Polite Kid

Polite Kid

0 comment Friday, October 31, 2014 |
It seems to me that one of the sources of greatest division between the person who relies on public opinion or popular trends to determine his morality and the rest of us is that the former group of people believe in the 'evolution' of human beings in terms of morality and standards. What was good enough for our fathers: the eternal verities, the traditions, the old landmarks, none of these things is held in any regard by those we call 'liberals' or leftists or progressives. Their basic assumption is that WE (or at least the liberals of today) are the greatest generation; we have more understanding, are more enlightened, more true, more perceptive, and more 'sensitive' than our forebears, who were little better than the cavemen of popular lore, at least in matters of morality and practical matters. The older generations were sexist, narrow-minded, puritanical, repressed, judgmental, rigid, exclusivist, ''anal'' to use the hideous modern jargon. And it goes without saying, above all, that they were 'racist' and xenophobic and homophobic. And anti-Semitic.
I will offer just this one general piece of advice to those who believe that our generation is the last word on morality and enlightenment. Read old books; go to older sources for a needed balance or a corrective to today's popular morality and ideology.

C.S. Lewis wrote, in the Introduction to Athanasius on the Incarnation:
''Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.
All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook�even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united � united with each other and against earlier and later ages�by a great mass of common assumptions.
We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century � the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?" � lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth.
None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill.
The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.''
I would make one small objection to one thing Lewis says. He says there is nothing magic about the past, and that people were 'no cleverer' than they are now. I would say, with a few reservations, that they were 'cleverer' than we are now; they were certainly better-educated and more well-read, more versed in the classics, including the Bible, at least in certain eras. Our generation has been shockingly dumbed down. And no, in some ways they of the past were not any better than we are; as a Christian, Lewis would agree that in every age, people are sinners, we are born fallen.
However the Bible clearly says that some generations are worse than others. Mankind takes one step forward occasionally, but then tends to take two (or three) steps back. We are in one of those eras which has taken several giant steps backward.
The Bible tells me, as does my own power of observation, that people are 'waxing worse and worse' as we move through history.
In any case, each age, as I've said before on this blog, has its particular blind spots, and we need the corrective of the witness of people in other ages, who perhaps saw certain things with more clarity than we.
We need to have a word from past generations in order to understand ourselves and our world. If we get all of our information from our equally confused peers, or from the dishonest media and the opinion-makers, we will be the blind being led by the blind.
Once in a while on this blog I delve into some old book from my shelves, or I find an obscure old book in a used book store that I like to share with you. I think it's essential food for not only our minds but our spirits. Let's not lock ourselves into a house of mirrors where we see nothing but our own reflection; it's better to seek a glimpse of the wider world, of other vistas, of that 'other country' that is the past.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment Thursday, October 30, 2014 |
In yesterday's mail, among the advertising flyers, there was one of those Wal-Mart ads, which many of you probably received. On the front was a picture of four children in Hallowe'en costumes, and I couldn't help noticing the 'multicultural' makeup of the group of children. One of them was black, or mixed-black, one obviously Mexican, one of indeterminate (possibly Asian) race, and off to the left was one lone white child, a blonde girl.
In the early days of civil rights agitation, angry protesters picketed TV stations to demand the hiring of black reporters or anchors. In one rather absurd incident, back in 1970, a group picketed a major retailer because their mannequins were too white, and the protesters demanded the placement of black mannequins with Afro hairstyles -- 'white' hair would not be acceptable. The rationale behind the demands was always that any group of people -- or mannequins, apparently -- had to reflect the actual percentages of each race in society. However as we've seen, those quotas apparently have shifted to making whitey a minority in the media and in advertising. A cursory look at the demographics of actors in advertising and the numbers of minorities in the news media would lead us to conclude that minorities must now in fact be a majority, or close to it.
When I showed the Wally World advertising to a friend who was here at the time, and asked 'do you think they are sending a message?' she understood what I meant, and agreed. She then proceeded to tell me that in our local Christian school, the children in the younger grades are being taught Spanish. It's not as if it's an elective course in the upper grades as before, but Spanish is taught to all students in the lower grades. Mind you, this is in a town which has a rather low percentage of Hispanics, if you believe the official census figures from a few years ago. We've seen major demographic changes within a few short years in many areas, though my area is still fairly homogenous.
