Home » democracy

Category Archives: democracy

No predictions, but…

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?

 

An inside job

Posted on by | 1 Comment

No doubt I’ve grown more suspicious and cynical about politics over the last couple of decades (especially in the post-Clinton years) but this media-created Trump scandal smacks of an inside job, probably planned by the GOPe/Never Trumpers. Ted Cruz is now ‘considering’ withdrawing his half-endorsement of Trump; I think he only did it knowing full well this ‘bombshell’ was coming in October, then he could affect a stance of moral outrage and withdraw his support. Likewise, Ryan.

And it’s possible, at least according to this, that the whole thing may have been co-ordinated with Hillary’s people, who may have given a ‘heads-up’ to the GOPe.

This is all just more evidence that both parties are hopelessly corrupt and that they are in fact a ‘uniparty’ who merely put on a ‘pro-wrestling’ type of show of being antagonists, each claiming to represent the people. To them, we are just dupes and fools, apparently. A plague on both their houses.

Trump should really run as an independent although I am sure that would prove to be more difficult than it sounds.

Putting paid to ‘birtherism’

Posted on by | 4 Comments

As I often do I am going to take a contrarian position on this whole story, which is being discussed here, on Steve Sailer’s blog, among other places.

Does it all end with a whimper, after, what, 8 years of controversy? And all because one man steps before a microphone, saying it isn’t true?

I am sure that ‘resolution’ makes certain people in high places very happy; now the issue can be declared dead and laid to rest. And even more to the point, the whole issue of the ‘natural-born’ requirement for presidential candidates is now declared irrelevant, according to those who were always opposed to the so-called ‘birthers.’

The consensus on the ”right” seems to be that the whole controversy originated with Hillary Clinton, or her campaign in the person of the sleazy Sid Blumenthal. Therefore, goes this line of ‘reasoning’: Hillary started it, and therefore it was bogus and it was a lie, hence it’s delegitimized by being associated with her or her lackeys.

Now what’s the name of that logical fallacy again? Whatever it’s called, it is dishonest and just not valid to say that because person X makes a statement or raises a question that the claim is automatically discredited, or obviously a lie. The fact is, too, that nobody offers proof of the statement that Hillary (or Blumenthal) started the controversy, or that they were the first to ask the obvious questions about the birth of a presidential candidate.

Those who’ve read this blog know that while I didn’t write much on the ‘birther’ issue I expressed my disgust with the very vociferous ‘anti-birthers’ who acted as ”concern trolls” whenever people posted blog pieces or forum topics on the birth controversy. If those antis had had their way, nobody would have been allowed to discuss it, lest ”we look ridiculous to the left”. “You’ll make us a laughingstock; we’ll lose the election if you don’t shut up!” Such was the tenor of their ‘arguments.’ Sad. More than sad.

Does the Truth matter to more than a handful of people on this planet anymore?

I do remember that during the 2008 election the birth issue was raised by a number of bloggers, one being a blogger known as Dr. Kate. There were a number of others. A lot of scholarship and investigation went into the question on the part of some people, whose efforts are now being repudiated.

The only reason, as far as I can see, that the GOP establishment did not take up the hue and cry is political correctness. Then, as now, they were running scared from the ‘r-word’, just as I knew they would. They refused to touch the issue, while Hillary felt more free to exploit the obvious doubts, being more protected by the media and her constituency. That does not mean she invented ‘birtherism.’

It is by no means self-evident to me that Hillary started it all with a big lie as most are happy to accept. I need to have that proven to me, but then again there will be few people who will touch the subject now. Nobody likes being smeared as a ‘conspiracy kook’, a ‘birther’ (why should that be a slur, anyway) or a ‘Sperg.’  I really hate that last childish insult. It’s a low kind of ad hominem aimed, I guess, at people who are deemed too ‘nitpicky’, what the Freudian idelogues call ‘anal.’ So you see, standards and rules are important only to people with Aspergers, or autistic people, or ‘anal’ people. Thank you, social “sciences”, for creating new labels to discredit differing opinions and the personalities of those who hold unpopular opinions.

