditional northern European stocks being supplanted by browns. He, belatedly, has a problem with illegal brown-eyed stocks physically overswarming his Southern California district and illegally voting him out of office, but it is by no means clear he has tied this to his fatuous racial views. Dornan, I repeat, typifies an American right that has politically and intellectually disarmed on the issue of race -- resulting in Dornan's political suicide, and signalling a slow-but-sure death for the Republican Party, in time. Still, there is no public American right-wing politician or journalist -- Republican, Libertarian or whatever -- who will publicly argue the connection between American civilization and the White race. Not Bob Dornan, William F. Buckley, Jack Kemp, Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole nor anyone else. It would have been laughable to any right-winger before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this crazy idea that you can mix any number of people from anywhere around the world and produce freedom maximized in a way consistent with social order, as Barry Goldwater had it. Today there's not a adult conservative out there who doesn't bow and scrape to the Multicultural emperor, the boy-king who will execute him when he comes of age.

Let me make the point just a bit differently: The only intellectual basis that can sustain a successful opposition to the leftists' Multicultural Orthodoxy is one that explicity explicates and defends the connection between the White race and the world-astonishing freedoms and various and intricate living-ways our American states have developed. All history and most evidence are on our side; all the leftistst have in their corner are a bunch of Santeria'd chicken corpses, smoking suttee embers and excised clitorises. There's also the small fact that Multiculturalism is a self-refuting idea, as is any form of pluralism. Cultures are not like different types of dishes that can exist peaceably on the same serving board, they are all-encompassing ways of taking the world that differ on points large and small. How do you parse Nazis and Jews? Arabs and Jews? Christians and Jews? Anybody and Jews? There's no real way to do it. One is on top, and the other is on the bottom. They can't exist side by side in equality and mutual respect, no matter what the ideal holds, and no matter how many millions of times fools spit out silly terms like "Judeo-Christian heritage." It's just not as simple as sticking a hyphen in the middle. What do we say to the African who believes in cutting off his eleven-year-old's clitoris? The only acceptable answer to normal white Americans is: Get the $^#$%$& out of our country! That is the healthy answer, and it is the answer the Left fears. It is, in short, the winning answer.

For a moment, let's take the American right's arguments at face value, and let's ignore the the private misgivings many undoubtedly have with so chimerical an ideology as Multiculturalism. Let's look at a bit of recent history to see how we got here. Once the "civil rights" battles ended, with the tapes of Bull Connor still fresh in their minds, public right pols and intellectuals needed something something to replace the until-then self-evidently valid defense of white rights that had been their whole history and reason for being. The ideology that served their needs was individualism. Not only did this seem to have a genuinely honorable tradition behind it, it had a nice, even, fair, across-the-board feel to it. Still clinging to the shreds of the white racist arguments that gave most of the impetus to the states rights doctrine (as white rights devolved into in the sixties), the White pols and thinkers figured they could change their words but keep their worlds. Perhaps the subtler minds among them could see that because the racists were right that Blacks were intellectually and culturally inferior, equal treatment, long the goal of Blacks and "civil rights" advocates, must inevitably become spat upon 'code words,' replaced by genuine code words such as 'affirmative action' and 'equal opportunity employer' to cloak the manifest inferiority of the affirmatively acted upon and the damage done to the discriminated-against. But, as they say, the fool you flatter may be the fool you become, and inevitably, as the decades passed, whites, grown unused to defending their interests as such, forgot they had those interests. They couldn't see the snowstorm for the snowflakes. They came to believe their own ideology of individualism so strongly that, as Robert Frost once said of liberals, they wouldn't even take their own side in an argument. To put it yet another way, American right-wing pols are the type who can only see a Seurat a dot at a time. Thus it came to be that policies favoring blacks -- policies giving them extra money or special treatment at the expense of white Americans -- came to be criticized by the overwhelming majority of right pols and thinkers as injurious to Blacks. Defending conservative individualist policies from the standpoint of Black interests became a sort of parlor trick that every public con learned to perform in the eighties. By 1998, with White Republican politicians seldom garnering over ten percent of the colored vote, it could truly be said that seldom in history had one group gone so far out of its way to consider the interests of a second group -- a group by any objective measure hostile to it -- before its own. In fact, by the nineties, the game had gone so far and become so bizarre that the rare remaining right-winger (viz David Duke) who actually made the interests of Whites the centerpiece of his campaign was rejected with nearly spastic, spitting hatred by the party's standard bearers. The conversion had come complete: the public right were now born-again liberals. They had reached out so far for so long they had fallen in. The practical political meaning of the Republicans' new race tactic -- missed by most, but not by everybody -- was that there was now a huge, rich bunch of people out there whose interests weren't being represented -- an opening for a Real Right large enough to drive a truck through. If you doubt that Whites -- and White males, in particular -- form a group with distinct interests, keep watching TV. I'd be willing to bet that TV marketers within five years will, in line with demographic trends, pick up on white males as a segment. (Right now, the marketing ideologues, accurately sensing the country's political orthodoxy, are moving toward the tail end of diversity marketing, a sort of clean-up campaign, in the won battle to disestablish White/male authority. Thus, White males on TV -- and in ads especially -- are written to act silly, stupid, foolish -- anything but serious, dignified and responsible. Once the Jewish media wizards feel this campaign has gone far enough -- and Americans can feel good about themselves whether they are Jamaican pharmacists, lesbian pro softball players, or armless Armenian college admissions directors -- the admakers will suddenly be free to rediscover White males. In a phrase, the thinking is: White males: a segment, not regnant. After all, there's too much money there to be ignored or patronized too far.)

