Scott Terry, famously, got listed as a hate group, for arguing at CPAC (conservative political action conference) that the slave Frederick Douglass was the recipient of a favor by his master.
I have often argued that most slaves were not enslaved for profit, but because they profiled as likely to only be able to survive by hunting someone else’s cattle and gathering someone else’s crops, and so the owners of those crops and cattle proceeded to chase them off to anywhere they could go, and if there was nowhere they could go, ship them off to anyone who would take them, which is pretty much Scott Terry’s argument – that slaves in large part were, and their descendents in substantial part are, people who to survive in the modern environment need either state subsidies or external discipline, both of which are favors commonly done by white people to black people. The largest source of slaves was black elites exporting their unwanted underclass, or ethnically cleansing inferior groups that caused problems. Underclass people do not deserve freedom, and are not capable of handling it. If you allow them to vote, they will of course vote against freedom.
CPAC, the supposedly conservative political action conference, stands firmly in favor of electing a new people, in favor of the mass importation of a welfare underclass from Latin America to outvote employed taxpayers. A lot of people say this is a business friendly policy, because it reduces the cost of unskilled labor and so forth. This is untrue. A business friendly policy would be to make it easy for employers to get work visas for their employees. The CPAC policy is aimed at making it easy for illegal immigrants to get welfare and vote. A business friendly open borders policy would aim at importing people who work, rather than people who collect welfare, thus would issue visas through employers, rather than issuing voting rights through federal agencies.
The big conflict at CPAC is between “conservatives”, and “libertarian” equalists. A CPAC “conservative” believes in affirmative action, government spending, social breakdown, family breakdown, general lawlessness, and so on and so forth, but believes in this increasing slightly less rapidly than it has been doing under Bush/Obama. He also believes the economy will grow rapidly to sustain the slightly slower growth in these things. He is is in favor of “immigration reform” – importing a massive welfare underclass to vote democrat.
The libertarian equalist believes that we can some how pretend that inferiors are equals without affirmative action, government spending, and so on and so forth increasing rapidly, and that the Latin American underclass we are importing are going to get jobs, buy houses in the suburbs, and pay their mortgages. He too is in favor of “immigration reform” – importing a massive welfare underclass to vote democrat. He is probably right about them buying houses in the suburbs, but demonstrably wrong about them working and paying for them.
CPAC is probably slightly to the right of the median voter, so a CPAC approved political movement will never win an election. The median voter is a fatherless husbandless jobless white woman with an obamaphone, zero assets, and two children by two different biological fathers. CPAC is, however, wildly, bizarrely, insanely, to the left of reality. I would say that the CPAC program would be politically realistic if the median voter was divorced white woman, no assets, and children by a single biological father, child of intact family, mother of a broken family which she broke up. Now, however, we are getting the second generation of broken families, making CPAC’s program as unrealistic electorally, as it is unrealistic about dealing with our problems.
You think maybe I am being a little harsh in saying both sides favor increasing lawlessness, favor anarcho tyranny? When did either side acknowledge the selective enforcement of ever more laws against white males, and ever less enforcement of ever fewer laws against other groups? When did either side acknowledge one way equality, wherein women are equal to men, but men not equal to women, and mestizos are equal to whites, but whites not equal to mestizos, the former being demonstrated in VAWA, the latter in most Californian traffic accidents, which are generally an unlicensed uninsured unemployed mestizo on welfare driving into someone and getting away with it.
VAWA stands for “violence against women act” and requires police and courts to assume men are aggressors and women are victims in every conflict involving violence, which is probably true in general even if often untrue in individual cases. Let us imagine, however, a similar law VAWA, “violence against whites act”. It is probably roughly as true that in any violent conflict between a white and a nonwhite, the nonwhite is the aggressor, as it is true that in any violent conflict between a woman and a man, the man is the aggressor. The point of having a justice system is to find the truth in the particular individual case, which VAWA forbids. If it is reasonable to have a general law defining all males guilty, let us have a general law defining all blacks guilty.
The CPAC conference is the sound of democracy becoming irrelevant, as tax producers are permanently outvoted by tax consumers, resulting in ever deepening economic and financial crisis.
CPAC reflects a vast and unbridgeable gap between reality on the one hand, and policies likely to be acceptable to the median voter on the other hand.
The time to address this crisis will be when printing money stops working, the day that soldiers find that they are not necessarily in the front of the line to get paid with money that can actually buy stuff. At that point the army will go into politics, and will be looking for an ideology to justify the move.
But it could, and well may, turn out worse than that. Things could continue to get worse until we see a transfer of power to sergeants, rentacops, and mercs, rather than to generals. By the time the proverbial hits the fan, the highest ranking officer in the Pentagon will likely be a mestizo male to female transexual claiming to be a lesbian.
Bu it could, and well may, turn out worse than that. Things could continue to get worse until, as in the fall of the Roman empire in the west, we see a transfer of power to bandits and pirates. Not that there is anything wrong with rule by bandits and pirates. The British empire was rule by pirates until around 1830 or so, and they did a fine job. The trouble is that there is likely to be a lengthy period of unpleasantness before bandits become stationary bandits.
I would like to see anarcho capitalism, but am realistically hoping for Blackwater neo feudalism, based on the impressive performance of mercenaries in dealing with Somali pirates, and rentacops in dealing with the Occupy movement. A feudalism that grows out of rentacops is likely to be more free, prosperous and law abiding than a feudalism that grows out of piracy and banditry as European feudalism did. Rentacops are instinctively propertarian. Soldiers and mercs not so much, bandits and pirates not propertarian at all.
Of course the least drastic solution, the minimal necessary reform, the reform that would solve the problem with the least disruption and violence, would be to keep electoral democracy while throwing everyone off the electoral roll except for income earning property owning heads of households. The voters should be pretty much everyone that has authority over his dwelling and household up to his fenceline. That is the moderate realistic reform, necessary to avert rather more drastic reforms, such as Blackwater neo feudalism Of course for such a reform to stick it would also be necessary to replace the presently politicized professoriat, educracy, and civil service with a professoriat and civil service that would take a benign view of such a polity– a new official truth, while speaking the old official truth becomes likely to render one unemployed, a transformation modeled on General Monck’s purge following the restoration, when doubting Divine Right or Latitudinarian Anglicanism became a bad career move for anyone in government, Church, or Academy. Most of the rest followed their bread and butter. Ridicule, supplemented by unemployment if necessary, rather than hanging, was sufficient to deal with those who would not dance to the new tune.
General Monck’s reforms preserved the existing state, while completely reversing the ideology of the state with astonishingly little violence. A move to Blackwater neo feudalism would involve the complete disappearance of the existing state, which might be a lengthy and violent process, as it was in the Roman Empire in the West. Trouble is, a supposedly lesbian transsexual is no General Monck, and Pinochet was no General Monck either.