I can believe that a public school, which is bound to obey the dictates of multiculturalism, would do such a thing, but a private, Christian-run school? I'm afraid my once-conservative, Calvinistic neighbors have bought into the modern, liberalizing 'emergent church' phenomenon, and are now adopting many of the ideas that used to belong only to those watered-down liberal denominations.
But as to the demographic trends in my town, and county, officially Hispanics make up only 5 percent of our town -- up from 1-2 percent in the previous count. But there are signs: in the supermarket where I shop, sometimes local schoolchildren are taken on field trips there to see how the supermarket operates, and how people work. Recently one second-grade class had left a handmade thank-you message to the manager, thanking him for letting them visit. The children signed their names. Among the usual Kaydens and Jaidyns and Taylors and Tanners and Mykaylas, there were several Hispanic names such as Guadalupe, Cruz, Marisol, Javier. A quick calculation of the number of Hispanic names makes it look as though the class was about one-fourth Hispanic. I fully expect the ratio to grow. In ten years' time, what will it be?
The little girl in the Wal-Mart ad will be representative of white American kids in another ten years, probably, outnumbered 3 to 1. In some areas, such as in border states, this is already the case.
There are relatively few Hispanics in my town -- as yet -- but those who are here seem to be having a bigger share of the children. And my town is one with a higher-than-average family size, being mostly populated by Christians who still believe in large families. Still, the numbers are not in our favor.
We have see the handwriting on the wall, and though it's in Spanish, we can read the message.

Labels: , , ,


0 comment |
This response from Dr. Frank Ellis, answering David Cameron's speech at the Munich Security Conference, has been making the rounds, and has provoked a lot of discussion and much approbation.
I first saw it at Sarah, Maid of Albion's blog but it has been posted in many places. It's very incisive, very well-written, and he makes points that very much need to be made.
I am doubtful about how much 'mainstream' coverage Ellis will receive from this, though if we had an honest and objective, or even a non-hostile media, it would be widely covered.
This is very apposite right now:
In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.
You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: 'hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy�. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt�s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.''
But the most important part, to my mind, is his answer to Cameron's nonsense about multiculturalism and assimilation. Ellis says:
''Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We�ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We�ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.
For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of "we" does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of 'we� refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population 'to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong�. If, according to you, the 'we� failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this 'vision�? If they have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of 'vision of society�.
You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that 'instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone�. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is 'open to everyone� is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult�s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others.''
Bravo.
He obviously perceives the dishonesty and the hypocrisy in the blather by Cameron. Not only Cameron, but all the other Western 'leaders' recite the ritual disavowals of multiculturalism, knowing full well that they plan to continue to push that fraudulent ideology on their subjects despite their pretenses at being concerned about their own people, and about the grave problems of multiculturalism.
Despite the transparency of Cameron's attempt to delude his listeners, there are, believe it or not, still people all over the Internet cheering Cameron's supposed conversion. What has happened to people's attention spans that they no longer remember that these empty statements about multiculturalism are now a regular event? They say the words, these ''leaders'' and yet things don't change. Mass immigration goes on unchecked, and the 'hate speech' laws persist, and dispossession proceeds apace. Shouldn't a few people, besides Dr. Ellis, begin to perceive the obvious? The obvious fact is that Western political leaders are not serving their own people, and are in fact serving alien interests, or those of unseen 'elites' who pull their strings.
In any case, Ellis is right on target with this response.
I have noticed that commenters here and there keep saying Ellis is wasting his time because Cameron et al will not listen. It's likely true that none of the political leaders will heed what Ellis says, given that they serve other masters. But the value of Ellis's words are that they are, as in open letters generally, meant to convey a message, or set an example, or to inspire a wider audience. It may be that Ellis is seeking to energize others, to exhort them and perhaps give them courage to speak out or otherwise assert themselves. He may want to encourage more discussion of the dire situation in his country. Those are all reasons that may be motivating him. And I think those motivations are in a sense more worthy than trying to awaken some sense of conscience among the elected officials, which I think is mostly a lost cause. So I hope this statement by Ellis continues to be read and discussed, and that it has a snowball effect. Sooner or later, something has to get through to the somnambulists in our Western countries.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment |
Sam Houston was sworn in as first President of the Republic of Texas.