The price of the ideology of individualism (and of politics and policies based on it) is the loss of the ability to see trends and patterns and a shying from necessary generalizations. As Camille Paglia has noted, they are small minds that fail to see patterns and wholes. Colorblind people think their blindness is admirable, but there is nothing admirable about those who will not see, just as there is nothing admirable about people who choose to disable their faculties. It is not the path of wisdom to shut off an avenue of information about the world. People who proudly proclaim their colorblindness never ask themselves a simple question: If color doesn't matter, then why do we need to blind ourselves to it? The person who claims, "I am colorblind," is wrong because if he really were blind to color, he, by definition and by logic, would not notice the fact that color exists, even for him to be blind about. People who are literally colorblind -- i.e., can't distinguish red or green -- don't know they are blind until someone else tells them. The truth about racial characteristics and the Morally Elect's refusal or pretend-refusal to see them is more along the lines of Lenin: You may (pretend) not to be interested in color, but color is interested in in you! No one in the world is color-blind the way our con pols would have us be. No one ever has been, most certainly not the Framers, all of whom ever quoted on the subject wanted to send every three-fifths of a man five-fifths of the way back to Africa. Not even the left pretends to be colorblind anymore. Their ostensible goal of racial equality converted to Black preference in the blink of a colorblind eye the minute equality was achievable. The public right likes to fool itself that somehow the idea of equality or affirmative action became perverted, but we don't have to buy their illusion: there were more than a few leftists who had today's racial spoils system in mind when they started their push.

A public conservative in America in 1998 is a man who has accepted the need to prove his moral bona fides, especially with regard to questions of race. He does this in two ways: First, by ritually ignoring the conclusive evidence of the substantial IQ disparity between Blacks and Whites -- the basis of their widely divergent and incompatible cultures. (This is The Dog that Didn't Bark, after Conan Doyle). Any racial differences in performance are explained as historical legacies that will evaporate under the all-melting sun of opportunity. Second, the conservative gains his moral spurs by ritually denouncing in the harshest and most unforgiving terms those who refuse to embrace the grand illusion of racial equality. You may remember the way George Bush, for one, evinced a near-epileptic spasticity in distancing himself from Duke for meaning what he merely mouthed. Much as Indian youths proved their manhood by ripping strips of bark out of their chest flesh, the public cons prove their "decency" by ritually cutting out their eyes -- an even uglier spectacle. By means of these public postures, the public con placates, however temporarily, the liberals and multiculturalists, and simultaneously "reaches out" to the minorities in the way his party leaders tell him is necessary to win colored support. And without colored support, the Republicans have persuaded themselves, the party is morally illegitimate and can never become the majority party. Finally, our "conservative" pol feels -- and those around him tell him -- he has achieved moral decency. And those who feel they are morally decent, really feel they are morally Elect, which you can tell by the way they look down their noses at the unconverted. Even if our con pol weren't predisposed to believe as he is told to, the reinforcement from the media, from the liberals, from his party leadership would tend to have its effect, tend to lead him to forget about the white victims of racial discrimination apart from some biannual campaign chatter, and as for serious contemplation of the ultimate implications of the Black-White IQ disparity for "integration" -- King's ideal we must all publicly worship -- why, any thoughts along these lines soon disappear in the clink of Georgetown wine glasses and the din of collegial chatter. The fact that the democratic politician almost invariably is a man with a stronger-than-average need for others' approval further pushes our pol towards confirmation in the modish orthodoxy, the superstition du jour, the racial Big Lie. The seduction of Washington -- with its blandishments of press praise for "growth," social approval from the in-crowd, and myriad gray-area sex/money opportunties just a liberal ticket away -- is complete. Where power, money, and social approval accrue to superstitionaries, truth finds few friends.

