Mendenhall - The United States Is Not a Nation: The Problem with "National Conservatism"

[Swordsmyth]

Germans, the largest European group in this country, outnumber English about 2:1.

The Irish and Italians are about the same number over again.

This "previous failure" would have most of the anti-immigrant coalition regretting their own arrival on the continent.

Not at all, they'd be in Europe trying to come here or copy us.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Germans, the largest European group in this country, outnumber English about 2:1.

The Irish and Italians are about the same number over again.

This "previous failure" would have most of the anti-immigrant coalition regretting their own arrival on the continent.

You are also distracting with a fallacy, we can't change the past but we can and should change our future.
just because others mad mistakes that may have profited some people doesn't mean those people are bound to make the same mistake.

The wise learn from the failures of others as well as from their own.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Not at all, they'd be in Europe trying to come here or copy us.

I don't know what that means.

My point is that most of the "true Americans" you presently idolize are in fact grandchildren of non-English immigrants.

...who the English (by far the worst of the lot, but that's another story) hated when they were new arrivals.

You are also distracting with a fallacy, we can't change the past but we can and should change our future.

I'm explaining to you that this logic was preposterously wrong in the past and so it is now.

just because others mad mistakes that may have profited some people doesn't mean those people are bound to make the same mistake.

There was no mistake.

The wise learn from the failures of others as well as from their own.

...and the English piss away a fourth of the globe.

It isn't necessary that everyone be that stupid.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know what that means.

My point is that most of the "true Americans" you presently idolize are in fact grandchildren of non-English immigrants.

...who the English (by far the worst of the lot, but that's another story) hated when they were new arrivals.

My point is that it would be a completely different world and trying to compare it to this one is pointless.

I'm explaining to you that this logic was preposterously wrong in the past and so it is now.

No you are trying to use a fallacy to claim that nobody can ever change a bad policy if they somehow may have benefited from it in the past.

There was no mistake.

Yes, there was.

...and the English piss away a fourth of the globe.

It isn't necessary that everyone be that stupid.

Which has no bearing on our subject, the end of their empire wasn't caused by strict immigration policies.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Which has no bearing on our subject, the end of their empire wasn't caused by strict immigration policies.

As long as you maintain your bizarre and historically absurd premise that Germans et al are inferior types, it's very relevant.

The British Empire fell because the British were incompetent.

They "won" two world wars on credit from a country that was...mostly German!

The British then, after 1945, fell into socialism, from which they were rescued only by (you guessed it) the German-led proto-EU.

Had all Britons fell into a deep sleep from c. 1914 to 1975, the world would be far better off.

 

[Swordsmyth]

As long as you maintain your bizarre and historically absurd premise that Germans et al are inferior types, it's very relevant.

The British Empire fell because the British were incompetent.

They "won" two world wars on credit from a country that was...mostly German!

The British then, after 1945, fell into socialism, from which they were rescued only by (you guessed it) the German-led proto-EU.

Had all Britons fell into a deep sleep from c. 1914 to 1975, the world would be far better off.

Your suppressed racism is causing you to project again.
I never said that Germans were inferior, if I thought that I would insist on no German immigration ever but I am not racist.
Germans DID have a much less liberty oriented culture than Americans and allowing too many of them caused America to assimilate towards their socialist ways instead of them assimilating into American liberty.

 

[TheCount]

So what common purpose do I have with some Ghanan invader?

You'd have to talk to them to find out.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You'd have to talk to them to find out.

And then you would find that you had none.
They are here to take what they can get from you.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Your suppressed racism is causing you to project again.
I never said that Germans were inferior, if I thought that I would insist on no German immigration ever but I am not racist.
Germans DID have a much less liberty oriented culture than Americans and allowing too many of them caused America to assimilate towards their socialist ways instead of them assimilating into American liberty.

Nonsense

Tell that to Germans lynched during the NYC led propaganda campaign once Wilson and "Colonel" House tricked the country into war.

Tell it to the people whose businesses and lives were ruined by the prohibition of liquor which followed.

The US entry into WWI fundamentally changed the US, and much for the worse.