I know that the younger ‘rightists’ say that the Constitution has become an idol and that we need to get over our obsession with the Constitution — but that’s much like what C.S. Lewis warned about when he said that each age paradoxically argues against the very things that are all but defeated and extinct. For example, a libertine and licentious age rails against ‘puritanism’ and ‘prudery’, as is happening now, things which most know full well are on life support. The antis just want to make sure that the old standards are good and dead, and in no danger of resurrection. They are determined to put a stake in the heart of anything traditional lest it recover and spoil their party.

So to most ”rightists’ of whatever stripe, the Constitution is something best forgotten, including the requirement that our presidents be natural-born. They say they do not care. And during the primaries the Cruz supporters declared that the ‘birthers’ who objected to a Canadian-born, half Cuban immigrant candidate were crazy or out of bounds to even raise the question.

Anti-birthers, you won, and now the field is officially wide open for anyone from anywhere to be elected presidents. Thanks to the anti-birther concern trolls, who’ve won the day by shouting down the people with legitimate unanswered questions.

 

 

Could it be done today?

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The New American has an article on Operation Wetback, the 1950s deportation program, under which some 100,000 illegals were sent back home, and 700,000 more self-deported.

Despite it having been done once, there is always a stubborn opposition mentality saying that it can’t be done. And then of course there is the group (which sometimes overlaps with the ‘can’t be done’ crowd) who say that it shouldn’t be done, because The Children. Breaking up families. The usual rhetoric. And let’s not forget those who argue from economic self-interest, often cheap labor employers, who argue that they can’t get lazy or greedy White Americans to fill their needs, or who argue that it would hurt our economy generally or make our produce and other foods prohibitively expensive.

But mostly people tend to say ”they could do it back then, but it’s different today.” And in part that’s true, because back in 1954 the news media was not so monolithic and so overwhelmingly left-wing and hostile to White Americans as is the case now. Now, the ‘lying press’, the Enemy Media, would work to generate outrage against any large-scale repatriations. Protesters, some professional, hired rent-a-mob types, would be agitating and attempting to provoke incidents. But should we just give up in advance and let that side continue to control events?

Some think so. Take a look at the Free Republic thread on the article. One poster dominates the thread with arguments on why we ‘can’t’ deport people on a mass scale.

Suppose you started tomorrow.

How many years to get through all the court filings to stop the deportation? We simply didn’t have all the various feel good groups willing to file cases to stop/slow down the deportation back when Ike was prez.

How long before the nightly dose of crying mothers and screaming kids on the 5 PM news being separated from their families and carried off to Mexico reaches the point that the people demand that it be stopped?

Then, what you going to do if Mexico refuses to allow the buses/trucks/planes carrying these deportees to enter their country? While the media films the deportees stuck at the border?

9 posted on Monday, August 29, 2016 10:04:53 AM by DugwayDuke (“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”)”

 

Well, Dugway Duke selected an appropriate tagline, anyway.

So, as one more sensible commenter says sarcastically, we should just give up; if we can’t deport them all, then we can’t deport any.

Dugway Duke and those who think along the same lines seem more concerned about how the left, the bleeding hearts, and the lying media perceive them, more than about what is best for this country and its rightful people. They care more about public opinion, (even as dishonestly represented by the media) than about their posterity. Granted, the word ‘posterity’ is a little abstract for most people; let’s say instead, our children and grandchildren.

But then again, Free Republic is the internet home of a lot of people who are at best, at best, civic nationalists, proposition nationalists, who think that even if America is populated mostly by Central American mestizos, Somalis, Middle Easterners, as long as they speak English, salute the flag, and vote Republican, they are the same as you and me.

As to the discussion about whether ‘self-deportation’, induced by cutting off public benefits to illegals, is more feasible, I see no downside. Illegals, or even legal immigrants and ‘refugees’ should not receive public benefits. In the past, immigrants had to prove they could support themselves, and not become public charges. They had to have sponsors who agreed to assist them if they had no assets to speak of, no marketable skills. But now just about every immigrant family except for the wealthy ones use some form of public assistance. Many well-to-do families with aged parents put the older generation on SSI, which they are entitled to by law, now. So grandma and grandpa, though they have affluent adult children who are employed or in a profession, get SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, and Section 8. And these are legal immigrants, not illegals.

