Polite Kid

Polite Kid

0 comment Tuesday, September 16, 2014 |
I expect most of you have read Steve Sailer's latest essay at VDare.
It fits very much with the theme we've been discussing here on this blog: the growing intolerance on the right toward anyone who transgresses the holy laws of political correctness.
Sailer notes with considerable disgust that virtually nobody on the 'respectable' right, such as the NRO crowd (with the exception of John Derbyshire) or the army of 'conservative' bloggers at Townhall wrote a word about the recent Watson controversy, despite its considerable import. After all, it is not just a political issue; although the assault on free speech should concern all good Americans, but the Watson story has implications for scientific inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Surely someone should care about that, even if they are not concerned about the political ramifications of the public humiliation of Watson.
Sailer sees in this situation a reflection of the lack of courage and integrity among those on the Right.
The level of intellectual integrity on the Right�let alone courage�is catastrophically lower today than just 13 years ago, when the John O'Sullivan-edited National Review responded to the publication of The Bell Curve by devoting most of its December 5, 1994 issue to an impressive symposium on race and IQ.
In it, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's bestseller was attacked by some, but also stoutly defended by Michael Barone, Michael Novak, James Q. Wilson, Dan Seligman, Arthur Jensen, and Ernest Van den Haag.
Where have you gone, Michael Barone? (Or John O�Sullivan, for that matter).''
In a recent entry on political correctness among conservatives I used the phrase 'the righteous right,' and wondered who had coined that term. Apparently it was Sailer, in the context of the Trent Lott debacle of a few years ago. At that time, I became extremely disillusioned with many in the Republican Party, not only the leadership but many average party members, as they all, as one, attacked Trent Lott and called for his head over his relatively innocuous remarks to Strom Thurmond. At that time, it was evident that political correctness was as much of a religion to many on the right as it is on the left. I found the whole Lott 'scandal' to be dismaying.
So yes, the 'righteous right' has embraced a peculiarly leftist form of 'righteousness'.
If you read the Time article linked above, you will see the liberals at Time lecturing the Republicans about their 'racist' ways, and the Republican response was to scurry to deny their 'racism.' The politically correct instinct in Republicans seems to be a conditioned response to any liberal accusations of bigotry, and the 'conservatives' who respond by conforming to the liberal rules can't seem to see that their eager compliance makes them appear to be deferring to the liberals, acknowledging that the accusations of bigotry are really true.
Sailer advises against apologizing for gaffes, as Lott did to little avail, and as Watson did:
Never apologize for a "gaffe" (i.e., the telling of an unpopular truth).
When you beg forgiveness, the hate-filled jackals just smell your fear and weakness. It excites them, so they pile on. Further, the watching crowd can't tell who's right, so they respect whoever seems the master of the situation at the moment.
In his October 19 response in the U.K. Independent, "To question genetic intelligence is not racism," Watson seemingly tried to be subtle, arguing that there was a difference between inferiority and diversity, then pointing out the Darwinian implausibility that everyone could have evolved to be identical.
Well, swell. But the politically correct don't engage in rational argument. They just hound and bludgeon. So you have to stand your ground.''
Sailer rightly admonishes that those who are hauled up before the PC kangaroo courts stand their ground. Yet there are few who seem able or willing to do this. I agree with Sailer that those among the 'righteous right' are buckling to the left, and failing to defend their own. We are allowing not only our 'side', but truth itself to be routed.
And in the context of the discussion we've been having here about the politically correct neocons, it seems that they have decided to follow the old saying, 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'' So now the PC neocon 'right' have taken to acting as part of the PC inquisition on their own, so as to pre-emptively ward off the accusations of the left. It seems they have so internalized the left's PC moralizing that they have themselves begun behaving like the left.
The consequences of this abdication by the 'right' are serious. The truth will be more marginalized and silenced than ever if those on the right, who are supposedly the upholders of the idea of truth and free speech in a morally relativistic, post-modern world, have given up and surrendered.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment |
...this ruling is not the last word, unfortunately.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday in Pensacola, Fla., that the Democrats' Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in particular the mandate that forces uninsured individuals to buy coverage, runs afoul of the Constitution.
"The individual mandate falls outside the boundary of Congress' Commerce Clause authority," Vinson writes in his 78-page ruling, "and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers."
Neither can it "be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not constitutional," concluded the Reagan appointee.''
This is good as far as it goes. But as we know, the left will continue to try to push their agenda despite these unfavorable decisions.
