A question has been forming in my mind for some time as I peruse different blogs representing various right-wing, politically incorrect viewpoints. Some of those within these groups maintain that any politically incorrect ideas and verbiage have to be suppressed or toned down considerably so as not to ''scare people off.'' Hence we have the Tea Party groups bending over backwards to put ''diversity'' front and center, and we have the counter-jihad element who so self-righteously disavow anybody who says ''extreme'' things like ''Islam is our enemy'' or "Moslems should not be allowed to immigrate to Western countries.'' One more example: some pro-Southron groups who take great pains to avoid racial topics, and, like the Tea Parties, feel the need to have a conspicuous black presence in their ranks.
My question is: if all these people feel compelled to disguise, deny, or just tone down their actual feelings or goals in order to win mass acceptance -- then what? Then, after having made the converts they yearn for, and hitting the mainstream -- then what? You have all these politically correct people in your ranks whose delicate sensibilities must not be offended. You have ''diversity'' within your ranks, in some cases, who tend to inhibit honest discussion by their very presence. Soon the initial goals and beliefs of your group become altered and compromised, if not destroyed.
Oh, but it's just a tactic, some would reply; it's just something we have to do in order to win 'average people' over. But having won them over, then what?
I think we are seeing the answer played out in some of these groups. What was initially begun as just a tactic, a strategy to court the 'respectables', becomes either a habit or a permanent way of thinking. To achieve success in attracting large numbers of people tends to go to the head of some activists and groups. It becomes an end in itself, and the original goals are lost in the shuffle.
We see this playing out in the ''emergent church'' sphere too, in which ''growing the congregation'' and winning souls (as if people actually 'win' souls anyway) is the most important thing. And just as the political right wing tries to clean up for company and appear more middle-of-the-road, the emergent church tries to tone down the alienating talk about sin and repentance, and focuses on welcoming seekers as they are, flattering their egos and their desire for a comfortable, warm and fuzzy 'gospel'.
What happens? The gospel is watered down, and churches become just another form of self-help or therapy or social action group.
As somebody put it (I cannot remember the source) the 'emergent churches' are just filling the church pews with tares rather than winning souls.
And the politically incorrect right wing risks becoming just another form of popular movement which tries to be all things to all people. What happens, is the question I have, to those who put on a respectable, nonthreatening, middle-of-the-road front in order to win people over and to get good press? How can we differentiate someone who is putting on a show of moderation and respectability from someone who really has no controversial or unpopular views? Might it not be that the part acted might in fact become real?
I am reminded, somehow, of a movie I saw many years ago. It was called Shock Corridor.
Those who are fans of old exploitation movies may be familiar with it. It was made in 1963, and the plot has an ambitious reporter entering a mental hospital, feigning insanity, in order to solve a murder case, and thus win glory for himself.
The situations and the script were ridiculously over-the-top, and it was one of those heavy-handed 'message' movies which had a black mental patient imagining himself to be a KKK member, and hating his own race. (He had been driven mad, you see, by 'racism', internalizing the bigotry that surrounded him, in case you don't get the obvious point. That part of the plot is bitterly ironic in light of today's situation, in which we have Whites seemingly driven mad by accusations of racism, and Whites who hate Whites.But that, however, is considered virtue, not insanity, these days.)
That is incidental to my point. The plot twist at the movie's end has our ''hero'', the reporter, finally going mad as the result of his situation, surrounded by insane people in a nightmare environment. Even when it is revealed that his feigned insanity was just a ruse to get him into the mental hospital, the doctors conclude that ''feigning insanity is a sign of of insanity'' or a form thereof.
So might the case be with those who are willing to play the politically correct game in order to accomplish whatever end. In the end you may find that embracing the madness that is political correctness is disastrous. Trying to adopt certain forms, even just the outward forms of political correctness, is perhaps to be willing prey to it.
If we concede that we have to submit to this game of lies in order to gain some end, or in order to be more acceptable and more accepted by a society that lives by ''deceiving and being deceived'', I think that is doing violence to our own psyches and our own souls.
Adopting the ways of the world, even disingenuously, further entrenches this lying system in which we exist, and further strengthens it by our obeisance to it, even if that obeisance is pretended.
No, sooner or later someone has to stand up to the tyranny of deceit that is political correctness; we cannot buy into its lies and hypocrisies, even in pretense. Soon the deceit which is initially justified on the basis of expediency becomes part of the culture of right-wing groups, just as with the post-Christian churches.
Unless we want to court real madness like the reporter in the movie, we have to shun the system, not feed it, nor pay homage to it even in dissimulation.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Old South and its enemies
As I was perusing one of those frivolous blogs I read to divert myself from computer problems and depressing news stories, I happened across a blog posting which had an old advertisement which depicted an Old South scene. You know the scenario: the stereotyped South as seen in Gone With the Wind or the classic movie Jezebel, for example. You know, a Southern belle in a hoop skirts and ringlets, and a dashing young soldier in uniform.
The setting, of course, a plantation, with an old antebellum-style mansion surrounded by Spanish moss-laden trees, at dusk.
It was all a pretty picture, in pastel colors. I think the product being sold was perfume. But with all this, the only thing the blogger could say about it was the belligerent demand: ''where are the slaves?''
Any chance to climb up on the moral high horse, any opportunity, the typical liberal ''anti-racist'' (read: anti-White) seizes it and uses it for all it's worth.
I would have left a comment on the blog, but I've been down that road before. There is no rational discussion that can be had when these issues are at stake. To the liberal pharisee, the Old South (and the modern South, for that matter) is evil, plain and simple. There is no middle ground. Everybody and everything associated with the Old South, especially, is forever tainted and malignant, in the mind of the self-righteous White liberal, because all they can think of in that context is slavery.