So yes, end benefits for immigrants, regardless. Republicans often think that no American should receive assistance in any form; I dare them to take such a tough stance with immigrants. They usually don’t. They reserve the resentment for their own, sad to say.

But having benefits taken away may or may not cause the immigrants to self-deport. Why? Because many do work, but ‘under the table,’ paid in cash by Americans who don’t want to pay more to a fellow American to care for their children, or for their aged parents, or to do their yard work and home repairs. True, you don’t get value for money when you hire cheap foreign domestic help. Children are not as well cared-for, and they may grow up speaking broken English if left with foreign “nannies”. Home maintenance jobs are often ineptly or carelessly done.

It all comes at a cost, yet Americans continue to hire illegals. How can we stop this, when it’s going on covertly to some degree?

And then there are plenty of illegals involved in some way with the drug cartel activities, even in my town. There are illegals who are involved in property crimes as well as more sophisticated schemes connected with immigration: human trafficking, identity theft, forging documents, and so on. We all know this. And this is the source of income for many illegals who are not getting social service assistance. If welfare, SSI and all the rest were the only enticement or their only source of sustenance — but that’s not the case.

Then, too, there is the fact that many, many illegal alien criminals were deported and yet they returned, multiple times. The illegal who killed Kate Steinle in the infamous San Francisco shooting incident is but one example of many. Another was Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, the serial ‘railway murderer’ of some years ago. Our ridiculously porous borders are not serving their purpose.

So then must we resign ourselves to this intolerable situation because of the bad press that would accompany any efforts at fixing the problem? I have no easy answers, no magic fix. And if we wait until the majority comes to a consensus about this, we will be lost for sure. What I will say is that political solutions, at least in a ”democracy” with a sorely divided electorate, will likely never be the answer.

At last

Posted on by | 3 Comments

At last, here’s one blogger who sees the situation somewhat as I do. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would say it.

On Wednesday, Donald Trump betrayed his supporters on the issue that has defined his campaign: immigration. Unfortunately, with Hillary setting her campaign on fire left and right, this has gone mostly unnoticed. We need to make noise about this everywhere and immediately.”

Well, here I am, making noise about it in my quiet little corner of the blogging world, if it will do any good.

Why is there so little commentary from the (real) right on this issue? Are people especially quiet because they are uncomfortable with acknowledging the situation after investing so much in the Trump candidacy? Is it peer pressure or a desire not to rock the boat?

Of course there are some comments (I knew there would be) defending Trump’s ‘going for the centrists’ or trying to ‘get more votes’ because it’s all about ”winning.” I’ve heard all this before, when G.W. Bush was in office and campaigning for re-election. The Bushbots said all the same things, and they used the same blustering tone to shout down anybody who dissented. But the dissenters were right all along, as time has shown, while the Bushbots never, ever acknowledged that their guy was indeed selling out not only his base but the American (White) people. But he won, you see, he got re-elected despite his devotion to the ”immigration reform” (amnesty) cause.

As I said then, if we ”win” by compromising, selling out, whoring after minority votes or ‘squishy centrists’, what will we have won? Winning the election is not an end in itself, although politicians seem to see it as such.

And in retrospect, what did we win, by winking at Bush’s moving to the left?

I said before, when the Univision story appeared,  that I would give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and hear what he had to say. What he has said since then has not convinced me that the initial story was ‘a lie’, as his devout followers said.

As to his latest promises to deal with criminals (“cartel members, thugs”) it very much sounds as if his plans to deport immigrants will apply only to illegals who are known criminals. This will leave tens of millions of un-vetted illegals and legals, people with no valid identification or with forged IDs (many of them have multiple fake IDs, which can be purchased most anywhere where there is a large Latino colony). Deporting only known or convicted criminals who are here illegally will be a mere drop in the ocean.

And what’s to stop them from returning multiple times, as so many criminal aliens have done, and are doing?

