Minority female Republicans for diversity

According to NewsMax, Condoleezza Rice was speaking at “an annual Washington conference of Latino and Latin-American students,” i.e., at an ethnically defined and ethnically exclusive organization of the kind that would be absolutely forbidden for whites, and was asked about the likelihood of a nonwhite president (please note that explicitly nonwhite organizations always make the advance of nonwhite persons their main focus), and she said she thought it would happen in her life time (though it wouldn’t be her), because as minorities take on prominent political positions as governors, senators, and so on, they become the field from which presidential candidates are selected. Then she added:

Now the interesting thing is that if I serve the entire time that I am supposed to as secretary of state, it will have been 12 years since there was a white male secretary of state of the United States: Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and me.

With this incredibly offensive statement, Rice is clearly implying that having a nonwhite or a female as Secretary of State is better, and that if a future president picks a white man as Secretary, that would be a step backward.

I would remind readers once again that in the early 1990s, Rice told a radio interviewer that she was a Republican because unlike the Democrats, the Republicans treated her as an individual instead of as a black. But now she supports special rights for blacks, insists that everyone notice that she herself is black, and argues that her blackness and femaleness represent positive values over whiteness and maleness.

Yesterday, conservative columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin, whose parents were immigrants from the Philippines, replied to a Democcratic charge that President Bush didn’t have as many minority appointees in the government as his predecessor by approvingly quoting this from the Washington Post:

What the report does not mention, however, is that Bush has established a record of diversity in his Cabinet. Bush’s Cabinet, which includes the vice president and the heads of 15 executive departments, currently has two Hispanics, two African Americans and two Asian Americans. Three departments—State, Education and Labor—are headed by women, and a fourth, Interior, has an acting secretary who is a woman.

Before Bush took office, no minority had occupied any of the four highest-profile Cabinet positions—attorney general and the secretaries of the Defense, State and Treasury departments. Now, Alberto R. Gonzales, a Hispanic, is attorney general. Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to be secretary of state; her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, was the first African American named to that post.

Malkin then sarcastically comments:

In other words, Bush is an enemy of progress and civil rights because he has appointed too many minorities and women to top Cabinet positions—and not enough to lower, less important jobs!


So Malkin argues that the proof that Bush is a supporter of “progress and civil rights” is that he has appointed minorities to the most senior cabinet positions. But if appointing nonwhites is equal to goodness, then appointing whites is equal to badness, isn’t it?

I would say to Michelle Malkin (not to Condoleezza Rice since she is simply a liberal): You cannot believe in a race blind polity and at the same time tout nonwhite diversity as a good in itself. You have to make up your mind. Which do you believe in? Official race blindness? Or the official, conscious, and explicit pursuit of nonwhiteness? And if you believe in the conscious and explicit pursuit of nonwhiteness, then whites are justified in the conscious and explicit pursuit of whiteness, including an immigration policy that will protect the interests of whites in this country by preserving whites as the majority population.

I expand on this argument below.

- end of initial entry -

KPA writes:

Mr. Auster,

I admire your fairness and generosity towards all types of people. Those who may have called you racist are using the term erroneously. Racial pride does not equal racist.

I had noticed your staunch support for Hirsi Ali, when I could see months before that she had no intention to really help the Netherlands, but was focused on her own status as female, Muslim (and I suppose black too).

Malkin seems also intent on vociferously asserting herself. I always find that such passionate self-justification (maybe to feel a part of the rest) is a symptom of insecurity and dare I say, inferiority.

Perhaps all these non-white women need to do is to have a certain humility. To agree and accept the fact that America was founded by other white nations. That a Philippino or a West African population could never have created what the British did.

And if that becomes too difficult, then stay away from public life, rather than eventually become hypocrites.

Although, one final thing that I may add. Race is war in a sense. Each one wants supremacy over the other. Rice may very well envision a land full of powerful blacks, and Malkin may lapse at times into a vision of a world of powerful browns.

Well, we certainly are headed for interesting times!

Karen writes from England:

Brilliant comments! These passages serve to illustrate that all nonwhites pursue actively and consciously a policy of promotion of nonwhite interests whilst purposely undermining the interests of native whites. Their paramount interest is in bettering themselves and their families and communities and to hell with everyone else. They view their host country through the paradigm of their own interests and culture. They disregard the history and culture of the host country and its peoples. Hence all Third World and non-Western immigration is essentially disastrous for the native white population. There are no non-Western people who are interested in preserving white countries and cultures as that would be tantamount to accepting white supremacy. The idea that nonwhites can become like whites and share our interests is idiocy. Their aim is to overthrow us in our own homes.