I suppose, to be generous to them, they have all been taught a biased and distorted, if not outright false, history of this country, and especially anything to do with the War Between the States and the black/White issue. Still, I will not excuse them on that basis; those with any intelligence and honesty will seek out the truth and inform themselves. True, it is getting harder and harder to find somewhat even-handed historical material about that era. That's why I posted those excerpts from old books on Reconstruction over at the Forum.
The issue of why so very, very few people in our day and age care to seek truth in all things is for another post; it's a question that I think about repeatedly. Why are so few people interested these days in seeking out the real story, hearing both (or all) sides on any given question, and discerning where the truth lies?
Have we all become moral relativists who dismiss the very idea of truth as being 'absolutist' and backward? I think this is what it boils down to. Even the Christians I know, who presumably are zealous for truth, and want to 'do the truth' as John put it in his epistles -- yet even they seem content to accept the consensus and go along with popular opinion.
But to return to the original issue that prompted this post: why is slavery, which has not existed in this country for a century and a half, roughly, such a subject for righteous indignation lo, these many years later? Why the need to exhume the corpses of the 'dead old White guys' who were supposedly cruel and heartless monsters, in order to try them posthumously? And it isn't just our ancestors they are dragging into this PC kangaroo court. It is us, all of us who are descended from Dead Old White Guys. Yes, it even includes those who protest that ''my ancestors never owned slaves! My ancestors didn't immigrate here until after the Civil War! My ancestors were anti-slavery! My ancestors fought in the Union Army! My ancestors were too poor to own slaves!" And on and on. But no matter how you may protest your innocence (and thus imply that the other guy is guilty) these protests don't deflect the accusations. According to the revisionist history which is taught in our schools, and according to popular opinion, all White people partake in guilt, simply by the fact of their ancestry. Who your ancestors were, where they lived, or whatever they thought about slavery, they were guilty, according to these judgmental people.
I still ask: why are people so incredibly exercised about slavery when it is long-gone, and when enormous efforts have been made to rectify supposed past wrongs, and vast sums of money spent to compensate for the past? And yet it is never enough, it never will be enough. We could spend all our substance and it would not be enough.
I suspect in the case of the self-righteous Whites who are still getting worked up about slavery, they do so because it is a way of proclaiming their moral superiority, and a way of making a conspicuous statement of their 'right thinking' and their political correctness.
And in the case of blacks and other minorities, it is all too often, in my opinion, a way of claiming victimhood and extorting more concessions from the weak-as-water White establishment.
Meantime, I would like, if I were to find an honest liberal (yes, I know it's an oxymoron), to ask her why slavery was the worst moral evil of American history, as they seem to believe it is? Why is child labor, for example, as I asked in an earlier post, not the source of equal anguish and anger? There are a great many wrongs in our own day as well as in the past that might evoke moral indignation; why go back into the past and focus on slavery as the worst of all?
Much of this moral indignation, insofar as it is sincere and not feigned, is based on a distorted view of the Old South, wherein slaves were believed to be abused and mistreated shamefully by cruel White people. The popular image (perhaps based largely on Alex Haley's bogus 'nonfiction' book, 'Roots', is that of heartless White slaveowners and overseers, of White men chasing down free Africans to enslave them.
Uncle Tom's Cabin was also a work that is embedded in the consciousness of many Americans, even though they may only know second-hand accounts of it.
To the uninformed who blindly accept these caricatured scenarios, there is no conception that life in the Old South was not a continuous chamber of horrors. They simply cannot envision that life there was not all bad, and that relationships between the races were at times fairly amiable. No, they can see it only in terms of nightmarish cruelty and oppression.
As long as this perception exists that slavery is the ultimate moral evil, and White people therefore the ultimate villains, there will never be any forgiving or forgetting, and there will never be any let-up of the accusations and the condemnations from White leftists and black Americans.
And for those of us who have roots in the Old South, and those of us who admit to being descendants of slave-owning ancestors, we are burdened with this imposed guilt and shame of what is considered a tainted heritage.
It's an uphill struggle to try to defend our heritage and our ancestors. To hope for some kind of truce with the enemies of the South, and of our people, is rather futile. Meantime, I will not apologize or truckle to those who attack my heritage. To do so is to validate their stance, to lend credence to their accusations. That I will not do.
The setting, of course, a plantation, with an old antebellum-style mansion surrounded by Spanish moss-laden trees, at dusk.
It was all a pretty picture, in pastel colors. I think the product being sold was perfume. But with all this, the only thing the blogger could say about it was the belligerent demand: ''where are the slaves?''
Any chance to climb up on the moral high horse, any opportunity, the typical liberal ''anti-racist'' (read: anti-White) seizes it and uses it for all it's worth.
I would have left a comment on the blog, but I've been down that road before. There is no rational discussion that can be had when these issues are at stake. To the liberal pharisee, the Old South (and the modern South, for that matter) is evil, plain and simple. There is no middle ground. Everybody and everything associated with the Old South, especially, is forever tainted and malignant, in the mind of the self-righteous White liberal, because all they can think of in that context is slavery.
I suppose, to be generous to them, they have all been taught a biased and distorted, if not outright false, history of this country, and especially anything to do with the War Between the States and the black/White issue. Still, I will not excuse them on that basis; those with any intelligence and honesty will seek out the truth and inform themselves. True, it is getting harder and harder to find somewhat even-handed historical material about that era. That's why I posted those excerpts from old books on Reconstruction over at the Forum.
The issue of why so very, very few people in our day and age care to seek truth in all things is for another post; it's a question that I think about repeatedly. Why are so few people interested these days in seeking out the real story, hearing both (or all) sides on any given question, and discerning where the truth lies?