As for the plan not amounting to ‘amnesty’ because ‘they will have to pay a fine, and back taxes‘, as Trump said, this is much like the earlier amnesty proposals (which the pols said were not amnesty); it’s not much different from the ‘Gang of Eight’ plans.

Trump is supposed to make another statement soon on his immigration plans. But I have a feeling that he will again parse his language carefully so as to mollify his supporters, throwing a few crumbs to his White base. I am open to being proven wrong, but as I’ve said before, he can’t serve two masters. He seems to have betrothed himself to the ‘black community’ whose plight he has expressed so much concern for, and to those ‘terrific people’ who just happen to be here illegally.

G.W. Bush redux.

Update: here’s another blog piece on the subject, from the Unorthodoxy blog.

Conservatism and ideology

Posted on by | 1 Comment

Where to begin?  This piece is in response to a lengthy discussion here, and as I can’t usually get a blog comment published on Blogger, and as a blog comment can’t cover the subject, I’ll say my piece here.

Recently I wrote a piece about the necessity of some countervailing force to the ‘progressives’ who are demolishing our country. Especially is this true in our decaying society wherein the Left has been careening out of control, unchecked, so that our society is unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. If those who say that ‘conservatism’ per se is useless and must be destroyed offer no alternative to it as a preserving force in society, what will check the hell-bent-on-change ‘progressives’?

Firstly, the comments I linked above seem mostly to agree that conservatism is useless because it has ‘no ideology’, being based only on ‘feelz’. But is this true? Is it true that conservatism has no ideology? The paleocons (are there still any surviving?) would say conservatism has no ideology, because ideology is opposite from conservatism and vice-versa. I’ve never encountered an old-time conservative who said otherwise. It is only the neocon, present-day Republican faithful who always rattle on about “conservative eye-dee-ology“, insisting that it’s what new immigrants (and black Americans) must adopt to succeed. I’ve had my share of disputes with such typical Republican, neocon, pro-war ‘conservatives’ over this ‘conservative eye-dee-ology’ which is a sine-qua-non. In my experience it’s only those now labeled ‘cuckservatives’ who yammer about ‘conservative ideology‘ and its paramount importance. It is the Cruzbots and the Never Trumpers who are the ones who always go on about the ideology of conservatism. Cruz was their guy because he is a ‘strict Constitutionalist’, a devotee of the Ideology.

As they believe in the ‘proposition nation’ they have to believe in ideology; that’s after all what holds a ‘proposition nation’ together, however tenuously.

An ideology is needed where there is no natural, organic bond and consensus among a people.

By contrast, most paleocons (who, for the uninitated, were the conservatives who are most closely akin to the Alt-Right, being racially aware, noninterventionist, against open borders, and anti-free trade and globalism) disagree.

I’ve said that conservatism is an instinct — a gut instinct, nothing to do with feminine-type feelings, or ‘feelz’, but visceral and bred-in-the-bone. Certain peoples are more conservative by nature, just as some individuals. Some seek change for its own sake, seeming to crave novelty and the exotic, loving risk and danger, while some are innately averse to such things. I believe this because it comports with what I’ve observed in my years of living and working, not because a psychiatrist says it and invents pseudo-scientific labels for it. Needless to say, liberals are often risk-taking types with all the ‘dysfunctions’ that implies. Conservatives are people who prefer order and stability over thrills and unpredictability. And though there are exceptions there is still a general rule. And we as a people (even ”conservatives”) show evidence of the risk-taking, thrill-seeking temperament, compared to our forefathers. (Yes, they took risks and braved dangers beyond the endurance of today’s coddled thrill-seekers, but that’s not the same impulse.)

Conservatism is a temperament. But ideology? It’s a systematic set of beliefs codified by some person or persons, not an organic set of principles that grows amongst a  people based on shared innate tendencies. Some modern dictionaries give more liberal definitions, implying that an ideology is more of a spontaneously-arising group consensus.

The word ideologue, for most people, implies rigid beliefs, dogmatic and doctrinaire tendencies. Notice that leftists by whatever name had purges of their peers who are found guilty of wrong-think, violation of the Sacred Ideology which must not be questioned. ‘Correct’ ideology is a must with leftists. And lately we’ve seen ”conservatives” or cuckservatives doing this as Trump and his supporters have been ‘read out’ of the conservative ‘movement.’ Personally I hate that term ‘the movement’ because I associate it with the radical left. The Sixties left always referred to itself as The Movement.