The lovely law-abiding East Coast Establishment of the time (GOPers today would call this the "deep state") lied and schemed every which way to get the US into war, despite the fact that the Germans had no desire for war with their cousins, and the Irish would rather fucking die than help England: and yet they were drafted by the millions to go die in France. And besides that, long before the US actually entered the war, it was massively decisive in terms of supplies. Britain and France would have totally collapsed by 1916 without massive US loans (which is why the US went to war, by the way, Morgan wanted to make sure he got repaid).

There was no "liberty culture," just a bunch of English cunts pushing American money and blood toward England, regardless of the cost.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Nonsense

Tell that to Germans lynched during the NYC led propaganda campaign once Wilson and "Colonel" House tricked the country into war.

Tell it to the people whose businesses and lives were ruined by the prohibition of liquor which followed.

The US entry into WWI fundamentally changed the US, and much for the worse.

The lovely law-abiding East Coast Establishment of the time (GOPers today would call this the "deep state") lied and schemed every which way to get the US into war, despite the fact that the Germans had no desire for war with their cousins, and the Irish would rather $#@!ing die than help England: and yet they were drafted by the millions to go die in France. And besides that, long before the US actually entered the war, it was massively decisive in terms of supplies. Britain and France would have totally collapsed by 1916 without massive US loans (which is why the US went to war, by the way, Morgan wanted to make sure he got repaid).

There was no "liberty culture," just a bunch of English $#@!s pushing American money and blood toward England, regardless of the cost.

Wilson and prohibition were the result of socialist immigration that reached all the way back to the mid 1800's if not earlier.
The fact that one group got burnt by it doesn't mean they didn't help cause it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Wilson and prohibition were the result of socialist immigration that reached all the way back to the mid 1800's if not earlier.

lulz, you should try to have the slightest understanding of US history before commenting on it.

Socialism was the platform of the nativist GOP for a century before the Great war.

How did the National Banking System come into effect? Do you even know what that is?

As for 1914, they took the opportunity to yelp about "the Kaiser ruining our boys with German beer."

That's why prohibition happened: old-time jackass (English, Yankee) teetotalers exploiting that opportunity.

The fact that one group got burnt by it doesn't mean they didn't help cause it.

One group positively caused it, without question, and that group was the English in the NE.

...the same group that populated the progressive movement in previous decades.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You'd have to talk to them to find out.

I have...many times.

Been around the world more than three times, been to places that would make your hair curl.

Some of them nice enough folks, but with a worldview, history and mindset of man and government so far removed from mine as to be from a different planet.

I do not want to live in New Kinshasa.

I have the right to decide that and to promote policies that would prevent my home from becoming that.

 

[Swordsmyth]

lulz, you should try to have the slightest understanding of US history before commenting on it.

Socialism was the platform of the nativist GOP for a century before the Great war.

Take your own advice.
The GOP didn't exist a century before the Great War and it began as a party full of Marxist immigrants, particularly Germans.

How did the National Banking System come into effect? Do you even know what that is?

Wilson was a Democrat but he was a progressive socialist like the immigrants that provided the numbers for that movement.

As for 1914, they took the opportunity to yelp about "the Kaiser ruining our boys with German beer."

That's why prohibition happened: old-time jackass (English, Yankee) teetotalers exploiting that opportunity.



One group positively caused it, without question, and that group was the English in the NE.

...the same group that populated the progressive movement in previous decades.

The Yankees were a much bigger problem than Southerners but they wouldn't have won the war or the political struggle without their immigrant reinforcements.

And you keep trying to drag race back into this, socialist Englanders were no better than other Europeans as immigrants once their culture went downhill.
They had already begun to diverge from Americans by the time of the Revolution and considering the fact that the "motherland" was our greatest threat culturally because of its connection to us they should have been looked on with extreme suspicion and limited just as much or more than other cultures.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You're using those as examples of good things?

Saving Europe from starvation, 5000 year leaps forward in new technology, the first steps off this rock and to the stars?

Yeah.

For all my cynicism and bitterness, I still find hope in the ability of mankind to move forward, in bold steps.

The howling mobs of Bolsheviks and Jacobins and One Worlders and Invaders do not.

We will plunge into another 1000 year Dark Age if the ideals of Western Enlightenment philosophy and government are crushed by cultural Marxism.

I know you're sock puppet of some sort of Papist collapsatarian, so I'm not quite sure what you think.