What troubles me the most is that too many 'conservatives' are in agreement with the left about health care for those they consider useless. Over at one blog (which shall remain nameless), a discussion is going on in which somebody quotes John Adams' famous line about how our system of government will only be capable of governing ''a moral and religious people.''' Another commenter adds an 'amen' to that quote -- while he has just finished saying that there should be NO medical care for the aged, only palliative care.
How can someone say 'amen' to Adams' words, referring to our government being for a 'moral and religious people'' while saying 'no medical care for the aged'? What kind of Christian, or in fact what kind of 'civilized' person says that?
This is your brain on libertarianism or 'tough-minded conservatism.'
This is what I meant about many 'conservatives' being crypto-libertarians, having read too many Ayn Rand books in youth.
Nietzsche, Rand et al have done more to destroy traditional values than just about anybody. 'Rand' or whatever her real name, and her acolytes and admirers have been useful to the left in destroying what is left of our old Christian-based traditional civilization.
There is really not much left to conserve, at this point.
If 'conservatives' (or libertarians in conservative guise) are the alternative to leftism, then we are in real trouble as a civilization. There will be nobody to speak up for the weaker members of society. Conservatives are starting to sound like Ebenezer Scrooge when he said ''let them die and decrease the surplus population.''
If this is 'conservatism' then I want no part of it. It is not compatible with Biblical Christianity.

Labels: , , ,


0 comment |
There is a short piece today from Fjordman at Gates Of Vienna, titled Heeding Locke and Jefferson.
Apparently it's from a longer essay which is to appear soon.
A couple of excerpts:
...Every single day we get more evidence that the authorities are totally incapable of protecting any semblance of security and freedom for their citizens. The only thing the State still seems to be capable of is indoctrinating our children with hatred of their own civilization and taking away our money so that it can be given to those who colonize our countries and abuse our children, verbally and physically.''
Well-articulated, and true.
Or are our leaders incapable of protecting our security and freedom, or simply neglecting those things as they pursue conflicting goals? Such as promoting the colonization by our countries by those who abuse not only our children but us? The Western governments can't do both, obviously, and it's clear that our safety and security are not on their list of priorities, but promoting colonization is at the top of the list.
Fjordman quotes Locke, from the Second Treatise on Government:
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property, and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society�.whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people�.By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."
Yes -- by their actions, our 'leaders' forfeit their lawful powers invested in them by the people, because, as Locke says, their actions have put them into a state of war with the people. That's it in a nutshell.
But how did it come to be that the 'leaders' who were ostensibly chosen by the people to represent and defend our safety and security and to look out for our national interests are now serving other global masters, and serving the interests of every people except those who elected them, and the very people of which they are genetically a part?
Selwyn Duke has a new essay on this issue:
Political Elections, Cultural Elections, and the Votes that Really Matter
I recommend you read it; he discusses the upcoming election, the sad choices being offered to us between two evils, and the ways in which he believes we have brought ourselves to this pass. He quotes the maxim which asserts that 'people get the government they deserve'. That saying is usually attributed to Joseph de Maistre, and I have quoted it here from time to time. (Duke attributes it to Thomas Jefferson, and I am not aware that he said or wrote those words anywhere, but I am open to being corrected.) In any case, whoever first said it, I believe it's true. I know some have disagreed with me about the validity of that sentiment, but I think in some sense it is always true.
Those who disagree will usually say something along these lines: "How did the people of Iraq deserve Saddam Hussein?" or "What about dictators, who seize power and silence all dissent? The people don't deserve them.'' Or another variant but broader argument: 'some governments are so bad that nobody could be said to deserve such a government.''
I think that dictators, including some of the more odious examples in history, have been nurtured and brought up in a particular society, a particular culture. In some cases, the people from whom the dictator originates are people with a barbaric culture or history, or certainly a tolerance for such traits. The fact that such cultures exist, and as such are assented to by the majority of people, supports the idea that the people in a sense deserve the harsh rulers they produce. Tyrants don't come out of nowhere. If a psychopathic, bloodthirsty man arises in a humane and advanced society, they would surely recognize his dangerous qualities and not elevate him to power, not reward him.
Selwyn Duke describes how we in a sense 'elect' the culture which ends up at the particular crossroads at which we find ourselves. It's an interesting piece, and something to think about.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment Monday, September 15, 2014 |
On his blog, Nicholas Stix discusses 'Racial Dialogue in America', linking to a " 'Racist Rant' That Almost Everyone is Condemning", a piece written by a blogger calling himself Old Punk. The post is here.