So the conservatives being condemned in the discussion thread are really liberals or ‘neocons’ in conservative clothing, not people who would have been by any measure considered ‘conservative’ in previous eras. They simply subverted the Republican Party (and that was one of the stated ‘Goals of the Communists’ as reported by Cleon Skousen in his writings) and proceeded to destroy it from within and discredit the very label “conservative” by polluting it with their own un-conservative policies and, yes, “ideology.” The neocons are ideologues par excellence, as are their leftist brothers.

Part of the neocons/cuckservatives ideology is the idea that everybody everywhere is capable of ‘democracy’ and that if we only send our armies in and ‘give’ them democracy, they will be good Jeffersonians in no time. Another tenet is that blacks and all immigrants can be real Americans if they salute the flag, wave the Constitution (like Khizr Khan, that good American) and thus celebrate Conservative Eye-dee-ology.

Obviously, their “conservative ideology” shares the blank slate, magic dirt tenets with leftist-liberals.

One of the better conservative thinkers, Russell Kirk, was adamant that conservatism is not an ideology, though I see that the commenters on the VP thread don’t like Kirk for the most part, lumping him in with today’s  ‘cuckservatives’. But if you read Kirk, which I have, he was very opposed to multiculturalism, globalism and political correctness, and he was racially aware, though in the context of his time. I recommend reading his work if you haven’t already, though he must be read with an open mind, not a mind already made up against him.

Kirk, while not ‘perfect’, perhaps, in the eyes of today’s impatient Alt-Righters, could be seen as a forerunner of Neo-reaction. He was not a ‘neocon’ by most measures.

In the earlier years of this blog, we had some lively discussions among the then-regulars; hard to believe, I know, but true. Many were young, and there was kind of generalized clamor among some of them that ”we need a manifesto.” I disagreed with that sentiment. I find the clamor for an ”ideology of the Alt-Right” to be the same, and while it’s understandable to a degree, I think it’s unnecessary and wrong-headed. There would no doubt be many different opinions as to what would constitute a codified set of Alt-Right principles or beliefs. There would be squabbles, considering that the Alt-Right or Neo-reaction includes some very different groups, groups who do not play well together. There are so many divides, even among American Alt-righters, for example the pro-Confederate Southrons vs. many Northerners who still blame slavery on the South, or consider Southrons ‘traitors’ for seceding. Then factor in religion or lack thereof, the divisions based on sex, ethnic nationalists vs. WNs or pan-Europeanists, Identitarians, and so on. Could such disparate groups with so many inter-group grievances work together and agree on much of anything?

It has to boil down to making survival a priority; what is good for us at this point in history — this very crucial point.In essence, our gut instincts have to take over;  our natural, God-given affinities, not some set of abstract principles. People who put abstractions and disembodied human reason above gut, natural instincts are what I call ideologues.

People won’t naturally sacrifice for abstractions; will not defend abstractions to the last man. Ideas cannot unite people, not for long anyway. Our country worked as long as it did (and yes, it did work, for a good while) because it was founded by a people with a common origin, sharing common ancestors, and a common religion — paraphrasing John Jay.

The new Ireland

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Many Irish-Americans, provided they haven’t actually visited Ireland lately, still think of Ireland as a country which is religious and socially conservative, safe, and above all, populated by Irish (mostly Catholic).

Meanwhile, in the real Ireland of 2016, the Minister of Social Protection is surnamed Varadkar, and he is ‘out’ as a homosexual. I can just hear someone say ‘Ireland is a nation of immigrants’ — oh, wait, that’s what they say about our country. They say it also about Britain or any historically White country these days. Whatever. By their constant use of that refrain to pummel immigration skeptics into submission, they succeed in making it true, as propagandized populations begin to believe the lies over time.

Varadkar, in case you are wondering, has a father from India and an Irish-born mother.

But all the same, no doubt, he is more Irish than the Irish themselves.

