ED H. writes:

My, my the world is turning, isn’t it? Ann Coulter is now saying the same things that Lawrence Auster said for years.  His views and opinions earned him derision and dismissal from all the best people in society. Now the same insights  are being declaimed in the mainstream media by a national columnist with mass approval and recognition.

From Coulter’s piece:

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.

Immigrants — all immigrants — have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)

This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.

At the current accelerated rate of immigration — 1.1 million new immigrants every year — Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.

— Comments —

Bill R. writes:

I owe a great debt to Ann Coulter. Two years ago I had never even heard of race realism or the traditionalist right. Although raised a conservative, I more or less thought (or believed I should think) that one either believed race pretty much didn’t matter or you were a racist, more or less, and to go there was to descend into darkness and the realm of hate and evil. Then Barack Obama was reelected president and liberals like Sam Donaldson were gloating, “It’s not your country anymore.” And on this one occasion I had to concede that however obnoxious his self-righteousness, the gloating liberal was absolutely right, and I needed to come to terms with two facts; one, that my country, our country, the country I thought was still here, was, in fact, no more, and two, that the explanations I had heretofore relied upon to make sense of where my country was tending and why were not adequate.

What I did not realize was that I had already begun the journey toward finding the one that was. For it so happened that at this same time I was reading Miss Coulter’s latest book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. It was in that book that I learned of another called Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow (albeit Brimelow is quoted only once in the text and the book mentioned only in a footnote, but it was enough). I got Alien Nation and read it and in it learned of yet another writer named Lawrence Auster, whose booklet The Path to National Suicide Mr. Brimelow had praised as “a political pamphlet to rank with Tom Paine’s Common Sense.” By the time I finished The Path to National Suicide, a conservative had shed his illusions about racial equality as well as his crude misconceptions about the kind of people who did not believe the races were equal, and a race realist of the traditionalist right was born — or perhaps what was born was simply the realization that he could embrace what he had always known deep down without having to feel himself one of the bad guys. For, you see, in becoming their country, as Mr. Auster rightly said it was now, they of necessity took possession of it with their paradigm of good and bad, and thus when they reminded me the country was no longer mine, they thereby freed me once and for all from the falseness of that paradigm and any influence it once had over me. My America is indeed dead, but she did not die in vain. Her death has served to remind me and millions of others how very different she was from theirs, how very different my paradigm of good and bad from theirs. I will honor her memory, and I will give my allegiance not to an imposter regime of lies, an alien nation that has simply stolen her name while hating it all the more, but to the paradigm of good and bad my America stood for, and which their scorn of me and her has only opened my eyes more clearly to see, and only freed my will more completely to embrace. And that, the traditionalist paradigm of good and bad, they cannot kill. And I have to thank Ann Coulter for pointing out to this one traveler, even if she pointed only faintly, the first turn in the road that led eventually to that truth.

Bob L. writes:

Ed H. writes:

“My, my the world is turning, isn’t it? Ann Coulter is now saying the same things that Lawrence Auster said for years.  His views and opinions earned him derision and dismissal from all the best people in society. Now the same insights  are being declaimed in the mainstream media by a national columnist with mass approval and recognition.”

This is a little unfair to Ms. Coulter. She has been saying these things for years. Here, for example, she says that the current immigration policy is deliberately designed to reduce whites into a minority. In 2006, she cited Peter Brimelow’s ideas in support of her contentions on the matter.

Ms. Coulter has always gotten a good amount of flak from the trad-right because she does not fit into the standard trad conception of how a political commentator, and how a woman, should behave. This may be a valid criticism, but I think therein lies the key to her being able to be a ‘national columnist with mass…recognition.’ Given the stakes of the immigration issue, I am quite pleased that somebody with a major platform is saying these absolutely true things.

Paul writes:

Bob makes an excellent point.  I was interested in Ann a long time before 9/11, but I was always disconcerted about her failure to raise the problem of immigration by non-whites and non-Christians.  I was actively angry at Rush for the same reason.  But about a week after 9/11, Ann finally said we should not be importing Muslims.  She used her smart aleck style instead of her penetrating intellectual ability, and she was lambasted as a result.  I suppose she would have been denounced either way.  She did not extend her opinions into the realm of whiteness until later, and still she is extremely careful not to be blunt (as Lawrence Auster was) and lose her voice in Media heard by a lot of liberals and conservatives.  Ann does call the Republican Party the Stupid Party, which it is.

Lawrence invigorated a lot of people such as me, but he could not find his voice in a mass market, as Ann has done.  She has her faults, as we all do.  I often would encourage him to seek TV and radio interviews and even his own Net show, but I suppose he knew he would never get airtime or was not enthused about public speaking or some combination.  Just as Net shows were gaining, Larry became ill.

In her columns, Phyllis Schlafly has been superior to Ann because she is blunt, but Phyllis has not gotten airtime for many years.  Maybe she does not seek it as she used to decades ago.  My guess is she is too blunt for the Media (that is, the mass Media).

Please follow and like us: