Polite Kid

Polite Kid

0 comment Thursday, October 23, 2014 |
Amid all the verbal sparring about 'guest-worker' plans, English as the official language, and all the rest, there is one aspect of the illegal invasion that is often overlooked: damage to the environment, especially in the border states.
This story by Michael Clancy in the Arizona Republic concerns damage to archaeological sites in Arizona, specifically three monuments: Grand Canyon - Parashant, Vermilion Cliffs, and Agua Fria.
Although the article does not allude to illegals as being the cause for the damage, and no doubt some would say I am making an unjustified connection, we can certainly speculate, based on other such incidences of damage.
Here, NPR has a piece called 'Environmentalists: Nature in Crossfire of Border War'.
Here is another, more extensive report on damage to National Forests and Monuments in Arizona. The piece mentions that illegal aliens and drug smugglers/human smugglers are causing the damage. But one particularly shocking factoid was the sheer numbers of people who are overrunning this area of Arizona:
This inadequately protected area in and around the small ranching towns of Bisbee and Douglas were inundated last year by 1 to 3 million illegal aliens most of whom escaped into the interior of the United States. Only one half million were apprehended by border patrol agents.
And think about this: 1 to 3 million in that area alone! And we are supposed to believe that we have only '12 million' in the entire U.S. now, after 20+ years of the invasion since the last amnesty? How stupid does our government think we are?

Labels: ,


0 comment |
A few Obama-related links:
First, Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism
Fjordman's latest on Obama.
Several of the links following contain some information about Obama which certainly calls into question the facts presented by the candidate himself and his campaign people. However, I've been halfhearted about posting links of this kind because I think most of my readers have no illusions about Obama, and those who really should read these things and consider them objectively will not do so, being fully indoctrinated members of the cult. So it may be preaching to the choir to post these links, and I suspect most of you are aware of the information contained therein, having already read it at the linked sites or elsewhere. But I present the links as rather interesting information, raising further questions.
These links have some interesting information about Obama's vague past, and the many gaps and unanswered questions.
Pamela at Atlas Shrugs compiled an impressive amount of information about Obama's birth, and notes the discrepancies between the official story, and the (rather scant) existing public information.
This rather odd story from the Times UK introduces readers to Obama's 'auntie' living in public housing in Boston, and his uncle, both described as coping with the "harsh realities" of immigrant life in the U.S.
And last, but certainly not least, Steve Sailer has made his new book on Obama available online at VDare. It's available in .pdf format, and can be downloaded. I've downloaded it, but I have not yet started reading it. Have any of you?
The .pdf file is here: America's Half-blood Prince: Barack Obama's Story of Race and Inheritance

Labels: , ,


0 comment |
'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' - George Orwell, 1984
British history 'needs rewrite'
By Brian Wheeler
Political reporter, BBC News, at the Labour conference
British history should be rewritten to make it "more inclusive", says Trevor Phillips, the head of the new human rights and equality commission.
He said Muslims were also part of the national story and "sometimes we have to go back into the tapestry and insert some threads that were lost".
He quoted the example of the Spanish Armada, which was held up by the Turks at the request of Queen Elizabeth I.
"It was the Turks who saved us," Mr Phillips told a Labour fringe meeting.
Let's use our heritage to rewrite that story so it is truly inclusive... so we have an identity which binds us in the stormy times we are going to have in the next century.''
Mr Phillips said he had also been persuaded of the need for a written constitution, saying the UK needed to be "more explicit in our understanding about how we treat each other".
He said population changes and immigration were happening at unprecedented rate and there was "no going back".
So it was no longer enough to assume people would inherit the values which bound the country together.
[...]
"We have to have a more explicit set of understandings which we can all share about how we treat each other and we talk to each other and they have to be based on real values.
"I think the prime minister is right to talk about values but I think what is important is not the abstract values. Freedom is shared by all sorts of people."
If there was a written constitution it would have to be "an expression which is native and right for us".
[...]
He said the abolition of the slave trade, for example, could be retold as being part of the English radical tradition.''
"Part of the job of heritage is to cognitize - give physical existence - to that national story.''
So here we see the actual ongoing process of trying to give birth to a 'proposition nation', a nation formed on the basis of some cobbled-together, 'inclusive' national 'story.' And the process ain't pretty.
The use of the word 'story' is rather telling; when I was a child, and my parents doubted some tall tale I related to them, they would say 'are you telling me a story'? For a long time, in my mind, the word 'story' signified a falsehood, a concocted deception, a whopper, as well as meaning a fairy tale from one of my beloved books. Such seems to be the meaning of the term as Phillips is using it here.
Britain does not need a 'national story'; it has a history, a factual history, which has been known, recorded, and honored for many centuries. It does not need a fractured fairy tale concocted of bits and pieces of multicultural confabulations, all with the intention of making outsiders feel 'included' and respected. Even worse is Phillips shameful attempt to credit Moslems with having saved England in the days of Elizabeth I.
I do hope the British people, and by that I mean the rightful heirs of Britain, the descendants of the historic people of that island, will refuse to let their history be rewritten in the service of leftist propagandizing. It is even worse than mere propagandizing; it amounts to eradicating the real history of a people and the record of their considerable accomplishments. It is an act of historical 'ethnic cleansing.'
Some might ask why an American should care. First, anyone who cares about truth and about justice should care. Secondly, I care because Britain's history includes the lives of many of my ancestors. Until the 17th century, the majority of my ancestors lived in Britain, so their history is also mine, as it is for many Americans of British descent.
Here is the Telegraph's version, with a comment thread following. The comments are very heartening, because at least when I read the thread, there were many irate comments. The British people haven't been completely subjugated, if the comments are any indication. And in case the comments have been edited since I read the thread, here are the first two:
Mr Phillips,
There is no "us" with you and my benighted English people. You are not "us". Rewriting history won't make you "us". I totally reject you.
Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2007 10:38 PM
Report this comment
I love trevor phillips. No one else left with that much balsiness in British Society. Pity he's out for revenge against the Brits,and their history.
You cant change history.Only suppress it Trevor. Full marks for cheek though.
Posted by Big Bill on September 25, 2007 10:31 PM
I agree with the commenters quoted above.
On a related note, the BBC website has a thread soliciting suggestions for a new motto for Britain. Most of the suggestions were silly, but here are a couple of ironic ones:
'Rachel Fox' suggests 'We welcome one and all.'
Simon Rooke suggests 'Magnus frater spectat te - Big Brother is watching you
Christian Cook suggests 'Mostly harmless.'
Truly, I hope this multicultural madness will not continue; maybe the sheer excesses of the left will lead to some kind of awakening. All of us in the West are under siege, and before we can stop the onslaught, it must first be recognized.
''For history is to the nation as memory is to the individual.'' - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment |
Steve Sailer ponders whether there really is a 'silent but sensible majority which believes in HBD, and a long discussion follows.
At Inductivist, Ron Guhname gives a negative answer:
'The GSS convinces me that the answer is definitely no.
Beginning in 1977, survey particpants were asked: "On the average, blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are because most blacks have less in-born ability to learn?"
See the results at the link.
It's often claimed on many ethnopatriot blogs that many people are savvy on these issues but will not, because of political correctness, give honest answers on surveys and polls because they know that such perceptions are socially stigmatized.
Meanwhile, I've wondered if most people, or the average person out there, would be familiar with the acronym 'HBD', or could puzzle its meaning out, if asked.
Of course everybody knows the word ''diversity'', since we are beaten about the head with that word every time we turn around, not to mention being assailed by the actual fact of enforced diversity. But I suspect that most people, who are not readers of politically incorrect blogs, would not know what HBD or even the full name "human biodiversity", meant.
What does it mean, really? There's a discussion of the term here in which several people take great pains to disassociate 'HBD' from such taboo concepts as 'White nationalism' or 'racism', although some of them seem to conflate 'nationalism' with 'supremacism.' But just as I surmised, the term HBD seems to serve the purpose of putting a scientific (and therefore 'objective) face on discussions of matters racial. I suppose this has its uses.
The term 'NAM', which I still do not like, is seemingly another way to put a neutral face on the description of minorities, classifying them according to what they are not -- Asian. The implication there is that Asians are in a category above the others, being seen as the high-IQ minorities, or the desirable immigrants. This, to me, places excessive value on IQ, which seems to be held in highest regard by the serious HBDers.
To return to the original question of whether there is a silent majority of people with realist views on race and ethnicity, I tend to think Guhname is more correct. Or it may be that, as HailToYou says in a comment that poll respondents back in 1977 gave more honest answers, not being as brainwashed as today's respondents.
Still, I believe there were more people who had commonsensical views then, based on popular wisdom and direct experience, and they had not yet learned that they had to toe the PC line and self-censor. As the older generations pass on, there are fewer and fewer people who express the old, pre-PC attitudes. I suppose this is the measure of the cultural Marxists' success.
Incidentally, the phrase 'silent majority' is most associated with Richard Nixon, though he did not coin it. According to this source, his phrase 'silent majority' referred to:
''Middle-class whites
Those who felt alienated by the counterculture
Conservative whites''
Is there still a significant silent majority?
Thoughts?

