Shakazulu gave me the usual song and dance about how the minority vote was increasing. I explained to him that that the growing diversity of the electorate is the reason the courts are taking over real decisions from a public that can no longer form a consensus.

But the courts are just stepping in. Something else will replace them as the old representative democracy dies.

There never has been and never will be a multiracial democracy.

I say "the same old song and dance" because Republicans have been talking about this for fifty years as a reason to go after "The Negro vote" and then the black votes and now the African-American vote.

No one but me ever MENTIONS that the history of the last decades has been exactly the opposite. I worked on Capitol Hill when Republicans kept trying to placate the minority vote and never got it. They were a minority and expected to STAY that way.

In 1980 Reagan went after the old Wallace vote and won a landslide and took the SENATE for the first time since 1955. In 1994, as the minority vote grew steadily and could be seen, Republicans won control of BOTH Houses of Congress in 1995 by rejecting moderation.

YES, minorities are growing. But why is it that Republicans TODAY control still more House seats than they did from 1959 to 1995?

While the old song-and-dance about growing minorities is true, the real trend has been the other way around. NO ONE NOTICED.

Now Bush is an old style moderate, i.e., neoconservative.

As Paul Harvey says, HERE is the REST of the story:

In 1848, the Whig Party won the presidency for the last time. SERIOUS opponents of slavery expansion like Lincoln were Whigs. By 1855 the Whigs disappeared without a trace. They could not address slavery. The existence of a huge black population made civil war inevitable.

Even Grant voted Democratic in 1856 because he knew a Republican victory would mean a war.

Republicans are a shadow of the old Whigs.

Do the ARITHMETIC. HOW could Republicans WIN more and more as the solidly Democratic minority vote GREW? Only if the voter gap no one DARES discuss was growing steadily. WHITES went Republican FASTER than the minority vote grew.

Nobody wants to look at the elephant in the living room. So it's Iraq and right to life. The Whigs were mostly about tariffs. They were a stopgap as the slavery issue grew. That's OK to elect the Bushes and keep respectable conservatives in jobs, but it has a definite time limit.

The lesson Shakazulu is teaching is correct, but he does not THINK about what he is saying. Recent history gives us the OPPOSITE lesson of the facts that he and compassionate conservatives are trying to draw from it.

In 1860 Lincoln won with forty percent of the popular vote. The South rebelled and lost. So Republicans ruled American politics until 1933. Every Southern nightmare about Republican rule came true.

Back to the present. My point is that the very statistics Shakazulu and respectable conservatives keep quoting, if you grasp HISTORY, is that the present system is unstable, to say the LEAST.

There never has been and will never be a representative democracy which is multiracial. The minority vote has been a "Yes, Massah" vote, first for the Radical Republicans and then of liberal Democrats. There was nothing multiracial about it.

The whole shooting match has been white rule.

But the old left is beginning to split, as the Democrats did in 1860. The liberals' Faithful Colored Companions have been overridden by brown Hispanics, who are beginning to demand their OWN voice, unlike blacks. The gay vote bloc and the feminists are not so slave-like as blacks are.

White anti-whites are going to be shocked that their nice safe boat, with brown folks obediently rowing it, will stop being safe. This is happening now, but no one wants to talk about that, either.

When the Republicans emerged in 1854 and took over the House of Representatives in 1855, the Whig Party was simply FORGOTTEN.

In 1857, the Supreme Court stepped in with the Dred Scot Decision. A divided electorate could not find a consensus on the question of the expansion of slavery, so the Court stepped in and opened ALL territories to slavery.

That was the last straw.

Those who opposed the expansion of slavery openly were still a minority, but they won in 1860 because they were a UNITED minority. Within ten years, every nightmare of the old Democrats became a reality.

Anti-white whites, your nightmare may be closer than you think, but you, like the old Southern Slavocracy, will be BLINDSIDED by where it REALLY comes from.

Historical comparisons are useless if they are followed too literally. ALL I am saying is that no anti-white white can imagine his comfortable brown-rowed boat being unstable.

Let me REPEAT:


But my point is that this system is cracking apart. It's just that no one wants to see it, least of all those who want to ignore race or who think the present system is doing something inevitable.

Which is the anti-white theme.

In concentrating on his big ears and his nuthood everybody today ignores THE PEROT LESSON. Perot announced he would be willing to be president on the least-watched mainline cable show in America, and was soon leading BOTH major candidates in the polls. The Soviet Empire had collapsed with a whimper in 1990.

We had Clinton and a Republican Congress and the Bush stop gap, so it is easy to overlook the reality if your attention is riveted on Perot's ears or the latest headlines.

Then Perot showed that he was a nut, dropped out, and everybody in the media forgot him with a sigh of relief.

Mir was sent into space by the Soviet Empire. While it was up there, the entire seemingly terrific power that sent it up ceased to exist. Things happen THAT fast, as they did in 1855.

If he would THINK about his own numbers, Shakazulu has shown that this system is on its way OUT. If he would THINK about what he said, and if white nationalists would stop whining abut immigration and look at REALITY, they would see the same thing.

If a bullfrog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt every time it jumps.

Get some WINGS!

Don't just QUOTE.