Auster Weighs in On NYT Article

August 10th, 2007 · No Comments · ·

I was pleased to note that Lawrence Auster, author of one of my favorite blogs, View from the Right, linked to yesterday’s post. Auster took a bit of a different tangent about the demographic shift reported than I did:

The illusion of material inevitability

In the mid twentieth century the peoples of the West began to think different thoughts from any they had thought before: that the historic particularity of white societies is immoral; that any form of discrimination is the worst evil; that unlimited openness and tolerance are the highest good. Those changed thoughts, in the form of radically changed policies, produced the physical, racial transformation of Western society that is occurring before our eyes. As long as we keep affirming or accommodating ourselves to those same thoughts, the transformation must continue unabated, leading to the destruction of the historic nations of the West and of Western civilization as a whole.

It doesn’t get any more spot-on than this. It got me thinking again. Perhaps the reason why people in the West began thinking the “different thoughts” to which Auster refers is that there had been a certain level of infiltration of socialist thought that was a precursor to what we call political correctness today.

I’m pretty sure that much of this traces back to the immigration of Western European leftists both the United States and to Eastern Europe toward the end of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. Soon after the push from the American Socialist party petered out, the American Communist Party picked up the same ball and ran with it. There was a certain amount of leftist/socialist/communist cross pollination that led to the formation of the ACLU; and, thanks to the same forces, a foundation was laid for a new family of leftist ideologies that later gave us parts of the New Deal, Civil Rights Legislation and the Great Society.

The way that these things interconnect with us now is that they all fed into a mode of thinking that led to the impositions of political correctness. Most people live their lives today unaware that much of what our recent ancestors believed and the ways that they defined what was generally good and what was generally bad have been almost completely redefined. There have been some obvious bad actors behind all this; the mainstream media, academia, various ethnocentric grievance artists and others have played obvious roles in making even the most prudent forms of discrimination unacceptible.

But none of this could have happened had enough Republican Party leaders been the diligent men of honor they were supposed to be (and wanted us to think they were). The problem for the GOP is that in only two instances after the end of World War II, the Goldwater and Reagan eras, have the most compelling and powerful Republican figures been populist conservative stewards at heart. For better part of the last 60 years or so, GOP leadership has been dominated by sold-out, elitist, cash-conservatives who would jump at the chance to form an American plutocracy if they thought they could get away with it.

Sure, the left has been the main driver behind the remaking of our nation’s social fabric through the redefinition of words and the revision of history, but I think conservatives should pin most of the blame on the bloated derrières of GOP leadership for political correctness being able to take root in America. It was predictable what the left was up to and it should have been called out long, long ago. It took an incredible amount of ignorance, gross negligence and intellectual malfeasance on the part of Republican elected officials and party hierarchy for the transparent and crazy force that spawned today’s Moonbats to have had as much success as it did and has for so long.

If we’re really going to fix this, and get it right the first time, I believe we’re going to have to shake the party to its very foundations. There are simply too many fat and happy idiots weilding too much power in the name of “conservatism” who could care less about a problem unless it affects them directly and immediately. Their consideration of the past ends at yesterday. Their concern for the future ends either tomorrow or right after the next payoff. What they honor most plays out within the life span of a fly.

Where’s my flyswatter!