This could be managed to some extent by refusing citizenship to non-Westerners and giving them alien resident status with limited rights. If they wish to educate their children in the West, they should pay full overseas fees or return them to their native countries. If they commit any crime, they should be deported. It should also be clear to them that they cannot occupy senior positions of State or act as MPs. Politics in the hands of non-Whites is disastrous and they should have no role to play in policy formation. That is what happens in Japan and many Westerners live there without complaint and accept that they cannot vote or enjoy full rights. This has not stopped Japan becoming the world’s second largest economy or the largest generator of new patents. What is it about Europe and America that we have to be different? Why have we embarked upon a path of self destruction?

The Condoleezas and Malkins and Hirsi Alis are opportunistic traitors. Condoleeza as Foreign Secretary humiliates America in the eyes of the world, she cannot be taken seriously. [LA note: I disagree with the inclusion of Malkin in that list; see my comment below.]

Mark J. writes:

I would go a step further than Karen and say that non-Westerners should be allowed only to visit on a short-term basis for business or tourism. Trying to draw the line at giving them resident alien status without the right to vote or hold political office will only create an (even more) resentful underclass that will lead to disaster at some point in the future. What she proposes is essentially apartheid, and that was a catastrophe for the white South Africans. Mixing two or more quite different ethnic groups in one nation doesn’t result in harmony, but in each competing for the political upper hand at the expense of the other groups. The logical conclusion then is that for there to be peace and harmony, separate nations are required for each people.

Further, I don’t really understand the case for allowing foreigners to study in our universities. Our strength as a nation rests to a large degree on our technological and scientific proficiency. Why in the world have we been welcoming Chinese, Muslim, and other foreigners into our universities and teaching them our most valuable information? How can that possibly benefit us? They are our competitors, after all. Some might argue it fosters goodwill; I say that is too high a price for goodwill.

LA writes:

On the question of race blindness I would add that in a multiethnic, multiracial country, office holders will have a certain understandable interest in having members of the various major ethnic groups in visible positions. Thus George Bush the Elder picked Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by another black, Thurgood Marshall. But Bush never touted this as the choice of a black person as a black. He said Thomas was the best choice, period. And the fact is, Thomas was an excellent choice. By contrast, Bush the younger constantly boasts of his appointments of nonwhites and supports race-conscious preferences to achieve proportional racial diversity.

Jeff writes from England:

I think the readers’ comments in Condi/Malkin blog are nasty in tone. I haven’t detected Malkin identifying with her racial group more than America in general, have you? At the risk of sounding “liberal” I certainly would rather have Malkin in my country than Karen or a couple of the others. Ditto Shelby Steele. Also, despite these countries obviously being created by white culture and still being mostly ruled by white culture, one has to accept whatever one’s own views on the desirability of “ethnic immigration” that many of these people and groups have added to the U.S. in various ways. For example, Shelby Steele is a real good intellectual addition to America. From a sporting view so is Michael Jordan. From a music view Aretha Franklin has done America proud. From a television view Oprah Winfrey has dominated the world for America. From a military view Colin Powell has helped make America successful. These black people’s contributions have made America superior in those specific fields around the world. Most of them are loyal Americans and I wouldn’t say that they are more loyal to their racial group than to America in general. I’d say none of them feel like that. I still would prefer there be far less black people in America as black’s general population has negative characteristics that are bad for America. In addition, I personally don’t want to live with a large black population as it usually is crime ridden and dangerous. But that doesn’t contradict the fact that there are a lot of good decent black Americans who not only are talented but also put America before their specific racial group.

LA writes:
When I initially posted Karen’s comment I did not notice that she had included Michelle Malkin among her list of “opportunistic traitors.” If I had I would have deleted that part of the e-mail, but since Jeff has now protested the tone of Karen’s comment I won’t change it since that would take away the basis of Jeff’s protest.

