Politics

On the Strange Madness of Conservatives

48 Views 11

By Frederick Dixon:

Demographic change in the West is having a curious effect on some politicians and commentators who would no doubt think of themselves as conservative. “Curious” because it has driven them mad.

Obama’s easy victory in last year’s American presidential election was not due to the success of his government, presiding as it did over the sub-prime crisis and the resulting economic near-collapse; by any normal standards Obama should have been a one-term President. His victory was due to two factors; firstly the overwhelming support which the Democratic party enjoys among non-white voters and secondly the decision of a great many whites to stay at home rather than vote for the Republican candidate, Romney.

Let us look at these two factors. The Democratic party, once the party of slavery, segregation and the Confederacy, reinvented itself so effectively in the mid-twentieth century that by the 1960s it was the party of the civil rights movement. In 1965 two Jewish senators, Javits and Cellar (with Edward Kennedy as a gentile front man) pushed through an immigration “reform” bill which abolished the existing immigration rules which kept out non-whites and largely restricted white immigration to those stocks which had built America – British, Irish, German, Scandinavian. The new rules opened up America to the whole world while tending to limit the immigration of whites; as a result the non-white population has soared from 11% in 1960 to 36% now. The non-whites very naturally vote for the party which they perceive as favouring their interests – and Obama wins.

The second factor in Obama’s success was the reluctance of whites to vote for Romney. Most mainstream commentators believe that this was because the Democrats successfully portrayed him as a cold-hearted Corporate plutocrat. Many on the Right, however, believe that his failure was due to a reluctance to address the concerns of whites about immigration and affirmative action.

It is in the Republican reaction to defeat that we see the signs of madness. Almost to a man the party bigwigs have decided that they must “reach out” to ethnic minorities, and in particular to Hispanics, in an endeavour to persuade them to change their voting habits. But the paradox is that they cannot “reach out” without abandoning the particular concerns of whites to ensure that immigration is properly controlled and the blatant wrongfulness of affirmative action curbed. Thus we now see Republicans joining in with the programme of the Left to secure amnesty, and eventual citizenship, for the estimated eleven million illegal immigrants. “Why on earth” it has been reasonably asked “would the Republican party seek to import eleven million Democrat voters?” But that is what they’re doing.

The truth is that ethnic minorities vote in accordance with their ethnic interests, and with rare exceptions no amount of pandering will persuade them to vote Republican – why should they, when the Democrats do pandering so much better because they believe in it?. That really leaves the Republican party with only one option if it is to have a chance of recovering power at the national level, namely to re-invent itself as the white party. Whites, unlike ethnic minorities, do not in general vote in accordance with their ethnic interests, but a Republican campaign focused on making white people aware they do have ethnic interests of their own might bring to the voting booth many of those who did not vote for Romney. Then, for so long as whites remain a voting majority there is a chance, however slim, of a sane Republican government which could start to reverse the demographic displacement of white America. But in its madness the Republicans appear set on doing the opposite and thus condemning themselves to irrelevance and eventual extinction.

Precisely the same applies in the United Kingdom. Although we are not yet so far gone as the United States there are plenty of siren voices urging that the Conservative Party should “reach out” to ethnic minorities. Already, these voices urge, the growth of the ethnic minority vote makes it very difficult for the Conservative Party ever again to achieve an overall majority. Demographic growth and aggressive recruiting by “Operation Black Vote” will mean an ethnic minority electorate 20% larger in 2015 than in 2010, and that electorate is no longer confined to inner city strongholds where a few more Labour votes hardly matter – it is spreading out, and some of that spread is into marginal constituencies where a few more votes matter very much. Ethnic minority voters, it has been suggested, could cost the Conservatives between twenty and forty seats and put Labour into power.

So it appears to some that the Conservative Party must denounce the legacy of Enoch Powell which is still, it seems, a stumbling block for ethnic minorities. An amnesty for illegal immigrants is urged by powerful voices, most prominently those of Boris Johnson and the influential backbencher Nadhim Zahawi, who represents Stratford upon Avon. David Cameron needs no persuasion, he has long believed that ethnic minorities present an existential challenge for the Conservatives which they must master if the Party is to exist as a significant force in the long term.