I think it's a viscerally honest piece, although the author, honest as he basically is, resorts to the usual disclaimers and makes a painstaking effort to say good things about admirable black figures (the usual: Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, et al) in an effort to avoid being labeled an all-out 'racist.' But his disclaimers, sadly, did not insulate him from the race-baiters of both liberal and ''conservative'' persuasion.
The very volume of the response and the vehemence of the comments shows just how incendiary the whole race issue is these days; is this in itself not absolute proof that Obama has actually polarized this country even further, and set white against white as well as black against white, and white (some) against black? So much for the 'uniter' and the 'transcender'. He is a divider par excellence.
The race issue seems to be more radioactive than ever these days, mostly due to Obama, his 'mentor' Reverend Wright, and the Obama groupies, who are out in force all over the Internet acting as vigilantes for political correctness.
I notice, too, that Steve Sailer, who has been covering the Obama saga more than any other mainstream blogger, has drawn persistent nagging criticism from several anonymous commenters who accuse him of a vendetta against Obama, and of carrying out a 'hit' on Obama. This person, or these several people, are wearisome; I peg them as Obama supporters out policing the blogosphere for their hero, or as whining liberals of either party who see themselves as defenders of PC virtue. If they don't like Sailer's writing about Obama, they should 'change the channel'.
The message is: writing about Obama carries a price; you will be visited by the Obama groupies or the canting liberals of both parties who feel that all this talk about race is just -- racist.
Stix has some good observations about the whole issue, although he is somewhat 'mainstream' for me. But here he says, accurately:
Obama doesn�t want dialogue on race, any more than black people do. Dialogue for them means lecturing, hectoring, and otherwise abusing whites, lying to our faces about race, the more egregious lie the better, and daring us to tell the truth, so they can curse us, assault us, and have us arrested or professionally destroy us. "Dialogue" for blacks and those who think they are blacks, is simply yet another occasion for the exercise of black racial power, you know, the kind they always insist they don�t have.
Go ask Geraldine Ferraro what she thinks of Barack Hussein Obama�s kind of honest racial dialogue. When Ferraro spoke a home truth about Obama�s racial advantage, he immediately demanded she be fired as a Clinton campaign advisor, and she was.''
This is true; 'dialogue' really means monologues or harangues from the 'African-American community', in which we are made to sit like whipped schoolchildren and listen to the accusations and the abuse, and our only permitted response amounts to admitting our guilt and professing remorse. There IS no real dialogue, because, as Merriam-Webster defines dialogue, it involves two sides:
1: a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2 a: a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b: an exchange of ideas and opinions 'organized a series of dialogues on human rights' c: a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
There is no conversation; there is no 'exchange'; there is no movement toward a mutual resolution.
Unfortunately, I still see too many of the otherwise honest white people doing what Old Punk and Stix are doing: trying to prove their good faith by meeting blacks halfway, saying conciliatory, appeasing things. It's tempting to go into the patter about how some of one's best friends and favorite co-workers are black, or how one admires Sowell, Walter Williams, Tiger Woods, or other 'moderate' blacks. A bit of advice to those tempted to do this: it doesn't work. We see in the example of Old Punk's vitriolic commenters that it doesn't appease anyone. Why waste bandwidth or breath in a maneuver that always fails anyway?
Being defensive is a bad choice; if we dignify their accusations by treating them as legitimate, if we become defensive and self-justifying, this is only playing their game, and giving them further opening to attack, as we appear weak.
Around this time, inevitably someone says 'well, do you recommend we descend to their level, or that we go into attack mode?' Not necessarily. Each situation is somewhat different. I do think defensiveness is a bad choice which makes us more vulnerable. It shows that we care too much about their opinions and their name-calling. Once we stop caring so much, we are that much less vulnerable.
Another tack, which I see all too often on the 'conservative' side, is to point the finger back at the liberals and say 'but, but they're racist too! It isn't fair that they can be racist and get away with it."
We can see that tactic on display in the comment thread following this blog entry, which is about a discussion of 'racism' on the TV program ''The View".
''Only white people can be racist according to 'View� co-host Joy Behar. Also on the March 24 broadcast, both Behar and Whoopi Goldberg justified Barack Obama�s connection to Jeremiah Wright by pointing to Bush�s association with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their many controversial remarks. It could be a valid point if Falwell or Robertson were Bush�s pastor for 20 years. Neither of them ever were.