Have we all become moral relativists who dismiss the very idea of truth as being 'absolutist' and backward? I think this is what it boils down to. Even the Christians I know, who presumably are zealous for truth, and want to 'do the truth' as John put it in his epistles -- yet even they seem content to accept the consensus and go along with popular opinion.
But to return to the original issue that prompted this post: why is slavery, which has not existed in this country for a century and a half, roughly, such a subject for righteous indignation lo, these many years later? Why the need to exhume the corpses of the 'dead old White guys' who were supposedly cruel and heartless monsters, in order to try them posthumously? And it isn't just our ancestors they are dragging into this PC kangaroo court. It is us, all of us who are descended from Dead Old White Guys. Yes, it even includes those who protest that ''my ancestors never owned slaves! My ancestors didn't immigrate here until after the Civil War! My ancestors were anti-slavery! My ancestors fought in the Union Army! My ancestors were too poor to own slaves!" And on and on. But no matter how you may protest your innocence (and thus imply that the other guy is guilty) these protests don't deflect the accusations. According to the revisionist history which is taught in our schools, and according to popular opinion, all White people partake in guilt, simply by the fact of their ancestry. Who your ancestors were, where they lived, or whatever they thought about slavery, they were guilty, according to these judgmental people.
I still ask: why are people so incredibly exercised about slavery when it is long-gone, and when enormous efforts have been made to rectify supposed past wrongs, and vast sums of money spent to compensate for the past? And yet it is never enough, it never will be enough. We could spend all our substance and it would not be enough.
I suspect in the case of the self-righteous Whites who are still getting worked up about slavery, they do so because it is a way of proclaiming their moral superiority, and a way of making a conspicuous statement of their 'right thinking' and their political correctness.
And in the case of blacks and other minorities, it is all too often, in my opinion, a way of claiming victimhood and extorting more concessions from the weak-as-water White establishment.
Meantime, I would like, if I were to find an honest liberal (yes, I know it's an oxymoron), to ask her why slavery was the worst moral evil of American history, as they seem to believe it is? Why is child labor, for example, as I asked in an earlier post, not the source of equal anguish and anger? There are a great many wrongs in our own day as well as in the past that might evoke moral indignation; why go back into the past and focus on slavery as the worst of all?
Much of this moral indignation, insofar as it is sincere and not feigned, is based on a distorted view of the Old South, wherein slaves were believed to be abused and mistreated shamefully by cruel White people. The popular image (perhaps based largely on Alex Haley's bogus 'nonfiction' book, 'Roots', is that of heartless White slaveowners and overseers, of White men chasing down free Africans to enslave them.
Uncle Tom's Cabin was also a work that is embedded in the consciousness of many Americans, even though they may only know second-hand accounts of it.
To the uninformed who blindly accept these caricatured scenarios, there is no conception that life in the Old South was not a continuous chamber of horrors. They simply cannot envision that life there was not all bad, and that relationships between the races were at times fairly amiable. No, they can see it only in terms of nightmarish cruelty and oppression.
As long as this perception exists that slavery is the ultimate moral evil, and White people therefore the ultimate villains, there will never be any forgiving or forgetting, and there will never be any let-up of the accusations and the condemnations from White leftists and black Americans.
And for those of us who have roots in the Old South, and those of us who admit to being descendants of slave-owning ancestors, we are burdened with this imposed guilt and shame of what is considered a tainted heritage.
It's an uphill struggle to try to defend our heritage and our ancestors. To hope for some kind of truce with the enemies of the South, and of our people, is rather futile. Meantime, I will not apologize or truckle to those who attack my heritage. To do so is to validate their stance, to lend credence to their accusations. That I will not do.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Interruption
If you've noticed the lack of a post for the last couple of days, it's because of my computer problems. I am now posting from an older computer which I have not used for some time, and I lack access to most of my files and my bookmarks until my main computer is back from the dead, which I hope will be soon.
So for now, I am working under somewhat of a handicap, so I hope you will bear with me.
Computers are a great boon in many ways but a real headache in other ways, aren't they?
And speaking of headaches, it looks like our comment system is not functioning, yet again. I can access my dashboard at Intense Debate but the comment system appears not to be working on the blog. I have to say I am frustrated with Intense Debate, and I may go back to the Blogger system though I realize this might be an inconvenience for some. Just a heads-up.
So for now, I am working under somewhat of a handicap, so I hope you will bear with me.
Computers are a great boon in many ways but a real headache in other ways, aren't they?
And speaking of headaches, it looks like our comment system is not functioning, yet again. I can access my dashboard at Intense Debate but the comment system appears not to be working on the blog. I have to say I am frustrated with Intense Debate, and I may go back to the Blogger system though I realize this might be an inconvenience for some. Just a heads-up.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Columbus Day
Tomorrow, October 12, is the traditional Columbus Day observance, but today is the official observance. I wonder why the usual 'Columbus was a genocidal villain' protesters have not been in the news today, or are they saving it for tomorrow, on the real Columbus Day?
I had planned a short post of my own on to mark the day, but then I came across this very good piece from A3P, called 'Let's Celebrate European America on Columbus Day.' Sounds good to me.
I had planned a short post of my own on to mark the day, but then I came across this very good piece from A3P, called 'Let's Celebrate European America on Columbus Day.' Sounds good to me.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
"...an important moment in science history"
James Delingpole of the Telegraph UK posts a resignation letter from an American physics professor, Harold Lewis, to the American Physical Society. The reason: the 'corruption' surrounding the Society's reaction to the global warming scam.
A very strongly written statement by Professor Lewis, it's well worth reading.