But they are wrong. If we look at just one of those marginal constituencies which could be swung to Labour by ethnic minority voters, North Warwickshire, we see an interesting picture; the constituency is overwhelmingly white British (96%) and some of the remaining 4% will be “other white”. It is an old coalfield area and therefore traditional Labour territory which the Conservatives won in 2010 with a tiny majority of a few hundred. So it is true that the ethnic minority vote is larger than the Tory majority BUT UKIP and the BNP won 3000 votes between them, far more than the ethnic minority electorate, and we know why people vote for those two Parties. This is not lost on Conservative strategists such as Lynton Crosby who know very well that to have a chance of winning the next election, and the one after that, the Tories have to make a presentable case for being tough on immigration.

For the long term, though, Cameron’s analysis is right if one assumes that the growth of the ethnic minority population is inexorable. We know, of course, that it is not inexorable and that a government with the will to do so could slow the growth of that population and in time reverse it – but that is the point, there is no will to do so in any part of the Conservative Party which matters. Cameron, and the people around him, do not perceive – are incapable of perceiving – of the nation as a community of racial kindred, to them it is an economic unit or an alliance of people who, irrespective of race, favour middle class, Tory values – “hard work, getting on”.

There is, then, little hope that the Conservative Party will ever become a nationalist party (Labour could but that’s another story, and almost as unlikely). It is therefore doomed, whether through the inexorable growth of an ethnic minority population which will never vote for it in significant numbers no matter how abjectly it grovels, or through the growth of patriotic parties picking up the abandoned white vote. It is that last point that gives us hope; a burgeoning nationalist movement with a successful nationalist party as one of its elements becomes an ever more realistic prospect.

“Those who the Gods would destroy they first make mad.” So perhaps, after all, the Gods are on our side.

By Frederick Dixon © 2013

# # # #

11 thoughts on “On the Strange Madness of Conservatives”

  1. Steve

    - Edit

    All the mainstream parties including UKIP work to the same agenda, they’re all ultimately under the same guiding hand.

  3. Appalachian

    - Edit

    As an american I can say it really was a bucket of ice water in the face of most white people over here when they saw the results on Nov 8 2012. It demonstrated that a non-white president can win in the USA despite the economy going to hell in a handout. Romney should have one by a landslide but the man ridiculously pandered to people such as blacks and hispanics that were never going to vote for him in the first place yet completely ignoring and in many cases offending those who would. Had he just thrown a little more red meat to conservative white people Romney would have won by a 49-1 state landslide. However don’t misunderstand: White people elected Obama. If he had gotten every non-white vote in the US but not one single white vote then he would not have won a single state.

    1. Steve

      - Edit

      To be honest I can’t see that Romney would have been any different as he would have had to serve the same masters.
      Same applies here, it makes little difference who gets in, the agenda is the same.
      There is no real democracy.

  4. Appalachian

    - Edit

    You have it correct when you write that conservatives don’t see a country as a group of racial kindred but instead as an economic unit: A market in other words. That’s the whole problem and until it changes any affiliation with most any mainstream political party is nothing but a waste of time. However your ideas of party infiltration are a starting point.

    1. Steve

      - Edit

      I think infiltrating or a long march through the institutions will fail as they are wise to that trick & have pulled up the drawbridge.
      The use of a blacklist in the building industry has been proven & I’m sure there are others.
      I think anyone on the leaked BNP list is on a blacklist somewhere & there was talk that UKIP run potential members past the UAF to weed out ex BNP types joining.
      Then there is “Whitelisting”, you only get into certain jobs or fields if you have the right background, belonged to certain groups, certain associations.
      A variation on the old boy network.

  5. Appalachian

    - Edit

    The idea of the conservatives “hard work getting on” works just fine in majority white areas. Too bad it failed in Detroit.

    1. frederickdixon

      - Edit

      My reference to “hard work, getting on” was to the mantra which Tory spokesmen invariably chant whenever they have to speak about immigration – “we welcome people who want to work hard and get on”. Well OK, but the right to settle permanently (and I emphasise permanently) in our country should surely require a few qualities over and above a wish to work hard – such as fitting in with the existing population in such a way that our national identity is unimpaired, and that is really only possible when the immigrants are white and English speaking and preferably of British descent.

      1. Steve

        - Edit

        But the truth is that they & all parties welcome any old crap in without distinction & always have done.
        Of course there are good hard working immigrants but there are an awful lot of useless ones too.

Comments are closed.