Labels: , , ,


0 comment Wednesday, October 22, 2014 |
The mood of heaviness that seemed noticeable on the heels of the president's speech seems to be lifting, as a few sane voices are heard over the usual MSM noise and blather.
Diana West, a reliable voice of sanity at the Washington Times, writes a piece called 'Too little, too late'.
I wonder how many Americans, listening to President Bush bringing his too-little, too-late immigration address to a close, felt like he ran out of track when he concluded: "We honor the heritage of all who come here...because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans, one nation under God," end of speech. Every allegiance-pledging American, of course, on hearing the phrase, "one nation under God," automatically adds "indivisible," not to mention "with liberty and justice for all." The president did not. It's likely that Mr. Bush simply didn't wish to sign off with the final words of the Pledge of Allegiance, which would have been out of place. Still, he invoked the pledge, and ended up omitting "indivisible." Purposeful or not, the omission is apt. We -- if I may say "we" to indicate the United States of America -- are anything but "indivisible" at this sorry point in history, and, as a perilous result, we think and we act less and less like a "nation."
A nation has borders and defends them. "We" do not. Otherwise, building a fence against an unprecedented invasion by Mexico wouldn't be considered a harsh and radical position in the political mainstream. A nation has laws and upholds them. "We" do not.'
'...A nation defines itself as a nation. "We" certainly do not. We are, as we are endlessly told, a Nation of Immigrants, a concept that blows to smithereens the unique nature of the "nation" to which immigrants have traditionally assimilated: the European-derived, mainly Anglo-Saxon polity, born of the Enlightenment and extraordinarily blessed by Providence, which the current president is now rapidly phasing out. '
'I have this terrible feeling I finally understand what a "compassionate conservative" is: an emotional train wreck. It's time to get a grip and build a fence -- a pledge, possibly, to become indivisible again. '
Amen to that.
And the stalwart Dimitri Vassilaros at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writes a lighter piece 'Dubya's Mexican disconnect'. He makes the sensible though implausible proposal that Bush threaten a punitive tax on remittances to Mexico unless Vicente Fox acts to stop the flood of illegals. I think Vassilaros description of the Bush-Fox duo is hilarious though accurate:
'Bush seems so comfortable playing Johnny, the surreal thumb and index finger hand puppet, to Fox's Senor Wences.'
Funny, but sad at the same time. But sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying.
(The allusion to Wences, who was a Spanish ventriloquist with a very strange though funny act, might be lost on the younger generation, though.)
Finally, Ann Coulter's wry comment, 'Read my lips: no new amnesty' also displays some humor as well as a no-nonsense approach to the amnesty question. I like this bit:
Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.'
Although Ann injects some needed comic relief into this distressing subject, she obviously means business. When one reads Mark Steyn, for example, on the immigration issue, one gets the impression that he is completely detached; his tone is flippant and cavalier. There is no indication of real passion there, and no hint that Steyn has any partisan feeling on the fate of the West. Coulter has only lately started to address the immigration issue, but she at least seems to be emotionally engaged, unlike the elusive Steyn.
As long as we have a few sound-thinking and lucid people to argue our case, as long as there is still the old-fashioned American spirit as displayed in these articles, maybe we Americans still have a chance.