A very strongly written statement by Professor Lewis, it's well worth reading.
What's in a name?
Here's a question, which I am passing on from a commenter on this blog: what do you call yourselves? By which I think he meant, what label do we place on our beliefs and views regarding ethnicity, race, nation, etc.?
I gave a rather ambivalent answer because I find I am not completely in line with any of the particular groups.
But what about my readers -- if you are out there. With which label, if any, do you identify? I suspect I have readers with a range of affinities, whether paleoconservative, race-realist, ethnonationalist, ethnopatriot, WN, or some form of kinist, or perhaps just plain old patriot.
Lately I am favoring the term 'loyalist' in some form because none of the rest of it matters without the loyalty that should bind us together.
Some of these labels have acquired connotations that many are not comfortable with, but that is because the PC word police make sure to ascribe negative connotations to any name we might adopt for ourselves or our viewpoints. Any name that describes a dissenter from the present multiculturalist regime is going to be made a pejorative.
Let's hear from some of you.
I gave a rather ambivalent answer because I find I am not completely in line with any of the particular groups.
But what about my readers -- if you are out there. With which label, if any, do you identify? I suspect I have readers with a range of affinities, whether paleoconservative, race-realist, ethnonationalist, ethnopatriot, WN, or some form of kinist, or perhaps just plain old patriot.
Lately I am favoring the term 'loyalist' in some form because none of the rest of it matters without the loyalty that should bind us together.
Some of these labels have acquired connotations that many are not comfortable with, but that is because the PC word police make sure to ascribe negative connotations to any name we might adopt for ourselves or our viewpoints. Any name that describes a dissenter from the present multiculturalist regime is going to be made a pejorative.
Let's hear from some of you.
On this day in 732
From the account of the Chronicle of St. Denis:
The Muslims planned to go to Tours to destroy the Church of St. Martin, the city, and the whole country. Then came against them the glorious Prince Charles, at the head of his whole force. He drew up his host, and he fought as fiercely as the hungry wolf falls upon the stag. By the grace of Our Lord, he wrought a great slaughter upon the enemies of Christian faith, so that---as history bears witness---he slew in that battle 300,000 men, likewise their king by name Abderrahman. Then was he [Charles] first called "Martel," for as a hammer of iron, of steel, and of every other metal, even so he dashed: and smote in the battle all his enemies. And what was the greatest marvel of all, he only lost in that battle 1500 men. The tents and harness [of the enemy] were taken; and whatever else they possessed became a prey to him and his followers. Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine, being now reconciled with Prince Charles Martel, later slew as many of the Saracens as he could find who had escaped from the battle.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
More gleanings from old books
I've been reading old history textbooks again, and I've posted an excerpt from one of them over at the Forum, in the Resources section.
It's on the subject of Reconstruction in the South after the War Between the States. Since that time period and the events thereof are very relevant to today's problems, and also because so little reliable information is available, I think it's worthwhile to post a few things about that much-misunderstood period.
I think a few of the Republicans who boast about their party's role in those events might benefit from learning some pre-politically correct history, and maybe they would not be so inclined to boast. They might think about why the 'solid South' did not want to vote for Republicans for a century or so afterward.
It's on the subject of Reconstruction in the South after the War Between the States. Since that time period and the events thereof are very relevant to today's problems, and also because so little reliable information is available, I think it's worthwhile to post a few things about that much-misunderstood period.
I think a few of the Republicans who boast about their party's role in those events might benefit from learning some pre-politically correct history, and maybe they would not be so inclined to boast. They might think about why the 'solid South' did not want to vote for Republicans for a century or so afterward.
Friday, October 08, 2010
''...fears may be liars''
One of the recurring questions on this blog and others like it is this one, which in various forms we've discussed to the point of exhaustion at times: how do we break through the barriers and roadblocks which have been thrown up against us? How do we get our ideas heard, in a society where only one point of view and set of preconceptions are officially permissible?
At this moment, the blogosphere affords us a degree of free speech, although we know that even that freedom is somewhat limited, as we've seen politically incorrect bloggers shut down and silenced, sometimes to resurface elsewhere and have the same thing happen again. Sometimes repeatedly.
The government does not have to exercise heavy-handed, overt censorship as they did in the old Communist countries or in other totalitarian regimes. No, they have perfected the 'democratic censorship' which turns ordinary people into crusading zealots eager to condemn and silence their fellow citizens who violate the taboos and speak unflattering truths. A blatant example of this is YouTube, where an army of profane and semi-literate zealots flag politically incorrect videos and succeed in having them removed. Democracy in action, illustrating why many of the philosophers regarded 'democracy' as simply a rule by rabble, a tyranny of the many.
Note: I believe it was Jacques Ellul who used the term 'democratic censorship' in a book of his, though I cannot track the source down.
Blogs, of course, too, are subject to the same 'democratic censorship', and taken down if they arouse the notice of the PC vigilantes who prowl the internet looking for forbidden ideas and thoughts.
Newspapers and media sources online are obviously biased in excluding any points of view which are right of center, even the more moderate voices on the right. Comments on news articles online and in the 'dead tree' media are heavily censored, with the politically incorrect comments most likely to be deleted or denied publication.
Blogs, too, have varying standards as to what comments will be allowed. We all know of examples of supposedly right-wing blogs who hew to political correctness to a sickening degree.
So how can we possibly penetrate this wall that is set up to quarantine and smother differing points of view?
The blogosphere is still one place where those who dissent from the PC orthodoxy can express themselves with some degree of openness. But for how long?
The frequently-heard complaint from some on the ethnopatriot side is that those who participate in Internet discussions are 'not doing anything' in real life, and are therefore useless, if not downright harmful to our side.