I'm convinced the church of Rome is cancer, myself.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Consult the dates for the bills that created the Fed, the income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, and every war through Vietnam.

...O, wait, since all of that preceded Hispanic migration, the immigrants you mean to impugn are the Germans, Irish, and Italians...

...who now constitute the bulk of the native population.

Makes my point.

10 year moratorium on ALL immigration from ALL sources.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Take your own advice.
The GOP didn't exist a century before the Great War and it began as a party full of Marxist immigrants, particularly Germans.

You've entirely lost your mind.

The GOP started in the mid 19th century as a continuation of the Whig Party.

It was from start to well into the 20th century dominated by WASPs.

The whole of American politics in the long nineteenth century was a struggle between English GOPers and Dem immigrants (and Southern English, lest we forget; they fought what is still the bloodiest war in American history in opposition to the WASP elite in New England: tariffs, industrial subsidies (for the North), and inflation). The GOP was the party of high federal spending and central planning (and anti-immigrant policies). The Dems were up until 1896 the party of small federal government and personal liberty (but for slavery, which was a special situation).

Wilson was a Democrat but he was a progressive socialist like the immigrants that provided the numbers for that movement.

Wilson ran on an anti-war platform, as per the Democratic party line.

The GOP was itching for war to help England from day one.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You've entirely lost your mind.

The GOP started in the mid 19th century as a continuation of the Whig Party.

As a replacement for the Whig Party and not in 1814-1818

It was from start to well into the 20th century dominated by WASPs.

Unless, of course, we bother to examine the tattered copies of the American outlet for Marx’s revolutionary preachments during the period when Lincoln was preparing to leave the political wilderness and make his march to the presidency. That journal, the New York Tribune, was the most consistently influential of nineteenth-century American newspapers. Indeed, this was the newspaper that engineered the unexpected and in many ways counterintuitive delivery of the Republican nomination for president, in that most critical year of 1860, to an Illinoisan who just two years earlier had lost the competition for a home-state U.S. Senate seat...
...
Lincoln’s involvement was not just with Greeley but with his sub-editors and writers, so much so that the first Republican president appointed one of Greeley’s most radical lieutenants—the Fourier- and Proudhon-inspired socialist and longtime editor of Marx’s European correspondence, Charles Dana—as his assistant secretary of war.
...
Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich who had been imprisoned by German authorities...
...
Within a decade, Korner would pass the Illinois bar, win election to the legislature and be appointed to the state Supreme Court. Korner and Lincoln formed an alliance that would become so close that the student revolutionary from Frankfurt would eventually be one of seven personal delegates-at-large named by Lincoln to serve at the critical Republican State Convention in May 1860, which propelled the Springfield lawyer into that year’s presidential race. Through Korner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker, a lawyer from Mannheim who had served as a liberal legislator in the lower chamber of the Baden State Assembly before leading an April 1848 uprising in the region—an uprising cheered on by the newspaper Marx briefly edited during that turbulent period, Neue Rheinische Zeitung—Organ der Demokratie.
...
The failure of the 1848 revolts, and the brutal crackdowns that followed, led many leading European radicals to take refuge in the United States, and Lincoln’s circle of supporters would eventually include some of Karl Marx’s closest associates and intellectual sparring partners, including Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich.
...
http://www.isreview.org/issues/79/fe...-lincoln.shtml


http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republican...dp/0595446981/

Book Description

Publication Date: August 17, 2007

Was Abraham Lincoln influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence? It’s shocking to think so.

But that’s precisely what Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists. The pair completely reassess this tumultuous time in American history, exposing the “politically correct” view of the War for Southern Independence as nothing less than the same observation announced by Marx himself. During the American Civil War, Marx wrote about his support of the Union Army, the Republican Party, and Lincoln himself. In fact, he named the president as “the single-minded son of the working class.” In addition to shedding light on this little-known part of our history, Kennedy and Benson also ask pertinent questions about the validity of today’s federal government and why its role seems so much larger than the liberty found in the states it represents.

Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists is a bold undertaking, but it’s one that needs our immediate and absolute attention.

