If the Obama administration has taken flak for suggesting that conservative groups might be home to domestic terrorists, it looks like some House Democrat leaders are willing to go even further:
But in an interview on Fox TV in San Francisco, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) chalked up the GOP grass-roots effort as “AstroTurf.”
“This initiative is funded by the high end; we call it AstroTurf, it's not really a grass-roots movement. It's AstroTurf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class,” Pelosi said.
Other House Democratic leaders took a different tack: One senior aide has been circulating a document to the media that debunks the effort as one driven by corporate lobbyists and attended by neo-Nazis...
In addition, the tea parties are “not really all about average citizens,” the document continues, saying neo-Nazis, militias, secessionists and racists are attending them. The tea parties are also not peaceful, since reporters in Cincinnati had to seek “police protection” during one of the events, it states.''
[Emphasis mine]
I wonder if this inevitable name-calling will have a beneficial effect and galvanize some of the people who attended. Surely it must be obvious to even the most slow-to-catch-on that there is no avoiding the race-baiting and the name-calling; when will people finally get the message that if you are anything but liberal and obsequiously pro-minority, you are automatically a 'racist', a 'nazi', and whatever the name-of-the-week is among the lefties. And it should be more than obvious to anyone paying attention that all the protestations of lack of racism are to no avail; you are guilty as charged; just by virtue of having been accused of these violations of political correctness, you are guilty. No appeal.
At this point, however, reading some of the conservative mainstream blogs and forums, it's obvious that many people are still at the race-denying stage, insisting that it's all a matter of politics and economic philosophies; it's all a matter of 'freedom vs.socialism' or Republican vs. Democrat. Or even worse, it's all about personalities, about hating certain Democrat politicians. Heaven knows they are not lovable people, to put it mildly; the quotes from the Democrats in the linked article show them to be deeply dishonest and cynically manipulative people who do not believe half of what they themselves say; it's all a means to an end.
Still, I sometimes despair of whether these people who see everything in terms of party politics, or at best, issues like 'the free market' will ever realize that there is a racial element to the deep crisis in which America finds herself. Everybody else knows that; it's only the self-deluding 'colorblind conservatives' and their even more fanatically colorblind libertarian cousins who deny that there is a racial aspect to the conflict which is simmering in this country, and perhaps about to come to a boil.
The DHS ideologues know this, but they try to put the blame on 'right-wing extremists' for fomenting racial strife, when they know full well, if they were honest, that the other side has been carrying on an overtly racial jihad in this country for 5 decades at least, and many White people are only belatedly coming to acknowledge that fact. And for doing so, they are being condemned and designated the enemy by the powers that be.
Will the Tea Party element ever openly acknowledge what they surely must know in their bones? I don't know. Some days, as I said, I despair of their ever seeing what is right before their eyes.
Over at AmRen, on a thread discussing the female 'comedian' Janeane Garofalo's obnoxious race-baiting diatribe, one poster thinks it better that White people try to take the 'mainstream' approach, so as to blend in with the 'respectables'.
...After ten years involved in the movement in one way or another I have decided on a more moderate approach to our problem. The “extreme” right is far too slandered to make any ground in this country. The next best thing as I see it is conservatism. What we saw on the tea party day was a grass roots coming together of normal whites, the exact people we have been targeting for so long in our fruitless attempts. Our people are fed up with this socialist government, but will never progress into our stance. There are more protests planned for May 30th and the 4th of July. This time there will be some press coverage and will be on a Saturday. Numbers will sky-rocket. Maybe this movement will blossom into another party. A conservative party which holds many of our values. Maybe with time we could get what we want. Or we can continue on the course we are as “extremists” and get nowhere. I just hope the “groups” do not clearly expose themselves at these protests and give the left what they want. A bunch of “racists”.''
The comment is one more variation of a frequently-voiced belief: that we have to tone down our approach and adopt a safe, low-key approach to win people's confidence and trust. As the commenter says, the 'extreme' right is too slandered to get anywhere -- but does he not see that even the respectable tea-partiers are being called names and portrayed as 'extremists'? Does he not see that being respectable as most of the Tea Party participants are did not insulate them from being called names like 'racist', 'nazi' and 'extremist'?
Certainly adopting outlandish garb or fringe-type rhetoric will not win people over, but neither is there much to be gained by leaning over backwards to seem innocuous and 'safe'. How, then, would a group like that distinguish itself from the right-wing minority parties that exist now? Most of them are very outwardly respectable but also so low-profile as to be almost invisible.
And to the frequently-made charge that 'conservatives' will always be repelled by those farther to the right, that was not the case for me. Several years ago I was more or less a mainstream conservative, though becoming more disillusioned with what I saw around me. I found that the 'respectables' were more concerned with preserving their public image or getting re-elected or getting favorable press than in the truth, or even more importantly, than looking out for their own people.
Some 'conservatives' are looking for a movement with some modicum of conviction and determination; the bland and the mild-mannered have little to inspire those who see a general failure of existing leadership and who see that we, as a people, are about to go off a precipice. When one is in such a precarious position, the slow and gradual reverse is not what is called for.
As a disgruntled conservative who saw that the Republican emperor had no clothes, I was certainly not looking for more of the same.
And surely it should occur to the advocates of the mild, non-offensive approach that by playing to people's politically correct preconceptions and their fears of anything that is non-PC, we risk becoming nothing more than just another part of the status quo, afraid to challenge the very belief system that is keeping people from acting in their own racial/ethnic interests. Somebody has to beard the lion, as it were, and stand up to political correctness and cultural Marxism, and challenge it, reveal it for the edifice of lies that it is. If we try to conform to its standards of what is respectable and acceptable, we are its prisoners, and there is no hope of defeating it. Defeat it we must, however, and I'm afraid that we have to take the risk of a bold stand.
It would help greatly if we had any kind of leaders who were bold and forcefully eloquent, but who were also gentlemen. We've seen what happens to men who are gentlemanly but not forceful in speaking out.
We seem not to be producing such leaders these days, so let's look back to better times. In the day of our Founding Fathers, we had men like Patrick Henry, with his fiery and eloquent speeches; can we imagine a modern-day equivalent? Such an outspoken leader today would assuredly not be considered respectable by the cabal that we call the 'mainstream media' or by liberal harridans like Garofalo.
We will never have the approval of such people, and why should we want it? Garofalo is a walking example of everything wrong with 21st century America, of the complete decline of our standards. Her appearance embodies decadence and slovenliness; would any civilized age treat such a person as a celebrity, much less an authority on public issues? In saner times, Garofalo would be considered a nobody, unfit for polite society, with her profane persona and her gutter sense of style.
Public opinion does not stay static; things can and do change. Change is the one constant in life. The pendulum must swing back at some point, and it's up to us to try to ensure that other opinions can be heard and considered. We don't have to rely on the media to give our side of the story; we have to, among other things, talk to people, foster discussion and thoughtful debate. The blogosphere can help in that respect -- while we still have a modicum of free speech, but if and when the Internet is no longer open to all viewpoints, we can at least talk to people in the real world, those we encounter every day, or get the word out in some creative ways.
But to give in and try to conform to politically correct standards, or to try to water down the message into some kind of weak conservative gruel is just not the answer.
