THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

BUSHITE POLITICS -- GONE WITH THE WIND | 2006-09-25

As nonwhites flow into white countries, each group will get its own spokesmen. Right now all nonwhite minorities are the left's Faithful Colored Companions, like Tonto to the Lone Ranger. Teddy Kennedy has his solid line of colored supporters. The Democratic Party spends tens of millions of dollars each election, "getting out the minority vote," on the solid assumption that one brown skin = one liberal vote.

In Europe, any major leftist demonstration will be heavily colored. Their thugs out on the streets are colored.

But in California, the Hispanics have elected themselves a mayor of Los Angeles. More and more coloreds will demand to take over their OWN politics, with their OWN spokesmen. This process is just beginning. It is a process in which today's white anti-whites will have no place.

Another process is wholly unnoticed by the media. As minorities grow, whites become more and more united. Right now they vote solidly Republican. Never before has the white population been so solidly united behind a single party. Simple arithmetic tells you that, since the colored population is incrasing geometrically and it votes solidly Democratic, the fact that the Republicans have a national majority -- they were a minority before the increase in nonwhite population -- whites must be united soliudly behind the Republicans.

We have an exact historical parallel in the Whig Party. The Whigs held onto a Southern vote that favored the EXPANSION of slavery, just as Bush holds onto his dream of a huge Hispanic vote.

The Whigs actually won the election of 1848. By 1856 the Whig Party had disappeared without a trace. But while it existed, the Whig Party contained the only hard-core group which opposed the EXPANSION of slavery into the Western territories. Lincoln was a Whig congressman.

In 1848 people were debating the Whig platform with the breathless enthusiasm that we see people talking about Bush on Stormfront today. The last Whig to be elected president was a slaveholder who more or less opposed the EXPANSION of slavery, Zachary Taylor. By 1856 anyone who discussed Whig politics would have been put into a lunatic asylum.

So the transition will not be gradual. The American political system is a natural two-party system. Only in 1856 were there three powerful national parties, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the now-forgotten American Party, now called the "Know-Nothings." BY 1860 there was only a fractured Democratic Party which could not take a united stand on the slavery EXPANSION issue and a united Republican Party, which did. The Republicans elected Lincoln with 40% of the vote.

And the Whigs? The Bush Party of 1848?

Gone with the wind.

COMMENTS (5)

#1 Al Parker | 2006-09-26 00:18

NOT SPAM

In response to a previous entry, this public service ad pretty much explains the problem with Stormfront:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4672/stormfrontcrowdzz0.jpg

#2 Antonio Fini | 2006-09-26 03:11

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

I notice the Whigs self destructed in the same year Charles Sumner was nearly caned to death by a Southern Democrat on the Senate floor.

Sumner was a radical Massachusets abolitionist who quit the Whigs over the slavery issue. He gave a nasty anti-slavery speech in which he insulted Congressman Brook's uncle. Even the Whig papers said it was undignified. Brooks (a South Carolinian) mulled over how to respond. He decided Sumner didn't deserve a formal challenge and ambushed him with a stick as Sumner tried to mail his inflamatory speech to the newspapers.

It was very cathartic for the South. Brooks was re-elected. I wonder if that incident convinced the last of the Whigs there would be no peaceful compromise on slavery, and killed their faltering party?

#3 richard | 2006-09-26 07:12

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

I work on the staff of a British political party, and I see the same things happening over here. I was at a meeting recently with representatives of 'black and minority ethnic police officers'. The spokesman for the black group was as white as me but with a tan, and his first words were, "Speaking as a black man...". I nearly burst out laughing, and I noticed the real blacks around the table look at him with daggers in their eyes.

Britain used to have a Whig party too, and in the first half of the 19th century they had a complete monopoly of power. They were swept away by history, just like the anti-white whites will be.

#4 kane | 2006-09-26 13:09

NOT SPAM

It appeared the Democrats were going the way of the whigs, now that Bush is the way he is, sorry, but he so consistantly blunders everything, the Republicans might too. If we could just convince people that both parties are garbage this would be a fairly optimal time to dash onto the scene with a thrid party. Lenin got on the scene because Nicholas screwed up foreign policy. Hitler got on the scene because things were negative. The third party leadership can take advantage of this.

#5 Mark | 2006-09-26 13:35

NOT SPAM

NOT SPAM

Another process is wholly unnoticed by the media. As minorities grow, whites become more and more united. Right now they vote solidly Republican.

Bob how does this with the viewpoints of the white South Africans prior to the end of apartheid?

Were they united in anything?