After Elisabeth Hasselbeck labeled Reverend Wright "racist," Whoopi Goldberg jumped in and alluded to the late Reverend Jerry Falwell�s suggestion that God allowed the September 11 attacks because of secular forces in America. Whoopi asked Elisabeth if she should leave the Republican party because of that. Elisabeth noted that Falwell is not her spiritual adviser. Joy Behar then claimed that Robertson and Falwell are "spiritual advisers" to the Republican party.
Behar then essentially stated it is impossible for those in the "oppressed minority" (African Americans) to be racist. This is according to her college sociology professor.''
Sounds like Ms Behar had the same leftist sociology prof as I had; the difference was, I saw through the rhetoric, even though I was a liberal then, but Ms Behar didn't and still hasn't.
Judging by the extensive quotes from the show transcripts, the women on the show were at their shrill liberal worst, while the token ''conservative'', Elisabeth Hasselbeck, does not acquit herself too well. Of course, with several strident leftist harpies against one lone woman, the odds are not in her favor.
But please read the 'conservative' comments below the piece for examples of 'what not to say' in discussions like this. For example:
''Incredibly stupid people over on the view.
I think it actually insults black (or brown, or whatever) people to say they aren't capable of something. It's like don't worry 'bout nothing, just stay on the plantation and "we'll" take care of you.
Minorities, and women want to be treated as equals. And I wholeheartedly think they should. But as equals, they also must bear responsibilities for their actions. To not hold Obama, or any other minority, or woman, responsible for their actions, is to say they are "just not ready yet" to be equal.
So, using liberal logic, Obama is just not ready yet, to leave the plantation, and become President. (of course, on this I agree)"
This line of argument always blames the problem on 'liberalism', which is partly true, but somewhat of an evasion, because the problem is also with black people -- which is not a permitted thought to have, so conservatives like to blame it all on a political ideology, implying that if more people like Thomas Sowell were raised up as role models, voila, no more race problem.
It also resorts to the tired old retort that liberals are ''the real racists'' whereas conservatives want to help minorities by teaching them responsibility. This is just blame-shifting among whites. It's just pointing the finger back at the accuser and not addressing the root issues -- ultimately because of political correctness.
Nevertheless, the comments show some glimmers of reality, and it seems to show, yet again, that this debate over race is heating up, and that the heat may also create some light. Whether this current state of things will continue and increase during the election -- and I am convinced that the race issue will never go away during Obama's candidacy -- it may be that we will sink back into the status quo. Or it may be that more people will reach their limit of all this race-baiting and haranguing, and that attitudes will change. But if we only get halfway there, stuck in these evasive 'conservative' ideas about the issue, that will not suffice.
Blaming all the problems on 'liberalism' or even worse, just on the Democrats, will not do. It's an evasion, and another bow to political correctness. Sometimes half-truths are worse than outright lies, and this is what we have to guard against now; we can't let our fellow Americans become content with the half-truths and evasions that are now being resorted to in these discussions. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will suffice.
However I recognize that the truth is too strong, sometimes, to be taken in anything but small doses.

Labels: , , , , ,


0 comment |
Certainly the open borders liberals don't, and neither does Reuters writer Bernd Debusmann:
Around globe, walls spring up to divide neighbors
TIJUANA, Mexico, April 30 (Reuters) - What do Tijuana, Baghdad and Jerusalem have in common?
They all have walls that divide neighbors, cause controversy and form part of an array of physical barriers around the world that dwarf the late, unlamented Iron Curtain.
There are walls, fences, trenches and berms. Some are reinforced by motion detectors, heat-sensing cameras, X-ray systems, night-vision equipment, helicopters, drones and blimps. Some are still under construction, some in the planning stage.
When completed, the barriers will run thousands of miles (kilometres), in places as far apart as Mexico and India, Afghanistan and Spain, Morocco and Thailand, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
They are meant to keep job-hungry immigrants, terrorists and smugglers out, thwart invaders, and keep antagonists apart.''Their proponents cite the proverb "Good fences make good neighbors" but critics say they are a paradoxical result of globalization in so far as goods and capital can move freely but migrants cannot.'
"Good fences make good neighbors" is also a line from the same Robert Frost poem, 'The Mending Wall' which I quoted at the beginning. Actually in it, Frost seems to be arguing against the necessity of walls, likening his wall-building neighbor to a 'stone-savage.'
If I could put a notion in his head;
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall...