Labels: , ,


0 comment |
Another episode in the 'just one big family' series.
According to the news media, Henry Gates and the Cambridge policeman who arrested him, James Crowley, are distant kin -- both being descended from the 4th century Irish king, Niall of the Nine Hostages.
It seems to me that this is reminiscent of the campaign-era stories in the mainstream media which trumpeted 'Obama distant kin to Presidents' or 'Obama's Irish roots', all transparently intended to further convince readers that race is just skin-deep, and that we're all just one big family, one race, 'the human race.'
How that line fits with the whole storyline in these headlines: 'A historic first! America's First African-American President!' A Milestone! Moving beyond race! -- I don't quite understand.
I've read conflicting stories on Gates' alleged European ancestry, and it's all as may be. I question how these 'experts' in the article can say with certainty that 'x' number of men today descend directly from a 4th century individual. Do they have his DNA, or just DNA from those who think they are descended from him? It all sounds rather iffy to me, but I am not a genetics expert.
I do know something about genealogy, and I know that once you get back in time that far, the recorded information is pretty sketchy. If you come from a prominent family in Europe, one that has maintained careful records down through the centuries, there is more solid evidence of descent, but this kind of record-keeping was mainly limited to the more prominent families, in which ancestry and descent and family lineage were all-important because of lands, titles, and status in society. I just don't quite buy how it's possible to claim this kind of lineage without something more solid than the say-so of a researcher, and I have my doubts; is Niall's DNA available for comparison? My doubts are confirmed by the linked article.
The biggest caveat of this research is that without testing DNA from Niall�s remains, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Niall is the ancestor (and some argue that there never was a real Niall). For instance, Mrs. Niall could have only reproduced with the friendly neighbor, or a large fraction of the men with the signature Y chromosome could be descended from Niall�s promiscuous uncle George (I don�t know if there was an uncle, or if his name was George - it�s just an example).
I've expressed my skepticism here before about the validity and reliability of some of these DNA testing companies, which for a fee will pinpoint what your ancestry is down to fine details. Do we really possess complete enough samples to make such exact claims? For example, remember the story of Oprah claiming she learned of her Zulu ancestry, which was later contradicted by other testing. Would any American of black ancestry descend from just one tribe? Was there not considerable blending of several West African tribes among black slaves?
I'm skeptical on this whole subject, but open to being corrected.
In so many of these media stories about some famous figure's purported noble ancestry, there seems to be a political agenda at work, sometimes publicity, to make the celebrity or politician more glamorous by asserting his descent from some famous or infamous historical personage. It's just hype, in other words.
In even more cases, the media jumps on any opportunity to push their ''one planet, one people'' trans-racial propaganda. Look! We are all just kissin' cousins anyway, so let's all join together. Race is an illusion, we're all mixed and mingled hopelessly anyway, so embrace it.
Sorry, but this does not resonate with me. In reading some of these genealogical stories during the campaigns, I learned I was (likely) kin to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards. I say likely, because if the family trees given are correct, I am probably distant cousin to these people though that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards them.
As I recently quoted Proudhon as saying 'if everybody is my brother, I have no brothers', that applies here; if we are all cousins, then kinship is pretty meaningless. It's hard to love people in the abstract, on that kind of scale. We are not made for that kind of attenuated, stretched-thin 'brotherly love.' It has to be limited in scope or it is not love at all.
What racial lessons are we supposed to take from this latest absurd story about Gates and Crowley and their supposed common ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages? That Gates is an Irishman? To believe such is to stretch the definition of Irishman beyond recognition. Gates clearly bears grudges against his White ancestors and kin, and probably feels little fellow-feeling for medieval (or modern) Irishmen. That illustrates how race is not just a matter of mind, but a primal identification; blacks who are half White, as Gates is said to be, still feel and think black. And those on the left and on the right who would like that to change are dreamers. Having some White ancestry, particularly if it is further back in the family line, does not change one's essential identification.
