Many of you are visiting this blog due to the recent CPAC controversy, where my friend Matt Heimbach and I made national news by showing up and asking (in civil, articulate tones, mind you) a few simple questions.
What was our main concern?
There is a lot of rhetoric in conservative circles about reaching out the mestizo demographic, or reaching out to homosexuals and blacks.
Our question: why not reach out to whites?
This is exactly what the GOP needs to do, as a matter of fact. Steve Sailer and the guys at VDARE have done an excellent job in pointing this out. Please educate yourself about the Sailer Strategy.
What was the GOP’s answer to this question?
Well, you have seen the fall out. The GOP doesn’t want to answer. They’d rather side with a few left wing British nut-jobs and pretend I was “advocating for slavery” – even though I SPECIFICALLY told them that I wasn’t! I guess fine distinctions like supporting or not supporting “slavery” are too hard to draw for our liberal friends?
The GOP wants to continue its war against unique culture / ethnic / racial distinctions. The GOP wants us all to blend together into a mocha-colored, capitalist utopia.
For the fair-minded reading this:
All peoples, all races, can benefit from having their unique distinctions respected, preserved, and honored. There’s nothing wrong with that. (Is there? Is there anyone willing to self-consciously defend the mocha-colored dream world? Post here and we can debate it).
So, to the degree that the so called “Frederick Douglas Republicans” attempt to preach a phony “raceless” civic-nationalism, they will fail. Minorities in America are especially adept at seeing through this sort of ruse.
However, after the session was over, I approached Mr. Smith, and we had a great conversation. He put some of my fears to rest and assured me he agreed with Booker T. Washington’s statement (about us all being as united as a hand, but separate as the fingers – in fact, said Mr. Smith, Washington got that from Frederick Douglas to begin with).
If that is the general attitude of the Frederick Douglas Republicans (and I believe they were sincere), then all I have to say is: It’s about time. I hope it catches on.
I got an autographed copy of their book and hope to read and review it with a discerning eye. But even now, I suspect we have far more to agree than disagree on.
To Conclude, a statement about the “slavery” issue:
As a proud southerner, I hate the malicious denigration of my ancestors and their society.
You disagree with the institution of southern slavery? Fine! All I ask is that, before expecting me to blindly (and naively) accept trendy rhetoric on the topic, you respect the historical, sociological, and religious complexities of the situation. For instance, Mr. Smith kept implying that slave labor is absolutely free, and it was to this I was objecting (at least, that’s what I was intending to object to).
It’s true, as the economists who advocate for a subjective theory of value have noted, the entrepreneur’s risks, technology, and managing ability, are indispensable parts of the business enterprise. It’s no different for a plantation. It’s not as if slaves formed their own logistical infrastructure and took financial risks. They were provided with housing, food, medical care, etc. That’s not even a controversial point. We all know it’s true.
Unfortunately, truth isn’t popular in the GOP.
Anyway … if the Frederick Douglas Republican movement catches hold and if it respects the Godly diversity in our society (and doesn’t try to merge all our interests together, or claim that we have no legitimate group interests), then it’s a positive direction for the tea-party and I hope to support them in the future.