As I've stated before, this is an unfounded belief. Being active in Internet discussions is not a barrier to 'doing something' in the physical world out there. It is hardly an 'either/or' situation. Of course those who are glued to the keyboard and who seem to spend all their waking hours in cyberspace are likely not interacting much with their fellow human beings. But otherwise, one can do both. Writing and discussing on the internet and acting in real life can be combined, and ideally should both be included in our daily life.
But how do we approach those in real life who may be open to hearing what we have to say? These days I find it easier, as many people are upset by the events of the day, and they are quite aware that things are seriously amiss. It is not as hard, in 2010 A.D., to convince people that there is something badly wrong with our 'system', and with our society. They know it, even those who don't keep up with current events or politics. A few years ago, this was not the case.
Each person is an individual, with a different set of experiences and a different level of awareness. So each person must be conversed with in a different way. Some people are impervious to any amount of facts or logical arguments; I think we all know this. Liberals, obviously, are closed-minded and dogmatic in the extreme.
Even those who are apolitical, however, are often near impossible to communicate with, if they are among the passive masses who imbibe everything TV has to offer, as well as Hollywood movies, popular music, celebrity gossip magazines, and so on. I know a number of people like this; they know nothing of politics or history, but they know everything that the media tells them, and they never question what they are told. These people are a lost cause, for the most part, sadly.
The biggest obstacle to any kind of real dialogue with these people is to get them to realize that much of what they believe they 'know' is false or at least, highly distorted.
That is the most formidable part of it.
How can brainwashing be undone, or can it, at all? As I said before, we need cult deprogrammers to work with some of these people.
Another frequently-heard suggestion is that we need to use Alinsky's tactics, use the left's medicine on them. It is interesting, by the way, to note that suddenly everybody on the right, even the most middle-of-the-road Republican, knows who Alinsky is, when this was not the case even five years ago. Whether Glenn Beck is the source of this newfound knowledge, I am not sure; a number of right-wing writers have mentioned Alinsky and his books lately.
I am not sure that leftist tactics are suited to our situation; would our enemies on the left not recognize that their tactics are being used against them? Average Americans, when the left was beginning their campaign of subversion, were mostly unaware of what was being done, despite McCarthy's earlier warnings about the insidious nature of Communism. Many Americans still naively believe that 'Communism was defeated and destroyed', gone for good when the Berlin wall fell, or the old U.S.S.R. broke up. Of course that was not true; Communism or whatever name we wish to call it just changed tactics, morphed into a different form, and took a more insidious path to get to where we are now.
However, the left had one thing we do not have: time. They were working on a long timetable, and there was no particular hurry for them to accomplish their ends. But they were relentless and very patient. As for us, time is not on our side. We do not have decades or generations in which to work, or to undertake a Gramsci-style long march. I see comments advocating that approach, seemingly believing that we have all the time in the world. But look at the hourglass: the sands are running down.
I honestly don't know what 'The Answer' is, nor does anyone else. I do know that we have to unify and put aside all the childish squabbling and divisiveness. I can't help wondering if some of the dividers are truly on our side, or if they are among us purposely sowing division and distrust.
Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring; life has surprises, and the people who are trying to 'drastically remake' our country to their dictatorial liking are, after all, human beings. As such, they are fallible. They make mistakes. They make misjudgements. They are capable of being blinded by hubris, and they have shown themselves to be arrogant and overconfident.
And one big flaw they have is that they misunderstand human nature, in fact, they try to deny away human nature, or to foolishly imagine they can remake it or excise it. They will be proven badly mistaken on that point.
In their pride and arrogance, they underestimate us.
This factor was part of the fall of some of the Communist countries; the leftist regimes tried to suppress human nature or remake it for decades, and human nature won out, despite all their efforts.
Nations can turn on a dime. We saw that happen in Eastern Europe, and we also saw it in the left's counterculture movement which appeared to triumph overnight in the 1970s and thereabouts. It seemed that deeply-held beliefs were changed in the blink of an eye, and leftist principles embraced -- but were they? Are we about to turn on a dime again, and is old human nature about to resurface and foil the best-laid plans of the social engineers?
We can only hope so. Meantime, best not to subscribe to the pessimistic, ''we're doomed!'' belief that is heard among us too often. Better to prepare for the worst, while hoping and working for the best -- wherever we are, in whatever way we can, while we can.
At this moment, the blogosphere affords us a degree of free speech, although we know that even that freedom is somewhat limited, as we've seen politically incorrect bloggers shut down and silenced, sometimes to resurface elsewhere and have the same thing happen again. Sometimes repeatedly.
The government does not have to exercise heavy-handed, overt censorship as they did in the old Communist countries or in other totalitarian regimes. No, they have perfected the 'democratic censorship' which turns ordinary people into crusading zealots eager to condemn and silence their fellow citizens who violate the taboos and speak unflattering truths. A blatant example of this is YouTube, where an army of profane and semi-literate zealots flag politically incorrect videos and succeed in having them removed. Democracy in action, illustrating why many of the philosophers regarded 'democracy' as simply a rule by rabble, a tyranny of the many.
Note: I believe it was Jacques Ellul who used the term 'democratic censorship' in a book of his, though I cannot track the source down.
Blogs, of course, too, are subject to the same 'democratic censorship', and taken down if they arouse the notice of the PC vigilantes who prowl the internet looking for forbidden ideas and thoughts.
Newspapers and media sources online are obviously biased in excluding any points of view which are right of center, even the more moderate voices on the right. Comments on news articles online and in the 'dead tree' media are heavily censored, with the politically incorrect comments most likely to be deleted or denied publication.
