I was listening to ex-Lt. Gov. Aztlan’s ‘concession’ speech on C-SPAN, the first part of which was spent gloating over the apparent defeat of Prop. 54 (RPI), since it was all they had to celebrate.

Mr. Aztlan made a strange reference to the forces who had ‘turned the tide against’ the Prop. He referred to them as “the tribal governments of California.”

Now what does that mean??

C-SPAN was just coming back to the rest of his speech when he made a comment that sounded like, “the nations of California.”

And what does THAT mean?

Well, it undoubtedly means thank heavens this man is not governor.

It is good that he is not governor, but he will remain lt. governor, unfortunately.

1,193 votes for Joe Guzzardi, campaigning on immigration reform.

I would add something further to a post I made yesterday. The liberals went berserk at the idea of a Liberal Hollywood Republican winning the California Governorship. He is even married to Maria Shriver. They can’t have a situation where conservatives win. This was evident during the Clinton impeachment fiasco.

The Recall campaign was a product of activism by middle class whites, at least the liberals took it that way, the right-wing conspiracy at work. The Clintons, Jesse Jackson, and company can’t have that. Finally, the sexual allegations likely had less effect as they might have because liberals had defended Clinton so aggressively during impeachment. So the liberals may well have been hoist on their own petard.

It is fine that neither Gray Davis nor Lt. Gov Aztlan will be governor, which will spare California certain negative actions in the near future. However, I have few positive expectations for Arnold’s governorship.

At one time, a la Mr. Auster’s proposed coalition of neocons and traditionalists, I fantasized about an alliance among the fiscal conservatives and the social/moral conservatives. The latter would be low key for a while, and both would impose fiscal conservatism in a LASTING way (e.g. a constitutional amendment to impose several things: a balanced budget, a supermajority requirement for tax increases, a budget limit in peace time that specified a certain percentage of the GDP from two years prior [after the numbers have settled], and separate appropriations bills for each cabinet department [no omnibus bills], along with anything else closely related to fiscal conservative goals).

After this lasting victory, there would not be much to discuss except non-fiscal items, and the country club Republicans would be pushed out of the spotlight and there would be no credibility in telling the social/moral conservatives to back off for the sake of unity in the party, for the sake of accomplishing fiscal conservatism, etc.

However, my observation is that the “fiscally, but not socially/morally conservative” wing of the GOP never actually accomplishes much of anything in the fiscal realm, causing the rest of us to wonder what we gain (except a slowing down of the inevitable collapse of our civilization) by our show of unity in electing them.

In California, voters were given the “fiscally, but not otherwise, conservative” Arnold, and the generally conservative McClintock. Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath while Arnold accomplishes tremendous budget-slashing and structural fiscal reforms. When have his ilk ever had the courage to do so after their election on exactly those promises?

This victory is great, great cause for hope in this limited but decisive way: it shows how a person that most everyone thought had no chance at the start can win. The man has been in the race only about two months, and he has won against the biggest guns in the country that have been running forever and pandering for money forever! Any day, a bright, charismatic traditionalist could step forward and chase Bush right back to the border, where he and his alien clan belong and where they can only gripe as the country is slowly taken back from them in the way Mr. Auster proposes.

Rejoicing is in order for Californians’ rejection of Davis’s leftist coalition. However, because they also rejected McClintock, it seems that the pace of socialist construction under Davis was what they really objected to, not socialism per se. Still, McClintock was a presence—a visible, legitimate alternative to the socialists, if not the preferred one in this case. At the next crisis, or the next election in this one, a conservative with leadership ability should be able to sell the vision of individual responsibility in a community cemented by traditional moral values as the only basis for the good life.

Mr. Coleman’s remarks about fiscal conservatives are very much to the point. They represent the broad libertarian strain in the Republican party, which is a form of liberalism that is blind to the necessary moral (and therefore institutional) infrastructure of the liberty it pretends to prize. Traditional conservatives are liberal and prize liberty too, but acknowledge the actual cost of liberty in maintaining a societal commitment to moral conduct (the hard work of educating, judging, condemning, and imposing consequences). It will take leadership to convince the libertarians that they need to stop cooperating with the socialists to destroy the infrastructure.

There is an lesson in federalism for liberals in the Davis Debacle. If the federal government, originally one of enumerated powers, had not expanded into every sphere of existence and learned how to soak up every available tax dollar, Davis’s government would have had more flexibility to avoid or manage its fiscal problems.

Maybe Mr. Auster, Todd, or Unadorned can repost here Unadorned’s quote of Mr. Auster’s hopeful words about what action traditionalists can take. The advice was to the effect that we must never accept as true the lies of the liberals.