To the White right intellectuals and policiticians, we are all individuals now; separate economic units who may defend our interests in free-market terms but no others. Even to speak of national borders is pushing it. To the libertarian/techno right, America itself is a protectionist word, as Peter Brimelow has observed. Certainly we are not to observe that we are White people who prefer to live among White people and enjoy the culture we produce -- even though that is the case for nearly every one of us, and even though Blacks are, at the same time, socially and politically encouraged to defend their separate, special interests as such. On the dark side is the only place that "group" thinking is allowed when it comes to the right. In place of a healthy White civilization, the "respectable" right pols -- Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, etc. -- offer a dream-future: a neat tomorrow of technology, vouchers and illimitable opportunity that's only an election away. Tomorrow! Tomorrow! sing these adult Annies, incessantly -- anything to escape the burden of defending an honorable past they've been coopted into hating.

The questions that must be decided by you on the right who are interested in genuine politics -- politics that fights to win -- are: Which is the baby and which is the bathwater? And: Who is going to do the throwing out? Either it is the Kemp crowd, willing to sacrifice an existing, civilized White order with two thousand years of history behind it for a Multicultural Utopia that has never existed anywhere on earth save the imagination of a few deluded pols, or it is the pro-white side, willing to sacrifice the rights of the minority of minorities that can meet civilized standards in order to save the America we love, the America that works, the America that is Ours? (You will notice that I admit the costs of my position -- the sacrifice of the rights of people who, taken as individuals, have done nothing that objectively merits the forfeiture of their rights -- whereas I defy you to find one example of Jack Kemp or Newt Gingrich admitting a penny of the immense costs their multiculturalism has imposed on civilized normal White Americans.) The answer that we can have both, i.e., have our cake and eat it too, is a lie refuted by every piece of evidence in this essay. Ask yourself: Which is the conservative choice? Which is the reasonable choice? Which is the right choice? Remember: Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton won't suffer the consequences when their multicultural delusions come a cropper tomorrow -- just as they have no problem disguising what's already happened today -- but your children will. Kemp & Co. will be laughing in their graves, having enjoyed the political benefits of pulling the wool over your eyes. You, people who make up the white majority, are responsible for choosing your future. You are the ones history and your grandchildren will hold responsible. You are the ones who will be laughed at as fools, no matter your "intentions," should you choose wrong. Is the right choice really that difficult to see? Do you really believe those public "conservatives," rhetorically waving goodbye to the freedoms lost in the civil rights hacks of sixty-four, are right in heralding the new age of technology-empowered, variously hued Americans they claim will (tomorrow!) be leaping to join their open and inclusive new party? Aren't we better advised to place our faith in facts, history and outside-our-door reality than in the never-never land of the Beautiful Dreamers?

We are used to thinking of Marxism, for one, as an ideology, but how seldom we in the mainstream (Republican) right think to analyze our own 'smelly little orthodoxy' (Orwell). Ideologies are dangerous because they bend facts to fit theories. One man/one vote has become an ideological litmus test for the right over the past thirty years. The consequences of that policy are clear enough to those who wish to see them -- but few do. We usually hear faith referred to as 'touching.' As in, Suzman's faith in words written on paper is "touching." But it's not touching; it's disgusting and dangerous. The left's formulation is that any political arrangement besides one man/one vote is immoral and illegitimate. The left must be countered on this point. There are various ways to do that, which we will discuss shortly. But the key is not to concede the point that every man, as such, deserves a vote. The right is on extremely firm historical ground here; ground one might think it would defend on definitional grounds alone, as the party that seeks to preserve the tried-and-more-or-less-effective. But the religious element on the right has taken a turn that, unfortunately, bolsters the current orthodoxy. The states-rights southern religious conservatives have flipped over to the non-racial side, weakly at first from political pressure, and then more strongly as the marketing benefits became obvious. These grassroots religious conservatives have persuaded themselves that racial problems don't exist as such, and the mindset that would see them that way must be denounced and replaced by the orthodox view that what might appear to be a race-related problem is actually just a permutation of the age-old original sin/salvation problem that can be solved by traditional means evangelical, with a little help in the form of mixers between traditionally Black and traditionally White congregations. More recently, we have come to find even more shocking tergiversations from the White Southern (religious) attitudes of thirty-plus years ago. There are quotations from reverends up to and including Robertson recommending miscegenation and seeing it as a social panacea the same way the liberal writers of All in the Family did back in the seventies and the MTV producers do today. It is not too crude, perhaps, to note that a not-insubstantial share of Robertson's coffers is filled by minority donations, and that where extreme public pressure and marketing interests coincide, the Truth is sure to follow. It's the way of the world; the religious no less than the secular. Going along with the current racial orthodoxy certainly helps marketing their faith in South America, Africa and Asia, which is where Pope John Paul and Pat Robertson are picking up most of their converts these days. There is a parallel between one man/one vote (political equality) and equality before the eyes of God that seems to suggest itself, inevitably, to the faithful, and it is one of the greater dangers we face in building a Real Right.

To make a long story blunt, American public conservatives have given up. They have retreated. They don't have the stomach to fight the fight where they are strongest. They refuse to defend the obvious truth that Negroes, Mexicans and coloreds in general are incapable of developing or sustaining the kind of society -- measured by quality or taste -- normal white people want to live in. They take refuge in religious political homilies about reaching out to minorities, as though the problem were (as it always is to liberals) "communication." But minorities hear the right's message, they just aren't interested. The public cons keep reaching out, but they never ask themselves why nobody reaches back. Because to ask that question would be to examine Blacks and other minorities seriously, i.e., as people with different cultures and interests from Whites, and not as merely darker-stained wooden figures to be fitted into the color-blind opportunity society, the Fantasyland Gingrich and Kemp perpetually pitch. To take minorities seriously is to take a real look at what they are: to take a real look not just at the handful of impressive Black conservatives and the race's first-rate musical and sporting aptitudes, but to look at their myriad criminals, breathtaking rates of bastardy and syphillis and smorgasbord of White-destroying social mores...and like the liberals they've become, the public cons don't want to do that. Only the real right loves Blacks enough to take them seriously; to see them for what they really are. As for the public right, they are afraid of the truth. They are walking backwards and expostulating madly. They want to keep on twinkling their eyes, pressing flesh and talking about the Wonderful World of Tomorrow where everybody has a job and two legitimate children and checks her stocks on the Internet, gripes about high taxes and votes Republican. Here's something you can bet on: That day will never come. Here's something else you can bet on: the public cons' fear of the truth about race is leaving a political void tougher men will fill.

Politics ain't beanbag, said Mr. Dooley. But to the public cons of 1998, it is. These guys hate facing facts almost as much as they hate fact-facers, and there is no single fact they are more afraid to face or run faster to get away from than the fact that black and brown minorities are never going to become Opportunity Society conservatives. The public cons speak as fools while the liberals laugh at them and do everything they can to pack more third-world minorities into formerly conservative districts. Here's my clip-of-the-year when it comes to getting the essence of what I suggest in honor of Mr. Dooley we call the Beanbag Right's approach to reality in a nutshell:

The New Republic's Michael Lewis is granted a five-minute interview with Jack Kemp as he stumps in New York. The writer introduces himself to the Republican vice presidential nominee in his hotel room. "'You're the famous one from the New Republic,' Kemp says. But before I have a chance to fully absorb that notion, he adds, 'The one who wrote that Kemp never had a new idea in his life. Well, you're right, I never had a new idea in my life.' "That's Michael Kinsley,' I say. 'I've never written about you.' "'Oh,' he says, 'A tabula rasa.' Just then Joanne Kemp comes in. 'Joanne,' he says, 'this is Michael Kelly of the New Republic.' "'Michael Lewis.' "Right, Michael Lewis,' he says, just as enthusiastically as if I had been Michael Kelly [of the New Yorker] or even Michael Kinsley." [10/4/96, Washington Times (Greg Pierce)]

This same marvelous indifference to facts is what sustains his idiot enthusiam for bridging the racial chasm in three jumps, four jumps -- however many jumps it takes. Reality meets Jack Kemp's Beautiful, Big-Hearted Vision -- and guess which gives way! But what Little Jackie Backslap and his multicultural friends are afraid to acknowledge is what the rest of us must address head on. . . .Their fear is our opportunity.

Go to Part 2

Back to VNN Main Page

Click Here!