Certainly the multicultists would like to deconstruct the whole notion of nationality and ethnicity, at least where European-descended peoples are concerned. And this serves that purpose. As I don't trust those who write these stories, nor the motives of the left, I can't take this story seriously. Beware of the multicultural agenda.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


0 comment Wednesday, October 29, 2014 |
There is an interesting post and discussion thread at Chronicles, in which Thomas Fleming discusses how feminism has undermined, to the point of destruction, our most basic social institution, marriage and family.
He notes how there are now few defenders, even among ''conservatives'', of the ''patriarchy'', as feminists have labeled our former traditions.
''The recent decision to deploy women on submarines has been hailed as a victory in the continuing struggle to liberate women from the oppression of the domineering male sex. Conservatives have generally deplored the move, citing the inevitable sexual tensions and lowering of morale that will result from putting young males and females in such close quarters for long periods of time. (And, think of all those poor male homosexuals who find the submarine service so attractive because of the lack of female competition!). Some conservatives even go so far as to declare their opposition to women serving in any military capacity, but they are a species on the endangered list: Even the great nemesis of women in uniform, James Webb, has backed off, proving once again, that no honest man can be a US senator.''
It is a worthwhile piece, and the discussion following is also good. I recommend reading it.
This piece particularly caught my interest, especially the first paragraph, which I have quoted above. In a recent post titled 'A little leaven', I mentioned the degree to which feminism (as well as leftism in all its manifestations) has captured 'conservatives', especially Republicans. Women in the military seems to be one idea which conservatives, despite strong opposition in the early days of feminism's propaganda onslaught, have now embraced.
As I mentioned in that earlier blog entry, those ''conservatives'' who argue for a co-ed military and women in combat, often do so on the basis that there are patriotic women who want to fight for our country, and they should not only be permitted to do so, but applauded and praised for it.
If one counters that women are simply not the equals of men in the realm of physical size, strength, and aggressiveness, the feminist 'conservatives' fall back on the old familiar liberal response: they will cite some exception which supposedly disproves the rule. Example: "I know a young woman who is as fit and strong as most young men, and she can fight alongside any man. Would you forbid her from doing her part to defend her country?"
The fact that women like the one described above are pretty rare does not deter these people from making a broad generalization that women can be the equals of men in battle, just because there are a few isolated examples of strong, brave, tough women.
Never mind, also, the fact that there is more than one way to ''serve one's country'', as in previous World Wars when women had auxiliary groups and occupied support roles, rather than going into combat in co-ed units with the men.
The other large faction of 'conservatives' who argue for women in combat and for a co-ed military is a group that seems to be mostly men, who argue from an egalitarian perspective: ''If women want to be equal, let 'em be 100 percent equal, and pull their own weight. Draft 'em. Make 'em serve. Make 'em fight and die just like the men. It's unfair to send only males out to fight and die for their country.''
I've heard that one more than a few times, and true to form, someone on the Chronicles thread says something similar.
Let's look at that argument. In a way, it's a concession to feminism. It posits that men and women are, or should be, for fairness' sake, equals in all things, and that women can just toughen up and take it like men, never mind that most women would be not fit nor willing to go into combat.
Now, is that the case because women are too cowardly or too lazy or too privileged to want to go to war, or because women are not fitted for such roles?
Should 'conservatives' be arguing from egalitarian principles like 'equality' and 'fairness'? Do those arguing these things actually believe the sexes are equal in ability to fight and in the aggressive traits needed to be an effective warrior? Do they believe that women and men can actually share living quarters, with little privacy or room for modesty, without problematic situations arising?
Do these egalitarians really believe that, or is their profession of belief in equality disingenuous? I think, obviously, that they believe no such thing; their arguments exhibit a desire to punish women, or feminists at least, by forcing them to endure the hardships of combat.
I can concede that the anger towards women is legitimate and justified. Feminism is and has always been a hostile, misandrist movement, which on its part has had punitive instincts toward males. So it is understandable that many men respond in kind.
But to go as far as to argue for women in the military and in combat just out of spite is going a little far. Firstly, does the conservative who makes these arguments believe that the presence of women in military roles in co-ed situations does not have a deleterious effect on male bonding and camaraderie, which is a big part of the effectiveness of the soldier and the military generally?