Blogs, too, have varying standards as to what comments will be allowed. We all know of examples of supposedly right-wing blogs who hew to political correctness to a sickening degree.
So how can we possibly penetrate this wall that is set up to quarantine and smother differing points of view?
The blogosphere is still one place where those who dissent from the PC orthodoxy can express themselves with some degree of openness. But for how long?
The frequently-heard complaint from some on the ethnopatriot side is that those who participate in Internet discussions are 'not doing anything' in real life, and are therefore useless, if not downright harmful to our side.
As I've stated before, this is an unfounded belief. Being active in Internet discussions is not a barrier to 'doing something' in the physical world out there. It is hardly an 'either/or' situation. Of course those who are glued to the keyboard and who seem to spend all their waking hours in cyberspace are likely not interacting much with their fellow human beings. But otherwise, one can do both. Writing and discussing on the internet and acting in real life can be combined, and ideally should both be included in our daily life.
But how do we approach those in real life who may be open to hearing what we have to say? These days I find it easier, as many people are upset by the events of the day, and they are quite aware that things are seriously amiss. It is not as hard, in 2010 A.D., to convince people that there is something badly wrong with our 'system', and with our society. They know it, even those who don't keep up with current events or politics. A few years ago, this was not the case.
Each person is an individual, with a different set of experiences and a different level of awareness. So each person must be conversed with in a different way. Some people are impervious to any amount of facts or logical arguments; I think we all know this. Liberals, obviously, are closed-minded and dogmatic in the extreme.
Even those who are apolitical, however, are often near impossible to communicate with, if they are among the passive masses who imbibe everything TV has to offer, as well as Hollywood movies, popular music, celebrity gossip magazines, and so on. I know a number of people like this; they know nothing of politics or history, but they know everything that the media tells them, and they never question what they are told. These people are a lost cause, for the most part, sadly.
The biggest obstacle to any kind of real dialogue with these people is to get them to realize that much of what they believe they 'know' is false or at least, highly distorted.
That is the most formidable part of it.
How can brainwashing be undone, or can it, at all? As I said before, we need cult deprogrammers to work with some of these people.
Another frequently-heard suggestion is that we need to use Alinsky's tactics, use the left's medicine on them. It is interesting, by the way, to note that suddenly everybody on the right, even the most middle-of-the-road Republican, knows who Alinsky is, when this was not the case even five years ago. Whether Glenn Beck is the source of this newfound knowledge, I am not sure; a number of right-wing writers have mentioned Alinsky and his books lately.
I am not sure that leftist tactics are suited to our situation; would our enemies on the left not recognize that their tactics are being used against them? Average Americans, when the left was beginning their campaign of subversion, were mostly unaware of what was being done, despite McCarthy's earlier warnings about the insidious nature of Communism. Many Americans still naively believe that 'Communism was defeated and destroyed', gone for good when the Berlin wall fell, or the old U.S.S.R. broke up. Of course that was not true; Communism or whatever name we wish to call it just changed tactics, morphed into a different form, and took a more insidious path to get to where we are now.
However, the left had one thing we do not have: time. They were working on a long timetable, and there was no particular hurry for them to accomplish their ends. But they were relentless and very patient. As for us, time is not on our side. We do not have decades or generations in which to work, or to undertake a Gramsci-style long march. I see comments advocating that approach, seemingly believing that we have all the time in the world. But look at the hourglass: the sands are running down.
I honestly don't know what 'The Answer' is, nor does anyone else. I do know that we have to unify and put aside all the childish squabbling and divisiveness. I can't help wondering if some of the dividers are truly on our side, or if they are among us purposely sowing division and distrust.
Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring; life has surprises, and the people who are trying to 'drastically remake' our country to their dictatorial liking are, after all, human beings. As such, they are fallible. They make mistakes. They make misjudgements. They are capable of being blinded by hubris, and they have shown themselves to be arrogant and overconfident.
And one big flaw they have is that they misunderstand human nature, in fact, they try to deny away human nature, or to foolishly imagine they can remake it or excise it. They will be proven badly mistaken on that point.
In their pride and arrogance, they underestimate us.
This factor was part of the fall of some of the Communist countries; the leftist regimes tried to suppress human nature or remake it for decades, and human nature won out, despite all their efforts.
Nations can turn on a dime. We saw that happen in Eastern Europe, and we also saw it in the left's counterculture movement which appeared to triumph overnight in the 1970s and thereabouts. It seemed that deeply-held beliefs were changed in the blink of an eye, and leftist principles embraced -- but were they? Are we about to turn on a dime again, and is old human nature about to resurface and foil the best-laid plans of the social engineers?
We can only hope so. Meantime, best not to subscribe to the pessimistic, ''we're doomed!'' belief that is heard among us too often. Better to prepare for the worst, while hoping and working for the best -- wherever we are, in whatever way we can, while we can.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Overpopulation denial
Here's another example of how the issue of race distorts everything it touches: the overpopulation problem.
This VDare article by Donald A. Collins, Population Apocalypse Delayed -- But Not Cancelled
discusses the population issue in connection with immigration. The issue was addressed, reports Collins, at the Federation for Immigration Reform's Advisory Board meeting recently.
Mehlman argues that because the predictions of mass starvation did not happen as predicted, people will not believe the current assessments which warn that the number of human beings on the planet is not sustainable for much longer.
Those who argue that the present situation is dire have an uphill battle; there's little doubt that many conservatives scoff at Ehrlich's warnings and ridicule Malthus as a quack. I have heard a great many Republican/conservatives ridicule Malthus, and scoff at anybody who believes that the present rate of reproduction is unsustainable.
Why is it that ''conservatives'' of all people should be so set against the notion that the planet is overpopulated, and that our country, specifically, is reaching its limits, or has already reached its limits?