So, Bernd Debusmann, Reuters reporter, might consider who we are "walling in or walling out." Actually, Bernd, we are not walling out too many people, it seems, given that about 3 million illegals skulk across our erstwhile 'borders' every year. The figure may be even higher; it's just a rough guesstimate based on the numbers apprehended. And according to this article, one in two Mexicans polled has family members on our side of the 'border.' So our much-criticized wall, what there is of it, does pitifully little towards keeping intruders out. Bernd: what, exactly, is the problem? That the entire population of Mexico hasn't yet made it north to where the goodies are yet?
So what we are walling out is not much; they are coming in by the thousands day and night, 365 days a year. If you are going to weep crocodile tears over a wall, or write scathing words about how cruel the wall is, at least pick a wall that actually accomplishes the purpose. Our wall is mostly nonexistent, except for Tijuana and that little stretch along the California border.
Bernd Debusmann, Reuters reporter, like his innumerable liberal media comrades-in-arms, is either so obtuse or so disingenuous as to be unable to tell the difference between a wall to keep people in a police-state regime like East Germany once was, and a wall to keep invaders out, as the Wall of Hadrian used to be, or the Great Wall of China.
Likening the small stretch of wall on our southern 'border' to the Iron Curtain is just laughable. Is Debusmann too young to remember the days of the Iron Curtain? Or does he think that Mexico is trying to keep her citizens in, as the East Germans were? If anything, the Mexican government is pushing certain of their citizens, possibly their unwanted citizens, to cross our border and send back as much as they can loot on our side.
Are these liberal hacks, who write cookie-cutter articles on immigration every day, really that dense? I suppose it's possible; in order to embrace liberalism/leftism, intelligence is an actual hindrance. So these 'reporters' who report stories to order, and write them according to a template, probably are true believers. There is scarcely an honest word written or spoken about the immigration and borders issue in the mainstream media.
I wonder if Bernd Debusmann has a lock on his front door? Or does he helpfully leave it open in case there is a burglar, possibly a destitute illegal alien, who wants to let himself in? I wonder if the open-borders bleeding-hearts are consistent enough to remove the fences from their property and the locks from their doors and windows? After all, there are homeless people out there who might want to stake a claim to their homes, and people 'looking for a better life' who might want all those possessions they have so selfishly acquired.
As to 'what we are walling in or walling out', I know what I would like to wall out: the chaos, corruption, crime, and failure that characterize the nations to the South of us. I would like to wall out those who do not respect borders; those who believe, ignorantly, that they have a claim to this nation and its bounties; that their ancestors, whoever they might have been, were the rightful owners of America. I want to wall out those who want to change my homeland into something to their liking, without the least regard to the existing citizens of this country. I want to wall out those who would be a burden financially to an already overburdened country. I want to wall out diseases which have been so carefully and successfully eradicated from this country. I want to wall out ruthless savage gangs like MS-13.
I want to wall out those who would overpopulate my country until there is little open space or usable farmland, and those who treat the environment like a dumping ground, as we have seen the invading Mexicans do.
But so far, since a sizeable percentage of Mexico's population is in my country, and many of them brazenly walking the streets of my little town, thousands of miles from their homeland, Bernd Debusmann need not lose sleep; few Mexicans are being cruelly kept out of their rightful hunting grounds in America.
If we don't have the right to wall out, or simply close the door to anybody of our choosing, then this country is no longer our country. In fact, it's been often said that a country without borders (including walls, if need be) is not a country.
And just as I have the right, in my home, to open my door to only those I choose to welcome, and to eject anybody who arrives uninvited, sneaks in, or who refuses to leave at my request, we as the rightful people of this country have the same right. People enter or stay only at our pleasure; they have no inherent right to enter or to stay, against our will.
There are some who are now bluntly asserting that human beings should have free entry to any country they choose at any time; this is as radical and revolutionary an idea as can be. What next? Yet a lot of people seem unruffled by this idea that everyone has a 'universal human right to emigration.' This is an extreme leftist idea, and to the undiscerning, it may sound humane and compassionate, but the world would be turned upside down if that idea were to be put into practice. We are already seeing a slow-motion Camp of the Saints scenario, but we would be overwhelmed if this foolishness were declared law, or even if the odious amnesty proposals become law.
The trouble is, I am certain that this 'human right to emigrate anywhere' would really only be granted to the 'have-nots' of the world, and people who wanted to migrate away from the multicultural chaos would be denied any such right. It is meant only for the world's poor and 'diverse' populations, the people who depend on the fruits of others for their survival.