Some interesting reviews for that book:

...In 1848 there were 18 socialist/communist uprisings throughout Europe, uprisings that had the sympathy of a young lawyer in Illinois. These revolutions all failed, so their leaders fled Europe for the refuge of the United States, settling primarily in the northeast and Midwest, taking occupations in journalism, education and politics - the same professions still dominated by leftwing radicals today. Google the names Friedrich Anneke, Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel or Joseph Weydemeyer, and see what information you get.

These socialists/communists had no love for the U.S. Constitution and only venomous loathing for the Holy Bible, but they made this country their home and the new Republican Party their party. Many of these "Forty-Eighters" were protégés of Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx himself, who wrote at least two letters to Comrade Lincoln and even wrote a eulogy for him upon his assassination.
...

From another review:

As an author, it is refreshing to come across a book that addresses the topic of socialist involved in the War Between the States. In researching for my other books, I had often come across mentions of Union Generals and staff that had socialists connections. This book sheds light on those connections and elaborates on how influential those socialist leaders were. Many Americans are unaware of how the events of 1848 Europe have impacted their nation.


And another:

Most of us, when confronted with the idea of communism or marxism or socialism in the United States automatically think of the Cold War or Joseph McCarthy or the 1960s. Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War is a book that shows how these flawed philosophies began to infect America a hundred years (or more) before the Cold War.

Diligent research by the authors shows the spotlight not only on the marxist/socialists who entered the United States after the failed Revolutions of 1848 in Europe, but also digs up evidence of home-grown experiments in American socialism in the early 1800s.

Readers may be surprised to find out that just how many connections existed between the Republican Party of the Civil War era and the failed revolutionaries (the "48ers") who came to the United States either by choice or by exile. And while the authors do not label Lincoln himself as an avowed marxist, he certainly enjoyed the support of the vast majority of socialist exiles, both politically and militarily.

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START​

by Alan Stang
February 1, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has "lost its way" and "gone wrong." It has "diverged" from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower's handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today's Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn't "go wrong," didn't "go left."

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small gang of wealthy Communists "the League of Just Men" hired for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the Communists would do.

But the Revolution of 1848 failed. The perpetrators escaped, just ahead of the police. And they went, of course, to the united States. In 1856, the Republican Party ran its first candidate for President. By that time, these Communists from Europe had thoroughly infiltrated this country, especially the North. Many became high ranking officers in the Union Army and top government officials.

Down through the decades, Americans have wondered about Yankee brutality in that war. Lee invaded the North, but that sublime Christian hero forbade any forays against civilians. Military genius Stonewall Jackson stood like a stone wall and routed the Yankees at Manassas, but when Barbara Frietchie insisted on flying the Yankee flag in Frederick, Maryland, rather than the Stars and Bars, that sublime Christian hero commanded, according to John Greenleaf Whittier, 'Who touches a hair of yon gray head/Dies like a dog! "March on" he said.'

But the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women were penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week without access to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee slime got into the liquor. Some two thousand Southern women and children were shipped north to labor as slaves. Didn't you learn that in school?

Sherman's scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later Nazis could not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so much? There can be no doubt that the already strong Communist influence in the North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists, was at least one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an afterthought they introduced to gain propaganda traction.

In retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a "Civil" War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead they went home, in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would leave them alone. Lee did come to understand -- too late. He said after the war that had he known at the beginning what he had since found out, he would have fought to the last man.

What was the South fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the nation�s first big government politician. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and a national bank. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. The problem was that Burr didn�t kill him soon enough. Henry Clay inherited and expanded Hamilton's ideas in something called the "American System," which advocated big government subsidies for favored industries and high, ruinous tariffs, what we today call "socialism for the rich." Clay inspired smooth talking railroad lawyer Abraham Lincoln, who inherited the Red escapees from the Revolution of 1848 and became our first Communist President.

All of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln's Marxists (Universe, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern historians Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. You must read this book, because it irrefutably nails down everything I have said above and then some. Let's browse through Red Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason most Americans have never heard of all this is that the winner writes the history.

For instance, August Willich was a member of the London Communist League with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Needless to say, Willich became a major general in the Union Army. Robert Rosa belonged to the New York Communist Club and was a major in the 45th New York Infantry. Brigadier general Louis Blenker of New York was a "convinced Marxist." His 10,000 man division looted people in Virginia, inspiring the term "Blenkered." Many of his men were fresh from European prisons. Our first Communist President knew this, but turned them loose on the people of the South.