The presence of women in these situations generates sexual tension, sometimes jealousy and squabbling amongst the men. Men also feel the need to tone down their normal male group behavior because of the presence of females. Women, too, probably develop rivalries and squabbles with other women in the group, who may be romantic/sexual competition for them.
It's an established fact that pregnancies in the co-ed military are a problem, which anybody with common sense could have foreseen.
There is also the possibility during warfare for captured female soldiers to be raped, which possibility most of us who have daughters would take very seriously. But the hard-nosed egalitarian 'conservative' says ''so what? Men get raped too, why are women considered too delicate to risk that? Don't we value our sons just as much as our daughters?"
I tend to doubt that male prisoners are as likely to be raped by captors, although I could be wrong about that.
To return to the question of differences in muscular strength, stamina, and plain old grit, can the average female offer fellow male soldiers the same kind of physical back-up in a combat situation as another male would? To say 'yes' is being unrealistic, I think.
A while back, I mentioned a fire we had here at home, and the fact that one of the firefighters was a young woman who looked to be all of 5'3'' and rather small-framed. There is no way she could perform on the same level as her fellow firefighters who were all young men in their prime, most of them well over 6 feet tall, and solidly built. Sorry, but I want the strong young men here in the case of emergency, and if that hurts the girls' feelings, so be it.
I have heard that the physical requisites for these jobs have been lowered so as to give women a 'fairer' chance to qualify, and that in itself is wrong. It's the same with our military.
Women and men are not equals in all respects, certainly not in strength and size. To even have to say that is ridiculous; it used to be a given, something that even young children could see.
While acknowledging that there are no doubt some women who acquit themselves pretty well in the military, I still believe that these rare exceptions do not disprove the rule.
It does seem as though there is a fairly large group of people on the right who seem to think the idea of female soldiers is perfectly acceptable, whether through cynicism or because they have simply bought the egalitarian, leftist thinking that argues for overturning traditional male-female roles. It's ''progress'', or ''things are just different now; nothing stays the same forever''.
The larger question here, though, is why have so many conservatives bought into the egalitarianism of the left? Just as in the earlier blog entry I wrote, I will say that even some of us stubborn right-wingers have succumbed to the propaganda and to that old devil, peer pressure. These ideas are popular, and nobody wants to be an old fogey or a 'reactionary' or the dread 'sexist.'
That's the real issue that must be dealt with: how do we discourage or avert this insidious leftism, and once having found it, how do we excise it from our midst?

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment |
I realize it's one of life's most futile endeavors to try to understand the sub-species of people called variously "liberals" "Democrats" or "progressives". I am convinced they don't even understand themselves. It is no news to anybody who pays attention that they hold a confused mass of contradictory beliefs and that they refuse even to acknowledge the inherent contradictions in what they profess to believe, especially when their beliefs are compared with their actions.
Examples? I could give you many, and I am sure any of us could come up with different examples. But here's one, discussed recently by Steve Sailer, and discussed in the past on this blog: liberals claim to 'care' about the environment and population issues, yet they ardently advocate for mass immigration. Another: they decry and disparage White people who have large families while championing some of the most overly-fecund groups of people on the planet. You want more? They preach tolerance while shouting down and threatening those whose views are different.
Still, here I am trying to unravel their tangled ideas and make some sense of them.
I realize anecdotes are not proof of anything (unlike liberals, who belief anecdotes alone can prove their points or refute opponents' points) but anecdotes can illustrate patterns.
A friend and I were puzzling over the behavior and statements of two people we know, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom, predictably, voted for the present regime. Both are also women, but one is an elderly lady of 80 or so, while the other is a relative youngster at 50.
The commonality between these women, besides having voted for ''hope and change'', is that they are both White -- and both have some very politically incorrect beliefs on race. The octogenarian lady, understandably, given her age, uses some very politically incorrect language; she tends to be very blunt and salty, and prolifically uses the 'n-word.' The younger woman is a little more steeped in the PC pieties which have saturated our media (and our minds) for the last few decades. Yet recently she surprised me by offering an unsolicited opinion that when it comes to marriage and reproduction, people should 'stay with their own kind.' This rather took me by surprise, knowing that this woman voted as she did, and considering that she and I don't usually discuss these 'controversial' topics. Her burst of candor was provoked by her recently learning that a family friend had married interracially and had two biracial children of the union.