Labels: ,


0 comment |
Over at Intergalactic Source of Truth, the Colonel linked to this piece from One Cosmos, entitled 'The Pathetic Last Children of Nietzsche's Pitiable Last Men.' Blogger Gagdad Bob writes a very cogent analysis tying together the present degenerated state of party politics in America and the breakdown of the family and male/female polarities. Some of you may have read this post when it first appeared way back in January 2006, but I missed it, and it's a great read, touching on some themes that I have dealt with here at times.
In this piece, Bob also mentions an article entitled Wimps and Barbarians, by Terrence O. Moore, which you may read in its entirety here. Moore's article discusses the lack in our modern society of manly virtues such as what the Greeks called Thumos, which is
...the part of the soul that contains the assertive passions: pugnacity, enterprise, ambition, anger. Thumos compels a man to defend proximate goods: himself, his honor, his lady, his country; as well as universal goods: truth, beauty, goodness, justice. Without thumotic men to combat the cruel, the malevolent, and the unjust, goodness and honor hardly have a chance in our precarious world. But two conditions must be present for thumos to fulfill its mission. First, the soul must be properly ordered. Besides thumos, symbolized by the chest, the soul is composed of reason and appetites, symbolized by the head on the one hand and the stomach and loins on the other. Reason has the capacity to discern right from wrong, but it lacks the strength to act. Appetites, while necessary to keep the body healthy, pull the individual toward pleasures of a lower order. In the well-ordered soul, as C.S. Lewis put it, "the head rules the belly through the chest." In the souls of today's barbarians, clearly thumos has allied itself with the unbridled appetites, and reason has been thrown out the window.
The second condition that must be present is a sufficient level of thumos to enable the man to rise to the defense of honor or goodness when required. Modern education and culture, however, have conspired to turn modern males into what C. S. Lewis called "men without chests," that is, wimps. The chest of the wimp has atrophied from want of early training. The wimp is therefore unable to live up to his duties as a man:
'We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.''
Please read the discussion thread following Bob's essay on One Cosmos. The discussion covers, among other things, the role of anger in our society, and the tendency of some religious traditions to censure anger, notably Christianity (or some interpretations of it) and Buddhism.
Bob says
To the extent that a tradition tries to eliminate anger, it is a false or partial teaching. Righteous anger is needed, but only in service of what is good or moral. Again, these traditions apparently noticed that anger was a problem in human affairs, and thought that they should just jettison the whole thing instead of doing the much harder work of diferentiating between healthy and pathological anger or moral and immoral violence.
[...]We know so much more today about psychology than they did then, about the roots of pathological anger in childhood trauma. The key is not to split off or repress anger, but to integrate it harmoniously within the psyche.
With regard to Christ's teaching, if in saying that we should always be passive in the face of violence, he wouldn't be a very wise man, would he? He certainly wouldn't be worthy of worship. After all, if I am more moral than the God I worship, what kind of God is that?''
Evidently Bob is not a Christian, although unfortunately there are many nominal Christians who interpret Jesus' words in the same negative way. I would judge the dominance of psychology and the therapeutic culture, which Bob seems to be very conversant with, to be a huge part of the breakdown of our society and to be a contributing factor to the number of 'men without chests.' All the navel-gazing that is at the heart of modern man's self-focus, all the hand-wringing and ambivalence, and all the psychobabble about not being 'negative' or not 'judging' others, contributes to the loss of the manly qualities. Think of neurotic urban postmodern culture, embodied in Woody Allen movies and Dr. Phil, and secular liberal culture in which the least manly 'men' reside, the men who think hunting is barbaric, firearms are for redneck crazies, and war and self-defense are regressive ideas.
These people do not get their lack of manliness from Christianity and traditional Western culture.