The readiest answer that comes to me is that 'conservatives' have decided that any concern about overpopulation is the province of crazy leftist 'envirowackos'. They associate population concerns as being in the same league with the current, discredited mania over 'global warming' or 'climate change.'
Just as conservation, ironically, is now anathema to many 'conservatives', simply because of the associations with leftist environmental scaremongers, so with the issue of overpopulation and family planning.
This country is rather schizophrenic when it comes to family planning and reproduction; on the left, especially, there is a kind of rabid loathing of large families. Back when 'OctoMom' was in the news, some of the comments that were posted on newspaper websites regarding her large family went well beyond righteous indignation over her circumstances. The hatred was directed at all people with large families, and the squeaky-clean Duggar family was condemned as fiercely as OctoMom, with her artifically-conceived multiple births, paid for by the taxpayer.
Even some on the right see large families as loathsome and backward; something that is part of 'white trash' tradition rather than part of mainstream America.
However, in the overall context, most conservatives in my experience will argue fiercely that there is no overpopulation; this earth can support many, many more people, no problem.
Still, they acknowledge that many parts of the Third World are overpopulated, but if one maintains that no restraints on reproduction are needed, what then is to happen to the overcrowded Third World? If you believe there is no overpopulation, it seems to me you are making mass migration from the Third World to the First World a necessity. Obviously these Third World countries cannot sustain unlimited population growth.
The diehard Republican, probably repeating what Rush says, insists that there is not a shortage of resources, just a distribution problem. The solution is supposedly that we install non-corrupt governments in the problem nations, increase foreign aid, or best of all, just teach them about 'free markets and capitalism'. Then all would be well. There is no need to curtail population growth.
Stories like this one illustrate the spillover from the backward nations to the Western countries.
The United Kingdom is the most densely populated country in Europe, with the Netherlands close behind. Notice the chart in the linked article which notes the high population density in Malta, which is besieged by African immigrants.
He added: "This is more evidence of the impact of immigration, and if present patterns of migration continue we are going to get much more crowded. There will be a big impact on quality of life."
No kidding.
Collins' article on VDare notes that not many decades ago, officials in this country were very much in favor of family planning in the Third World. What happened to turn that situation around? As of now, our officials, and the elites, are certainly aware of the exploding populations of the Third World because they constantly call our attention to the misery of the Third World: starvation, disease, natural disasters, and we are told that we must do more to help them, that is, to enable the population to grow even more. That is what our foreign aid and our charity money does.
Where is the concern for this issue? Why is the only proposed solution is for the West to accept more and more 'refugees' and immigrants? At some point, there has to be a reckoning; our present method of dealing with the problem just kicks it further down the road.
I realize some people have religious compunctions about contraception or family planning, but I don't think there are that many Catholic purists who oppose all contraception. I don't think that most Christians believe that unlimited reproduction is mandatory or decreed by God.
No, the main resistance to population control comes from the left, who probably believe that to encourage limits on Third World reproduction would be tantamount to ''genocide''. And then there are the conservatives who know there is a problem, but who essentially turn a blind eye, and adopt the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' approach so as not to be called racists.
I think that there is also quite a contingent of Republicans, of the blind follower variety, who cannot bring themselves to support any kind of population limits because it either smacks of 'leftism' to them or of 'nazism.' Just as they label any concern for the environment as 'envirowacko' nonsense and propaganda, so with warnings about overpopulation: it's 'Chicken Little scaremongering.'
This kind of knee-jerk politics is a bane of our society in the 21st century.
All efforts to curtail excess reproduction need not involve heavy-handed government meddling, as with China's policies, nor need it involve support for abortions, forced sterilization, etc.
There are humane, common-sense measures that could be taken. It is not an all-or-nothing choice.
Most of all, though, the hysteria that surrounds the race issue in our day is responsible for our inability to face up to, and to discuss, rationally, the issue of overpopulation.
Meanwhile, it seems that the people at the top of our society, who supposedly want to drastically reduce the earth's population according to reports, are at the same time encouraging, passively or actively, the growth of the Third World.
Why? It appears to me that they at some point may have decided to 'use' the crisis of overpopulation in an effort to build their Tower of Babel, one-world system.
Otherwise it makes no sense -- but little does, in this topsy-turvy universe we now inhabit.
This VDare article by Donald A. Collins, Population Apocalypse Delayed -- But Not Cancelled
discusses the population issue in connection with immigration. The issue was addressed, reports Collins, at the Federation for Immigration Reform's Advisory Board meeting recently.
At the FAIR meeting, I talked to Ira Mehlman, the organization’s veteran Media Director, about the growth of human numbers to their present historic levels—a phenomenon which has totally failed to engage the attention of world leaders. I again mentioned to Ira my deep concern about the trend toward what many experts regard as unsustainable world.
Ira challenged me. He said I could not prove my point to most audiences, except to the converted groups with whom I regularly consort. He pointed out that Thomas Malthus' predictions proved wrong as did those of Paul Ehrlich.
Of course, Ehrlich, stoutly and correctly in my view, maintains that his predictions in The Population Bomb—mass starvation in the 1970s and beyond—were wrong only as to their timing.''
Mehlman argues that because the predictions of mass starvation did not happen as predicted, people will not believe the current assessments which warn that the number of human beings on the planet is not sustainable for much longer.
Those who argue that the present situation is dire have an uphill battle; there's little doubt that many conservatives scoff at Ehrlich's warnings and ridicule Malthus as a quack. I have heard a great many Republican/conservatives ridicule Malthus, and scoff at anybody who believes that the present rate of reproduction is unsustainable.