Maybe Robert Frost did not believe that 'good fences make good neighbors', and it's certain that Bernd Debusmann does not believe it, but nonetheless it is true. Perhaps we don't need fences to keep the law-abiding, decent neighbors on their side of the divide, but in a fallen world, with desperate or unscrupulous neighbors, a fence or a wall is an absolute necessity.

Labels: , , ,


0 comment |
In the wake of recent events in Egypt, it is disheartening to see so much eagerness among some to intervene there in the cause of 'democracy', 'freedom, or whatever high-flown concepts. And this is after we have seen the results of our intervening in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else we have left our footprint.
I find it troubling that many people on the right apparently do not know that 'democracy' is not only no panacea for all human ills, but that many great thinkers through the centuries have spoken very bluntly against democracy, and not only against democracy, but against representative government in the case of peoples who are ill-suited or ill-prepared for it. It goes against the egalitarian romanticism of our age to point out that not all peoples are able to be self-governing. The idea is -- well, racist and unfair!
And it's good to remind some of the idealists out there that a great deal of evil has been wrought in the name of 'democracy', and a great many scoundrels have pretended to be acting in the name of 'democracy.'
"Democracy does not exist for a long time - it wastes, exhausts and destroys itself. There was never a democracy that didn't kill itself" - Samuel Adams
"The American form of government is the republic. The true freedom does not exist either under despotism or excesses of democracy" - Alexander Hamilton
"Democracy always leads to conflicts and instability, but never provides for the security of the citizens or their property. Usually it is very short at life, and very bloody at death" -- James Madison
"Democracy is the rule of mobs, tempted by newspaper editors" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Democracy - it's the rule of the wishes of the mob, or to be exact ambitions and vices of its leaders. The Founding Fathers of our constitution created a republic, which is more different from a democracy, than a democracy is different from despotism " - Fisher Ames
"I have been always sure, that democracy sooner or late will destroy freedom, or civilization, or both" - Thomas Macaulay
"Democracy - it's the tyranny of majority, or more exact, the majority party, which through fraud or cohesion is manipulating the electoral process" - Lord Acton
''Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion�are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.'' - Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration of Independence, to James McHenry, November 4, 1800
"Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact." - Balzac
"It doesn't really matter what one writes into a constitution. The important thing is what the collective instinct eventually makes of it." - Oswald Spengler
''The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.'' - Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution
"Democracy is undone by the same vice that ruins oligarchy. But because democracy has embraced anarchy, the damage is more general and far worse, and its subjugation more complete. The truth is, a common rule holds for the seasons, for all the plants and the animals, and particularly for political societies: excess in one direction tends to provoke excess in the contrary direction" - Plato, The Republic
"I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. [Mexico]� what will then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government. They will fall under military despotism �" Thomas Jefferson, to Marquis de Lafayette, 4 May 1817
"Before the French Revolution, it was the prevailing opinion of our countrymen, that other nations were not free, because their despotic governments were too strong for the people. Of course, we were admonished to detest all existing governments, as so many lions in liberty�s path; and to expect by their downfall the happy opportunity, that every emancipated people would embrace, to secure their own equal rights for ever. France is supposed to have had this opportunity, and to have lost it. Ought we not then to be convinced, that something more is necessary to preserve liberty than to love it? Ought we not to see that when the people have destroyed all power but their own, they are the nearest possible to a despotism, the more uncontrolled for being new, and tenfold the more cruel for its hypocrisy." - Fisher Ames. The Dangers of American Liberty (1805)
"� it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. [Liberty] is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike � a reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving � and not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious, to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it. � [A]n all-wise Providence has reserved [liberty], as the noblest and highest reward for the development of our faculties, moral and intellectual. A reward more appropriate than liberty could not be conferred on the deserving � nor a punishment inflicted on the undeserving more just, than to be subject to lawless and despotic rule. This dispensation seems to be the result of some fixed law � and every effort to disturb or defeat it, by attempting to elevate a people in the scale of liberty, above the point to which they are entitled to rise, must ever prove abortive, and end in disappointment. The progress of a people rising from a lower to a higher point in the scale of liberty, is necessarily slow � and by attempting to precipitate, we either retard, or permanently defeat it." - John C. Calhoun
"When the men of our State Department, especially after World War II, went all over the world trying to implant our form - freedom, balance in government, downward on cultures whose philosophy would never have produced it, it has, in almost every case, ended in some form of totalitarianism or authoritarianism." - Francis Schaeffer
"Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home.'' - Rep. Howard H. Buffett, during the Korean War
"After each war there is a little less democracy to save." - Brooks Atkinson
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." - Joseph Sobran
"Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. Their mutual antipathies are much stronger than their jealousy of the government... Above all, the grand and only effectual security in the last resort against the despotism of the government is in that case wanting: the sympathy of the army with the people. Soldiers to whose feelings half or three fourths of the subjects of the same government are foreigners, will have no more scruple in mowing them down, and no more reason to ask the reason why, than they would have in doing the same thing against declared enemies. - John Stuart Mill: Considerations on Representative Government

"There is no social engineering that can radically renovate a civilization and change its character, and at the same time keep it going, for civilization is an affair of the human spirit, and the direction of the human spirit cannot be reset by means that are, after all, mechanical. The best thing is to follow the order of nature, and let a moribund civilization simply rot away, and indulge what hope one can that it will be followed by one that is better. This is the course that nature will take with such a civilization anyway, in spite of anything we do or do not do. Revolts, revolutions, dictatorships, experiments and innovations in political practice, all merely mess up this process and make it a sadder and sorrier business than it need be. They are only so much machinery, and machinery will not express anything beyond the intentions and character of those who run it." - Albert Jay Nock, Journal Forgotten
''[In reference to the 'divine right to self-government' of all peoples]'What troubles me is that any civilized White man should write such nonsense. It discloses a total failure to understand or appreciate his own civilization. He has forgotten, if he ever knew, what centuries of effort it took to develop the capacity for self government. He has no real comprehension of the worth of what his forefathers bequeathed him. Consequently, he can have little pride in himself as the legatee.'' - Carleton Putnam, Race and Reality

Labels: , , ,


0 comment Sunday, September 14, 2014 |
Fight over English-only bill rages in Nashville
NASHVILLE, TENN. � The "Friendliest City in America" finds itself in a nasty fight and the national glare because of a language issue tied to illegal immigration.
A recent City Council bill requiring Nashville to conduct business solely in English was quickly trumped by the mayor's veto. But the free-for-all continues, haunting tourism and business officials who fear it will tarnish the city's Southern image.
"We are the friendliest city in America," said Mayor Bill Purcell, who's spending the last of eight years in office. "It is a part of who and what we are. We encourage people to come for the weekend, a week or the rest of their lives. And this law was directly contrary to that."
Councilman Eric Crafton said his bill would force non-English speakers to learn the language faster. He acknowledges that Nashville already conducts business in English but invokes the illegal immigration shadow by saying that the policy could change, because the U.S. government hasn't halted the flow of undocumented workers.
[...]Both sides in the bitter fight agree on just two things: Frustration over illegal immigration from Spanish-speaking countries is behind the support for the bill � and the bill wouldn't have done a thing about that anyway.
Regardless, local bloggers now vent over illegal immigration in vitriolic and emotional Internet posts about the bill. Much of it focuses on preserving a way of life.
With his veto, the mayor of the nation's country music capital was "caving in to those who wish to change our state instead of those who wish to preserve it!" read a post on the Tennesseans for Responsible Immigration Policies Web site.
"We have to take back our community and our country somewhere," a resident of nearby Hermitage told a local newspaper.
Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce has called the bill "an official policy by Nashville against inclusiveness." But the organization also felt the need to add that it's firmly against illegal immigration.
[...]
The local Roman Catholic bishop, David R. Choby, stood in support with Purcell as he made the veto announcement. "The characteristics of kindness, for which this city has developed a national recognition, can also be called Christian charity," he said.
Aimed at Hispanics
The factor unmentioned in the bill is the Spanish-speaking immigrants, whose growing presence across the South during this decade has triggered cultural change and unease.
Nashville is home to the nation's largest Kurdish community and large numbers of immigrants from Southeast Asia and Africa, but the controversy has ignored them in comparison.
In recent years, Nashville's immigrant population has swelled, drawn by service industry and construction growth and other parts of a healthy economy. As of 2000, about 29,000 residents, or 5 percent of the total, were Hispanic, and a language other than English was spoken in one in 10 Nashville homes, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
First of all, it distresses me very much that an iconic city like Nashville, which represents country music, that most American of all musical genres, is now on its way to being another polyglot slum. And it dumbfounds me that Nashville has the largest Kurdish colony in the United States. And please: I don't want to hear about how the Kurds are our allies, our friends, our helpers in Iraq. We have heard the same story about the Hmongs and how we 'owe' them for helping us in Southeast Asia. So anybody who helps us is now entitled to the run of our country, and their extended families too? Enough is enough.