A commenter, Kelly, on the discussion thread, makes some insightful comments about women and the loss of the male virtues; she says that women, too, suffer from the lack of courage and commitment. This seems true; the attitudes of many of today's ultraliberal women would not have been of much use on the frontier or back in the early days of the colonies. Women, too, are affected by the breakdown of our culture's values.
Moore's article says, in describing our culture's emasculating effects:
A close look at the culture in which boys are raised reveals not only that they are no longer encouraged to become vigorous and responsible men, but also that practically every factor affecting their development is profoundly hostile to the ideals and practices of traditional manhood and the painstaking steps necessary to attain it. The demanding regime of physical and moral instruction that used to turn boys into men and the larger cultural forces that supported that instruction have been systematically dismantled by a culture that ostensibly enables all individuals but in reality disables men. "It's too easy!" complained John the Savage of the overly efficient, overly sexual, overly youthful, overly fun Brave New World. That dehumanizing tyranny of pleasure, described by Aldous Huxley, resembles the world of easy effort and easy virtue that entices adolescent males today to indulge in their appetites at the expense of their nobler longings and passions.''
Moore also describes the debilitating effects of fatherless families, deficient discipline in schools, and the lack of male rites of passage in guiding boys to healthy manhood.
The essay and the blog discussion are stimulating reading.
I think the discussion of the role of anger, specifically, is one of the more important ones for us today, given that our society is under threat by some formidable forces -- demographic assault, and an invasion marked by sporadic violence, to which we seem unable or unwilling to offer the necessary resistance. Are we ourselves lacking in the courage and conviction, or is it only our rulers? Or do we get the government we deserve, as Joseph de Maistre said, and as I have quoted him? Why do we seem to choose the 'wimps' as rulers? Is this all we have to work with these days? Are there no 'men with chests' to lead? This also ties in with our discussion of the lack of leaders in our time.
And what's the solution? In our political scene, we seem to be locked into this struggle between the 'mommy party' Democrats, and the 'daddy party' Republicans. Or are the Republicans becoming another mommy party, with their 'compassionate conservatism', their political correctness, and the 'welcoming nation' policies? Do we need a real 'daddy party' to represent the masculine virtues which are so essential? Maybe this is part of the reason why a new party, a real conservative party is needed; the male virtues are not really represented in the two-party system we now have.
Personally I think we desperately need the male virtues in this day and age; the female approach, accommodation and peacemaking, are useless against merciless and aggressive enemies and rivals.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment |
It seems it's open season on Christianity at many blogs, including AmRen.
I'm willing to acknowledge that there are grounds for criticism, and it's fully understandable that many people on our side are disgusted with these multiculturalists in religious guise who are trailing two steps behind the secular multicultists. These 'Christians' are so eager to be in step with the current multicult madness that they can no longer see that they are emulating the world system, eager to be accepted by it and part of it. Christians should remember what our Bible says about 'friendship with the world.'
Lately I suddenly noticed that AmRen had been blessedly free of many of the anti-Christian comments that once plagued it, mainly the work of one particular poster who blamed Christianity for everything. Then I noticed that the comment policy had been revised, and now contains a warning about criticism of 'traditional Western religions.' Aha, that was why. But now it appears everybody is coming out of the woodwork with the usual ''Christianity is a slave morality'' nonsense via Nietzsche, et al. So back to square one. Christianity is to blame again, but notice the mods' statement on closing of this thread:
'' It is being closed before a certain conversation about a certain topic gets out of hand. Thank you for your consideration.''
I wonder what that unnamed topic could be?
We know it isn't Christianity which is the topic that must not be talked about. That conversation will continue unabated, and the criticism will continue -- deservedly so, to some extent. Thanks to those 'Christians' who have left their churches wide open to criticism by their misguided actions.

Labels: , ,