Why is it that ''conservatives'' of all people should be so set against the notion that the planet is overpopulated, and that our country, specifically, is reaching its limits, or has already reached its limits?
The readiest answer that comes to me is that 'conservatives' have decided that any concern about overpopulation is the province of crazy leftist 'envirowackos'. They associate population concerns as being in the same league with the current, discredited mania over 'global warming' or 'climate change.'
Just as conservation, ironically, is now anathema to many 'conservatives', simply because of the associations with leftist environmental scaremongers, so with the issue of overpopulation and family planning.
This country is rather schizophrenic when it comes to family planning and reproduction; on the left, especially, there is a kind of rabid loathing of large families. Back when 'OctoMom' was in the news, some of the comments that were posted on newspaper websites regarding her large family went well beyond righteous indignation over her circumstances. The hatred was directed at all people with large families, and the squeaky-clean Duggar family was condemned as fiercely as OctoMom, with her artifically-conceived multiple births, paid for by the taxpayer.
Even some on the right see large families as loathsome and backward; something that is part of 'white trash' tradition rather than part of mainstream America.
However, in the overall context, most conservatives in my experience will argue fiercely that there is no overpopulation; this earth can support many, many more people, no problem.
Still, they acknowledge that many parts of the Third World are overpopulated, but if one maintains that no restraints on reproduction are needed, what then is to happen to the overcrowded Third World? If you believe there is no overpopulation, it seems to me you are making mass migration from the Third World to the First World a necessity. Obviously these Third World countries cannot sustain unlimited population growth.
The diehard Republican, probably repeating what Rush says, insists that there is not a shortage of resources, just a distribution problem. The solution is supposedly that we install non-corrupt governments in the problem nations, increase foreign aid, or best of all, just teach them about 'free markets and capitalism'. Then all would be well. There is no need to curtail population growth.
Stories like this one illustrate the spillover from the backward nations to the Western countries.
The United Kingdom is the most densely populated country in Europe, with the Netherlands close behind. Notice the chart in the linked article which notes the high population density in Malta, which is besieged by African immigrants.
By 2031, the ONS forecasts, England will have 464 people per square kilometre.
Around 70 per cent of population growth is a result of immigration, and much of the rest is accounted for by higher birthrates among recent immigrants.
The most crowded country in Europe, according to the statistics, is Malta.
But Malta is a small island with only 400,000 citizens, most of whom live in and around the city of Valletta.
Crowding in England is almost double that of Germany and quadruple the population density in France.
The figures are likely to increase concern over Labour's plans to build hundreds of thousands of homes, mainly in southern England.
The homes are needed to cope with the increasing population and there are fears that many will end up on green belt land that is currently protected.
Tory MP James Clappison, whose questioning secured the release of the figures, said: "These figures show that England, if not the most crowded already, will very soon be so.
"Immigration is a substantial factor leading to greater population density."
He added: "This is more evidence of the impact of immigration, and if present patterns of migration continue we are going to get much more crowded. There will be a big impact on quality of life."
No kidding.
Collins' article on VDare notes that not many decades ago, officials in this country were very much in favor of family planning in the Third World. What happened to turn that situation around? As of now, our officials, and the elites, are certainly aware of the exploding populations of the Third World because they constantly call our attention to the misery of the Third World: starvation, disease, natural disasters, and we are told that we must do more to help them, that is, to enable the population to grow even more. That is what our foreign aid and our charity money does.
Where is the concern for this issue? Why is the only proposed solution is for the West to accept more and more 'refugees' and immigrants? At some point, there has to be a reckoning; our present method of dealing with the problem just kicks it further down the road.
I realize some people have religious compunctions about contraception or family planning, but I don't think there are that many Catholic purists who oppose all contraception. I don't think that most Christians believe that unlimited reproduction is mandatory or decreed by God.
No, the main resistance to population control comes from the left, who probably believe that to encourage limits on Third World reproduction would be tantamount to ''genocide''. And then there are the conservatives who know there is a problem, but who essentially turn a blind eye, and adopt the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' approach so as not to be called racists.
I think that there is also quite a contingent of Republicans, of the blind follower variety, who cannot bring themselves to support any kind of population limits because it either smacks of 'leftism' to them or of 'nazism.' Just as they label any concern for the environment as 'envirowacko' nonsense and propaganda, so with warnings about overpopulation: it's 'Chicken Little scaremongering.'
This kind of knee-jerk politics is a bane of our society in the 21st century.
All efforts to curtail excess reproduction need not involve heavy-handed government meddling, as with China's policies, nor need it involve support for abortions, forced sterilization, etc.
There are humane, common-sense measures that could be taken. It is not an all-or-nothing choice.
Most of all, though, the hysteria that surrounds the race issue in our day is responsible for our inability to face up to, and to discuss, rationally, the issue of overpopulation.
Meanwhile, it seems that the people at the top of our society, who supposedly want to drastically reduce the earth's population according to reports, are at the same time encouraging, passively or actively, the growth of the Third World.
Why? It appears to me that they at some point may have decided to 'use' the crisis of overpopulation in an effort to build their Tower of Babel, one-world system.
Otherwise it makes no sense -- but little does, in this topsy-turvy universe we now inhabit.
On this day...
There is a school of thought on the right which holds that if we just stopped provoking Islam, one way or the other, they would either leave us alone, or agree to coexist with us. That will never happen. I can agree that we need to stay out of the Middle East and refrain from taking sides. However, doing so will not buy us peace with Islam or make them our friends. Ever. The enemies of our enemies are not our friends.
There is more about the battle here and you might also read some interesting comments by Petr at Spirit Water Blood here and here for further elucidations on why we and the Islamic world are never to be compatible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)