Why can't we just declare some city to be an American City, to be preserved as a kind of museum piece, so that future generations will know about that quaint old English-speaking country called the U.S.A.? Or is this country going to be turned into a coast-to-coast Tijuana before we even know what hit us?
Whenever these stories appear in the MSM, there is the now-familiar cast of characters: the pandering city officials squaring off against the citizenry, and taking the side of the illegals, and then the goody-two-shoes liberal clergy, with their pious cant about 'welcoming' the poor immigrants. Where are the city officials who will show some integrity and some loyalty to their country, their people, their rightful constituents? Are they all open-borders whores? Thank goodness there are still a few like Mayor Lou Barletta, the feisty mayor of the besieged town of Hazleton, PA, to provide us an example of what real leaders should be.
But we need to replace a lot of these sorry leaders who are selling us out for the thirty pieces of silver, or for the sake of the 'Hispanic vote' or the Kurdish vote or for the sake of 'business' or whatever.
I really had hopes of spending the last years of my life somewhere in the Southeast; not too many years ago, before 9/11 jarred me out of my slumber, I truly thought that, although Texas was being overrun by illegals, the rest of the Southern states still retained their unique, traditional character; my ideal was to live out my years in some small town, among like-minded folk, especially having spent much time in large urban centers up North. Who could have imagined that even the Southeast, and a quintessential American town like Nashville would be in the crosshairs of the diversity Nazis and the illegal invaders?
Everybody who knows me knows that I was always a lover of travel, always interested in other cultures, languages, and experiences. But when diversity became compulsory, when it became enforced and coerced by soulless bureaucrats -- or by arrogant invaders who unilaterally decided our country belonged to them -- I suddenly lost my taste for that 'diversity'. If that makes me xenophobic, so be it. Nobody has a right to change the population and the culture of an established community into something utterly different. Such an imposition is not in any way compatible with freedom.
'Diversity' (how I've learned to loathe the sound of that word!) must be self-chosen, voluntary. Nobody has a right to force it on another individual or even less, on an entire country. Those of us who liked 'diversity' occasionally could travel to experience it. That's the best way to experience 'diversity', because then you can choose just what variety of it you like, and sample it in an exotic setting. Heck, that was the main motivator to travel, for me: the idea of a change of scene, different people, varied sights, sounds, smells. But when all the diversity is being jumbled together and dumped unceremoniously on our doorstep, it somehow loses its appeal. When the element of choice is denied us, then it becomes an injustice.
Now, what's the point of travel, if we encounter the same disparate, mismatched collection of peoples wherever we go? These days, when I am in an airport, I can hardly tell where I am; whether in Houston or Newark or Seattle, with the same lumpen 'diversity' everywhere. Each city, each corner of our country, has lost some of its essence, and each place feels less like home and more like a drab way-station with the same mix-n-match cast of characters.
Still, at least James Pinkerton thinks it's not too late to
Keep America American
The same bad idea that is ruining Europe threatens to ruin the United States, too. Indeed, the news that Uncle Sam can't find more than 600,000 of what the government calls "fugitive aliens," those who have been ordered out of the country but slipped past the enforcement system, reminds us, yet again, that border enforcement and maintenance of sovereignty are low priorities for Washington.
The bad idea threatening both America and Europe is this: Borders don't matter. Why not? Because patriotism is deemed some sort of infantile disease to be grown out of. Therefore, a conglomerated government is the only way to assure docility and passivity for the masses - oops, make that peace and prosperity.
[...]Hence the European Union, stretching now from Ireland to Bulgaria, includes some 500 million people. That all sounds great - for an empire. Indeed, Brussels, capital of the European Union, has become an imperial city; its palaces, bulging with Eurocrats, issue foggy declarations about the "Idea of Europe." But here's a sharp truth: Europe is not an idea; it's a place, a place for Europeans. These folks have a shared history and a shared religious tradition, Judeo-Christianity - or at least they did until the European Idealists, eager to flatten their own local customs in the name of politico-economic unification, opened the border to millions of Muslim immigrants.
Unfortunately, the globalizing plan hasn't produced harmonious odes to joy. Instead, big cities have been scarily divided into ethnic and religious combat zones.''
Read the rest here; Pinkerton is somewhat optimistic, and optimism is what I need now to keep my determination up.

Labels: , ,