In any case, there is no basis for saying such a thing about Malkin. As people go today, she is a solid person. She wrote a hard-hitting book justifying strong measures against Japanese Americans in World War II and against Muslims today. And of course she has contributed a lot to the debate on illegal immigration, exposing the treasonous failure of our government to enforce the law, though I must add that it is remarkable that a person who has written hundreds of columns and a book on illegal immigration has never uttered a syllable about what legal immigration is doing to our country. But this is a sign of today’s “mainstream” conservatism. Just as neoconservatism reduces America to an idea of democracy, mainstream “conservatism” has reduced America to the “rule of law.” This makes Malkin a typical inadequate modern conservative. It doesn’t make her anything remotely like an “opportunistic traitor.”

LA adds further:
I don’t see what Jeff’s point is with his list of notable blacks. Nobody was talking about kicking American blacks out of America. He himself admits that the black population overall represents a very serious problem for the country. If Jeff had had a list of indispensble Muslims in America, and said that our civiliation would be permanently damaged without their contribution, that might have been more pertinent to the discussion.

I agree with Jeff that Malkin has not identified with her racial group. And I did not make such a criticism of her. I did say, however, that she, who is a racial minority, did not oppose the leftist premise that the Bush administration was failing to hire enough minorities for government positions and thus did not oppose the whole idea of minority racial preferences. Instead she said to the left, “We’re doing even better than you,” arguing for the superior morality of choosing minorities for high government positions instead of lower government positions. I then said that the deliberate placing of nonwhites in positions once held by whites (which Malkin approves of), combined with the celebration of the moral goodness of such racial displacement (which Malkin engages in), combined with the continuing mass legal immigration of one million nonwhites into America every year (which Malkin has never said a single word against), leads to a greater and greater proportion of the U.S. population receiving racial preferences, and adds up to a total program of pushing aside whites. Thus we’re not dealing with some apple-pie, “equality-under-the-law,” type of liberalism here, we’re dealing with the organized, systematic, dispossessing and marginalizing of white Americans in their own country, in the name of the higher morality of advancing minorities. I then concluded that if nonwhites, including a nonwhite conservative such as Malkin, support policies leading to the takeover of America by nonwhites and the dispossesson of whites, then whites could certainly argue for policies that would preserve the historic, white majority America.

A reader writes:

It is a bit strange for someone in England to preach the virtues of American blacks to Americans, but so be it. But I am far from convinced. Hasn’t Shelby Steele asserted that the white guilt complex he laments has a historical basis in vicious white racism against colored peoples? Hasn’t Steele promoted the idea that if we ban affirmative action then we must make all forms of discrimination into felony crimes? Is Steele the kind of race-blind black conservative we are to admire? Hasn’t Colin Powell supported affirmative action? and while I certainly do NOT agree with the slavish pro-Farrahkan tone of this article.

It nevertheless confirms what I remember: Colin Powell was considering accepting the invitation to the Million Man March, until the outcry convinced him otherwise. And, while he denounced Farrakhan (of course, after the outcry), he refused to denounce the idea of a black-only march, which he suggested would be a good idea, if organized by others. Oprah? I can’t think of a more racially-interested celebrity. If she is not exulting in her “African Zulu DNA”, then she is talking about her “connections” with black South Africans, and if she is not doing that, she is starring in “The Color Purple” – consistent with her embrace of radical black female authors, and if not that, she is organizing parties for famous black female celebrities, including the “youngin’s” like mulattress Mariah Carey. Even Thomas Sowell has attempted to obfuscate the genetic link between race and IQ, and what person concerned with the survival of the West is going to care about Aretha Franklin or Michael Jordan? If singing and athletics are so important, what about Snoop Dog and Barry Bonds? It is in fact difficult to think of black celebrities who are not obsessed by race in one form or another, and none of them have made irreplaceable contributions to our nation.

I cannot understand why anyone is surprised by Rice or Malkin. It seems to me that aracial neoconservatism is a better long-term vehicle for promoting minority interests than is “in-your-face” liberal radicalism. Flag-waving patriotism and foreign wars to distract white Americans from their demographic and cultural demise is a big part of the current conservative recipe for success, as is a focus on illegal immigration and border security so as to justify “orderly legal immigration” of masses of Third Worlders. And why not promote “diversity” and “inclusion” from within the Republican party as well as the Democratic? Rice is more obvious than Malkin; after all, anyone appointed by the nitwit Bush cannot be that truly bright themselves (regardless of affirmative action achievements on their resume). The sounder strategy is that of Malkin: “we are all Americans, all our soldiers bleed red equally” as planeloads of legal Filipino immigrants continue streaming into America.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 09, 2006 08:50 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):