Mr. Carpenter writes:

“If the federal government, originally one of enumerated powers, had not expanded into every sphere of existence and learned how to soak up every available tax dollar …”

This reminds me of how Cruz Bustyourwallet’s response to every fiscal and social problem in California is to propose more taxing and more spending, as though there were simply no limit on society’s ability to pay. The true left-liberal’s blind commitment to taxing and spending seems analogous to the left-liberal’s commitment to radical personal freedom: no matter how ruinous such freedom has proven to be, the left-liberal’s response to the problems created by the freedom is to say we don’t have enough of the freedom, and to demand more of it!

The common theme in both instances is _rebellion_. The liberal is in rebellion against the order of existence. Any limits to that rebellion would mean that it was being discredited. Therefore the only thing the liberal can do is seek more and more of it.

Which takes us back to Satan as the arch-liberal, the rebel against what is because it is, and because it is a limit on his being.

Mr. Murgos, Mr. Auster has posted what you refer to on VFR’s home page — the article in which he offers that deeply inspirational advice to those who are engaged on our side of this epic struggle. It’s exactly the right place for it. Having it there is like a man immersed in an atmosphere entirely made up of deadly-poisonous toxic air pollution despairing of his very survival he realizes someone has placed a tank of pure life-giving, strength-restoring oxygen and breathing apparatus ready at his fingertips, for use whenever he feels his strength starting to flag.

It’s a life-saver.

Scroll down the home page’s right-hand column to the sub-heading, “FROM VFR’S ARCHIVES.” Scroll down that in turn, until you come to the article which begins,

“The most important point for traditionalists … “

Read the golden words there written:

”[…] While elements of these three definitions may all play a part in our views and hopes, none of them describes what I think is the most important course of action for traditionalist conservatives at the present moment (given the seemingly unstoppable power of the dominant culture, it may be the only available course of action)—and that is, knowing the truth, refusing to yield to the lies that surround us, refusing to yield to the prevailing mentality of our society, no matter how victorious it may seem.

“Everybody today, particularly Republicans and mainstream conservatives, is echoing the same refrain: ‘Diversity is happening, immigration is happening, moral liberation is happening. We cannot return to the past. To exist and get along in this society we must accept these things.’ Traditionalists must entirely reject such accommodationism. The starting point, the indispensable condition of any conservative or traditionalist movement, as well as of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying no, that we never accept them inwardly, even while recognizing the fact that they exercise effective control over society at present and that we may need to accommodate ourselves to them to a certain degree in our external interactions with society. […]”

Thanks to Unadorned.

Here it comes. The Washington Times reported today that while Gov.-elect Schwarzenneger said he’d work to repeal the law that permits drivers licenses to be given to illegal immigrants:

“The governor-elect said he supported a bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, that would grant temporary working permits to allow illegal immigrants to travel to and from the United States and loosen the requirements to apply for visas.

“‘I want to make all undocumented immigrants documented and legal in this country,’” said the Austrian-born actor. “‘It’s all part of the package.’”

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031008-113653-3757r.htm

So he wants to make it easier for illegals to travel to and from the U.S., so long as they can’t get a drivers license. But he wants to facilitate visa applications and make all current illegals ‘legal’ anyway, which makes it a moot point if not an outright contradiction.

And he’ll have an eager ally in the White House.

But he won’t raise taxes. So who’s going to pay for all the public services that will be consumed by an increasing indigent population? (The Indians maybe?) More contradictions. And path to national suicide continues to widen.

I regret having called Arnold “honest” in the above article. I did not follow his candidacy closely, but I did have the impression that he was at least honest. Now in light of his statement today in support of amnesty, and on looking up the various statements on illegal aliens that he made during the campaign, it is evident that he was playing a deceptive game with the voters on this issue, fooling a lot of people into voting for him who wouldn’t have done so if they had known his real position. On an issue of this importance, that is unforgivable.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001810.html

Social Democrats, USA
815 15th Street, NW Suite 511
Washington, DC 2005
Copyright: 1996, SD, USA

Splitting the Republican Coalition
Irving Kristol is a leading spokesman among neoconservatives. He co-edits the Public Interest, a journal that is often an excellent source on political and economic matters. Kristol did a piece for the Wall Street Journal in June called “Times of Transformation.” In it he delivers a seminal analysis of the current political scene. The article, although not so intended, suggests a winning strategy for Democrats.

Kristol points out that the conservative revolution in the Republican Party occurred in 1964 when Rockefeller lost the presidential nomination. He argues that the liberal revolution captured the Democratic Party in 1972 with the nomination of George McGovern.

Kristol described the current Republican coalition as consisting primarily of two main strains: economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state and the social conservatives are anti-liberal who view liberalism “as corroding and subverting the virtues that they believe must be the bedrock of decent society.” He believes that the differences between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives produce “tensions” between the two groups. Kristol’s long range view is that the social conservatives represent “an authentic mass movement that gathers strength with every passing year.”

more…
http://www.socialdemocrats.org/miller.html