In Red Republicans we learn of nine European revolutionaries convicted of treason and banished to Australia. They escaped to the united States and Canada. Three or four of them, with no military experience, became Union generals, joining at least three other Marx confidants who already held that rank. "Every man of the nine became a member of the Canadian Parliament, a governor of a territory or state in the Union, party leader, prime minister or attorney general."

Many of these men, not all, were Germans, some four thousand of whom escaped to this country. Known as Forty-Eighters, they quickly added violent abolitionism and feminism to their Communist beliefs. In Missouri, Forty-Eighter Franz Sigel became a Union general and had uniforms made for his Third Infantry Regiment that closely resembled the uniforms worn by socialist revolutionaries in Germany in 1849.

Forty-Eighters who became high ranking Union commanders included Colonel Friedrich Salomon, Ninth Wisconsin, Colonel Fritz Anneke, Thirty Fourth Wisconsin and Colonel Konrad Krez, Twenty Seventh Wisconsin. Communist journalist Karl Heinzen wrote: "If you have to blow up half a continent and cause a bloodbath to destroy the party of barbarism, you should have no scruples of conscience. Anyone who would not joyously sacrifice his life for the satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians is not a true republican." Heinzen came to this country and supported Lincoln.

Joseph Weydemeyer had to flee Germany when the Communist Revolution failed. In London he belonged to the Communist League and was a close friend of Marx and Engels. He came to this country in 1851, supported Lincoln, maintained his close friendship with Marx and became a Brigadier General in the Union Army.

Dedicated socialist Richard Hinton had to leave England. In this country he became a Union colonel, a Radical Republican and an associate of maniac John Brown's. So was Allan Pinkerton, who financed him. At one meeting with Brown, Pinkerton told his son: "Look well upon that man. He is greater than Napoleon and just as great as George Washington." Yes, Pinkerton was the great detective who founded the agency that bears his name. Why didn't you know that? In Kansas, mass murderer Brown enjoyed the support of wealthy Yankees (the Secret Six). August Bondi and Charles Kaiser, who worked with Brown there, were Forty Eighters.

What about Marx himself? Marx fled to England, where he is buried. He became the European correspondent for socialist Horace Greeley's New York Tribune, whose Managing Editor, Charles Dana, was a Communist. Dana hired Marx as a foreign correspondent. Marx wrote often of his kinship with the new Republican Party. Dana's generosity to Marx kept that scumbag alive.

Remember that Marx never worked a day to support his family, but did find time to impregnate their maid. Dana later became Assistant Secretary of War. All these people were in place when our first Communist President was elected on the Republican ticket in 1860 and provoked Lincoln�s Communist War to Destroy the Union.

The GOP Convention of 1860 took place in Chicago, a flaming center of German Communism. Many such Reds were delegates, including Johann Bernhard Stallo and Frederick Hassaurek from Ohio and Heinrich Bornstein from Missouri, a friend of Marx. Socialist Carl Schurz was a delegate from Wisconsin. To guarantee German support in Illinois, Lincoln secretly bought the Illinois Staats Anzieger. After the election he awarded the editor a consular post.

Socialist Friedrich Kapp was editor of the New Yorker-Abendzeitung. He wrote propaganda for the new Republican Party and helped mightily to deliver the German-American vote to Lincoln. With other Forty-Eighters, he was an elector for Lincoln in 1860. Remember, these are just a few examples. You really need to read the book. Call, toll-free 1 (800) 288-4677 to order.

Remember that slavery, for these Communists, was just an afterthought, a tool. Before the War for Independence, it was the Southern colonies that petitioned the King to stop importing slaves into the South. Did you know that Jefferson tried to include in the Declaration of Independence a complaint against the King because his government had forbidden the colonies to end the slave trade? Jefferson's language was deleted to avoid giving offense to New England, which was making buckets of money trading slaves.

Indeed, did you also know that if slavery was what the South fought to defend, all it had to do was stay in the Union? Lincoln made clear that he would defend slavery and would not free slaves owned by a man in a state within the Union: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation came well into the war. It was a propaganda stunt that freed only the slaves in areas controlled by the Confederacy; in other words, none. Meanwhile, prominent abolitionist Robert E. Lee, the first man Lincoln offered command of the Union Army, had freed his family's slaves long before the war. So, what were the Communists who came here after?