The older lady, I would suspect, would agree with her rather bluntly. Yet both of these women voted not just for a black president, but they support the multicultural/diversity agenda promoted by the political party they've chosen.
How can we explain this?
I've noticed this pattern with other Democrat/liberal people -- usually with women. A past co-worker of mine was quite the Democrat partisan, and a typical dilettante liberal, involved in every sort of hippy-dippy liberal/lefty/New-Age-y cause, but she too would say these very politically incorrect things on race. After returning from a day-long outing to Chinatown, though she loved her 'diversity', she announced it was wonderful to be back among her own kind. She also informed me that she would no longer hire Asians because she had had an Asian immigrant employee who quit without notice.
In my recent post 'Silence gives consent' I discussed how it seems that many people do not really, deep-down, believe in this multicultural, anti-White order that we have. They may give lip service to it, but the multicult propagandists don't seem to have succeeded in completely overwriting all of the innate natural preferences people have, regarding race and ethnicity, or in erasing the traces of the old cultural order, which allowed people to take note of the obvious differences among groups of people -- and to act accordingly. There are still some vestiges of these things even among liberals; whether you believe it is innate or learned, it's still there.
I suppose the FReepers and the rest of the colorblind conservative crowd would seize on the above anecdotes as more proof that 'liberals are the real racists' and 'Democrats are the haters, not Republicans.' No, I don't believe it's that simple, and moreover I think it's high time Republicans stopped trying to outdo the Democrats at currying favor with minorities and proving their lack of 'racism.'
Do these 'racist' liberals realize that their words don't fit their professed beliefs, and that it is bizarre to vote for a party or an ideology that would actually condemn them for even having taboo thoughts about race? Or is it understood somehow that if you vote the correct way, you get a free pass on certain politically incorrect statements because you are not a Republican or 'conservative'? Maybe that's the deal; in much the same way, blacks can freely use the 'n-word' while Whites are raked over the coals for even saying anything that remotely sounds like the n-word -- remember the furore over the word 'niggardly'? And we've all seen examples of lefty celebrities getting a pass on saying taboo things, while a Mel Gibson or a Dr. Laura are pilloried and all but run out of town.
I am left with just one plausible explanation as to why certain White people who seem to be somewhat racially aware still side with non-Whites politically, and support a political agenda that is anti-White to the core. The only explanation that might begin to make some sense of it is that the right, whether the Republican Party or conservatives in general or White Christians are portrayed as being so odious and so reprehensible that the only 'decent' thing to do is to vote Democrat. Somebody has done a very good job of villainizing the right, and the traditional order of things in this country.
There are people who voted for the current order of things who are not the brainwashed 'mad-dog liberals', as Cambria Will Not Yield calls them. They are not the true-believer ideologues or the nihilists that make up many of the so-called 'anti-fascist' young radicals. They are just people, often passive or uninformed, who have been persuaded that White 'conservatives' are a bigger danger to this country than any other group of people.
And though the statement I'm about to make may step on some toes, the fact is, the right can at times be its own worst enemy. When I was a liberal I believed, as liberals/leftists universally believe, that the right, including the not-that-conservative Republicans, are the champions of big corporations, big business, globalism, fat cats, and so on. There is something to this; all too often, the Republican Party is dominated by the Country Club 'respectables' who care only about their financial interests and the good opinion of their peers. There is too little regard for the salt-of-the-earth people of this country among many 'conservatives.' Therefore some rather well-intentioned but not very perceptive people have deluded themselves into thinking that the Democrat Party is for ''The People'' or ''the working man.'' Such of course is not the case; they, too, are the party of the elites and the 'fat cats' and the globalist predators, but they have managed to fool many people into buying the notion of their compassion.
I can only think that many people are still Democrats only because they have come to be convinced that the Democrats truly are the lesser of the evils. Whatever negative views they hold about the favored victim groups, their negative opinions of the Republicans are stronger.

Labels: , , ,