However he does not seem to share the same set of ethics as most Irish people, who, despite the social changes accompanying the transition to post-Christianity, are probably still more pro-life than many other Western nations.

An Ireland with African mayors, an Ireland where a native-born mayor is driven to quit following a controversy over his remarks about African migrants — where are the ethnopatriots in Ireland? I know there are a few but it seems the Irish are in the throes of xenophilia or more properly xenomania. It seems they have so identified with the ‘immigrant’ because their folk have so often immigrated to other countries for economic reasons, and because of the famine and colonialism, they see Africans as fellow oppressed folk.

It appears that much of the nationalist fervor that led to past rebellions against the much-hated Brits was not motivated mainly by ethnopatriotism but enmity towards, and envy of, the British. The result we see in these news stories out of Ireland is what happens when nationalism is not so much based on love, or above all, on loyalty to one’s kinsmen, but on hatred of some outside group.

Several years ago I wrote a post addressing this in an American context. We are very united in dislike for ‘the elites’ or some other group — everyone has their favorite minority, it seems, and many have their favorite enemy as well. But do we love our own folk, do we have enough loyalty to our own, to attain some kind of solidarity? I believe that love for folk and family and Faith have to animate our desire to prevail; animus cannot take us that far, especially when we can’t always agree on exactly who or what is ultimately responsible for our predicament.

Time will tell. I hope Ireland wakes up, and I hope the same for the American majority.

A conservative says this?

Posted on by | 3 Comments

A poster on a ‘conservative’ forum shared an e-mail which he got from the Ted Cruz campaign, apparently one of those mass e-mailings that solicit support and money.

From the text of that e-mail, ostensibly written by Cruz himself:

“If we choose freedom, our future will be brighter.
Freedom will bring back jobs and raise wages. Freedom will lift people out of dependency and to the dignity of work.

47 years ago today, America put a man on the moon. That’s the power of freedom.
Our party was founded to defeat slavery.
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
We passed the Civil Rights Act, and fought to eliminate Jim Crow laws.
Those were fights for freedom, and so is this.”

Then the request for money followed. Cruz is (I hope!) delusional if he expects people to send him money for his failed campaign now, especially after his reneging on his promise to endorse Donald Trump. But does anybody see the obvious contradictions in the above quoted text? Couldn’t anybody with conservative instincts (and I mean that in the classic sense, not in the political sense, as in today’s Republican party) see the glaring, blinding contradictions in Cruz’s invoking ”freedom” while expressing support for liberal, egalitarian principles?

There is a well-known quote attributed to both John Taylor of Caroline and John Randolph of Roanoke, two great Virginian statesmen, who said “I love liberty; I hate equality.” Today’s conservatives (or cuckservatives?) would probably object strongly to those words. But there is sense in those words, and truth, though that truth is  mostly rejected today, especially by the likes of politicians like Cruz and unfortunately many self-described ‘conservatives.’ These people apparently fail to see, or refuse to see, that the Civil Rights Act and the elimination of Jim Crow laws (which Cruz boasts of) were anti-freedom, at least for the majority in this country. It was the beginning of the end of traditional America, in which we still had freedom of association, and in which we could still speak relatively freely, uninhibited by what we now call political correctness. We could still unabashedly care about our folk, and act in our own interests. Was that ‘unfair’ to the others in our society? Possibly, but is the current situation fair to us?

Under our system, the will of the majority was to be honored. After all, even in the best of situations not everyone can get what he wants, so is it not preferable that the majority, the greatest number, has its needs addressed? Now, minorities’ wills prevail over the majority, and that is a greater injustice. Many Americans rail against aristocracies and nobility because they feel that rule by a small group is a terrible injustice against the majority. And yet this is exactly what we have now. Yes, I know the real rulers are not blacks, sexual deviants, Hispanics, and Moslems, but the elites rule using them, and for political reasons choose to grant more freedoms and more concessions to those minority groups. Either way, it’s an injustice to the majority population.