Republican Senator John Sherman, brother of the monster who Marched to the Sea, advised his fellow senators to "nationalize as much as possible [making] men love their country before their states. All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interests of the Government."

Germany was a decentralized collection of independent states. The goal of the Forty Eighters there was a "united, indivisible republic," in which those states would be dissolved. Land and private industry would be confiscated. The government would be transformed into a Socialist dictatorship. These are the ideas the Forty Eighters came to implement here. By the way, that is what Hitler did in the 1930s. That is what the fleeing Communists found so attractive in Lincoln.

So, again, the Republican Party did not "go wrong." It was rotten from the start. It has never been anything else but red. The characterization of Republican states as �red states� is quite appropriate. What do these revelations mean to us? Again, Dr. Paul is an aberration. He is not a "traditional Republican." A "traditional Republican" stands for high taxes, imperial government and perpetual war.
​

Dr. Paul is much more a traditional Democrat. I refer of course to the Democrat Party before the Communist takeover, which began with the election of Woodrow Federal Reserve-Income Tax-World War I Wilson and was consummated with the election of liar, swindler, thief, traitor and mass murderer Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am talking about the Democrat Party of Thomas Jefferson.

So of course the Republican Party will do everything it can to sandbag Dr. Paul. Expect that. It rightly considers him an interloper who doesn't belong there. Yes, because of decades of perversion of popular opinion about the Republican Party, he must run as a Republican. But no patriot loyalty, and certainly no trust, should be forthcoming, because the Party is a sidewinder that will betray him in a Ghouliani minute.
​

Dr. No is on one side. The Republicrat Party is on the other.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm
​

The whole of American politics in the long nineteenth century was a struggle between English GOPers and Dem immigrants (and Southern English, lest we forget; they fought what is still the bloodiest war in American history in opposition to the WASP elite in New England: tariffs, industrial subsidies (for the North), and inflation). The GOP was the party of high federal spending and central planning (and anti-immigrant policies). The Dems were up until 1896 the party of small federal government and personal liberty (but for slavery, which was a special situation).

No, it was and is much more complicated than that.

And even if Republicans did favor immigration restriction while they were still marxist that would just mean they didn't understand demographic/cultural warfare and the same goes for small government Democrats who may have opposed immigration restriction.

Calvin Coolidge who was one of the best small government Presidents we have had figured it out and lobbied for and signed strict immigration limits to try and halt the socialist influx that was destroying America.

Wilson ran on an anti-war platform, as per the Democratic party line.

The GOP was itching for war to help England from day one.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Progressives in both parties wanted war, Wilson was just sneakier.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

...words words...

I'm unsure why you think the connections between Lincoln and the Marxoids strengthen your point.

They rather prove mine; i.e. the GOP was a leftist party.

As for who was voting for this leftist party, that is not disputable; it was WASPs (while immigrants voted overwhelmingly for the Dems).

So...?

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'm unsure why you think the connections between Lincoln and the Marxoids strengthen your point.

They rather prove mine; i.e. the GOP was a leftist party.

As for who was voting for this leftist party, that is not disputable; it was WASPs (while immigrants voted overwhelmingly for the Dems).

So...?

The connection was to German and other European immigrants fleeing failed Marxist revolutions if you had bothered to read even just a little bit of it.

And immigrants didn't vote overwhelmingly Democrat, more of them voted Republican and fought for Lincoln and the Marxist Republicans.
Those that did vote Democrat probably helped push the party to the left.

 

[Swordsmyth]

[MENTION=58077]r3volution 3.0[/MENTION]

Another European thinker to comment was Karl Marx. Like many later Lincoln worshippers, Marx believed that the French Revolution was a continuation of the American Revolution and Lincoln’s revolution in America a continuation of the French. He thought, wrongly, that Lincoln was defending the “labour of the emigrant against the aggressions of the slave driver.” The war, then, is in behalf of the German immigrants who had flooded the Midwest after the 1848 revolutions. Not a word about the slaves themselves. Indeed, it was the numbers and ardent support of these German immigrants that turned the Midwest from Democrat to Republican and elected Lincoln. It would seem that Marx, like Lincoln, wanted the land for WHITE workers.

More at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/c...about-slavery/