Any ‘conservative’ should see that liberal policies such as those Cruz and his ilk boast of are detrimental to the freedoms of the people as a whole. Even if we are talking about ‘freedom’ in the abstract as libertarians are wont to do, egalitarianism comes at the cost of freedom. It is not possible to create ‘equality’ or equal treatment by fiat, or to force association with others at gunpoint, which is what Cruz and the average Republican pride themselves on.

‘Ending Jim Crow laws’ may sound like a great coup for ‘freedom’ because the term ‘Jim Crow’ has been loaded with bad connotations — but let’s admit that ending Jim Crow amounted to forcible ‘integration’ at gunpoint, and it is still going on now, as for example Section 8 tenants are placed into neighborhoods that are ”too White”. People must not be allowed to sort themselves according to their own interests or choices.

‘Equality’, or some semblance of it, can only be brought about by coercion, achieved by an overbearing government. And since the perfect equilibrium of that state cannot be maintained except by outside pressure and threat of force, it requires ongoing coercion.

Ted Cruz is obviously clueless about ‘freedom’ and about the principles on which this country was founded, but then as a foreigner and an immigrant, we can’t expect him to understand. But there’s no excuse for any American with even a basic education not to understand these things.

Fatalists, doomsayers, and the all-powerful ”They”

Posted on by | 10 Comments

Ever-present on the Internet, as well as in real life are the depressing presences whose role, as they seem to see it, is to throw cold water on any budding optimism or expression of hope. These are the people who tell us that any significant change for the better in our chaotic world is impossible. Usually the reason given for this is that ”They” just ”won’t allow it.”

“They” refers to the powers-that-be, in some cases meaning only the known governing class: the elected officials and the legally constituted authority. In other cases it refers to the shadowy ”elites”, only a few of whom are household names: Soros comes to mind. Most of us, however, don’t know who makes up this mostly anonymous group, other than the names mentioned on the membership rolls of these transnational groups who seem to be answerable to no one, at least no one known to us.

But the anonymous members of this group called ”They” evidently have superpowers; They control everything behind the scenes, and therefore our political system and our ”rights’ therein are just a hollow charade, because ”They” control all outcomes, somehow.

Recently I keep reading that the ”Brits” can never get out of the EU; the Brexit vote is rigged or will be tampered with to prevent the possibility of the measure’s approval.
Some of those who claim to be in favor of Britain leaving the EU nevertheless seem smug when they say ”They” won’t let the Brits leave, and besides, the Brits are zombies; brainwashed idiots who won’t save themselves, or other words to that effect.

(As if our country is not in equally bad shape, and our citizenry not just as mind-conditioned, if not more so; we have no cause to feel superior, in my opinion.)

Maybe Brexit is doomed to failure, though I pray it is not. I have no crystal ball. I keep my finger on the pulse of Britain to the extent that I can, but nobody, including these perpetual doomsayers, knows the future. Only the Lord God knows the future, and anyone who makes a bald statement that ‘Brexit will never pass; Britain is dead’ does not know what he or she is talking about. At least these arrogant know-it-alls might preface their remarks ‘I think‘ or ‘in my opinion.’ I suspect that these people are either expressing their nihilistic, misanthropic wishes for Britain, or at best, that they are hoping to be able to say ”I told you so!” if their dire predictions come to pass — out of malice, or because they simply want to be seen as great prognosticators.

Whatever. It takes all kinds, I suppose, but beyond the fact that the doomsayers are annoying, the worst thing about them is that their pessimistic, cynical predictions demoralize people. Yes, they do harm. They can make others feel hopeless and disheartened. They can actually cause some of us to disengage from the whole process because the supreme ”They” won’t let us change things. Why try? When we read and hear so many of these cynical, nay-saying comments, it can sap our energies. Even the most irrepressible or optimistic people can sometimes tire of trying to work against a seemingly invincible status quo, and an invisible enemy who seems never to flag or tire. Everybody gets discouraged at times, and the naysayers and the gloom-spreaders can quash enthusiasm and kill hope.

There are people who justify their lack of action by repeating what they hear from these fatalists: ‘What’s the use? “They” won’t let us change things.’ In discussing the American election many people say ”They” won’t let us elect Trump or anybody like him.’

Or: ‘ “They” will never let Texas [or the South] secede. Forget it.’

Who are “They”? Whoever ”They” are, ”They” are assuredly not God. They are not even small-g gods. They are not demigods. They are not superhuman. They undoubtedly have great wealth and the power that wealth brings, but their power is not infinite. “They” are not in charge of this world, though “They” doubtless imagine or wish it to be so.

This is still God’s world, though it’s temporarily in enemy hands. God is always in control, and no one has a chance against him.

Even those reading this who are not Christians realize that our enemies (who are also God’s enemies) are not omnipotent. Nor are they omniscient, despite their heavy-handed attempts to know everything about everybody everywhere.

Of these would-be rulers of all, we read in the Bible:

Psalms 2:4
4″He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”

Psalms 37:13
“The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.”

And how many of the army of doomsayers and cynics, whose relentless message amounts to ‘resistance is useless’ are actually in the service of these people in some form or other? As of now I am assuming that anyone who seems to be pushing defeatism and counseling resignation is likely working for our enemies, wittingly or unwittingly.

Dangers of the ‘big tent’

Posted on by | 8 Comments

Now that quite a few ex-GOP voters, or at least disaffected conservatives, have finally seen the hopelessness of supporting the GOPe, it seems the folly of trying to win over liberal voters, may overtake the disgruntled ex-Republicans, as in the GOPe.

For years the GOPe has been chasing the elusive Hispanic vote, which, every election cycle, is said to be on the verge of shifting to the GOP. Somehow it remains elusive. And the Republicans continue chasing the Hispanic vote in vain. Now it will be gays.

Welcome aboard…regardless of your politics, this is about American Nationalism, whether we have a nation at all. Anyone who wants to demonstrate some sanity by voting for Trump is welcome.

So says one of the ‘conservatives’ at Free Republic, responding to an anonymous piece written by an alleged gay who has seen the light, thanks to last night’s gay bar massacre, and now is committed to voting for Trump.

Years back, I used to try to dissuade the GOP party faithful types against trying to court the various ‘minority’ voters. Yet these votes seemed to be more coveted and more sought-after than those of the paleocons or old right types, who by then were being shunned as ‘John Birchers’ and ‘rednecks.’ Is the gay vote the next frontier for the right?

The Free Republic comments mostly express eagerness to welcome disaffected homosexuals who are now willing to vote for Trump. First of all, even if the anonymous article was in fact written by an actual homosexual who has been converted, what would make anyone think that he is in any way typical, or that he portends a trend away from the Democrats on the part of homosexuals? Would one event cause any committed Democrat to change over to the Evil Party? Are gay voters any less fanatical in their devotion to the left than their straight counterparts?

And suppose the right does discover a windfall of new converts among gays. What then? Will they coexist peacefully with the Christian right, many of whom still oppose homosexuality and special rights for homosexuals?

All that I can envision happening, realistically, is that the ‘right’ will gradually or suddenly become more accommodating to ‘gay rights’, seeing homosexuals in a new light as an essential constituency. Voila. The announced intention of gay activists, some years ago, was to mainstream their agenda, diminish opposition to their ‘lifestyle’ and to destroy any organized resistance on the right, as social conservatives would be marginalized as ‘extremists’ and bigots. They expressed an intent to infiltrate both parties; why not ensure they have supporters on both sides?

Do we really need more Lindsey Grahams on the right? Lindsey was nicknamed ‘Grahamnesty’ for a reason.

All that happens when the Big Tent is made more inclusive is that each minority group stakes out its territory and becomes a special constituency which must be accommodated and appeased and bought off, in exchange for their continued support.

The right, and this includes the alt-right, with the Milo phenomenon, should be wary of embracing the gay agenda in the name of being ‘inclusive’ or of ‘showing the Left’ (“they can’t attack Milo, he’s gay!” — echoes of ”they can’t attack Clarence Thomas — he’s black!” Famous last words.)

Welcoming various kinds of ‘diversity’ in the name of using them to run interference for us, or for the sake of more ‘warm bodies’ to fill our big tent, or just to make ourselves feel good about our lack of bigotry — in the long run or even the short term it may backfire on us.