0 comment Friday, May 9, 2014 | admin
It's been interesting, watching the response to Holder's 'nation of cowards' remarks over the last several days. Responses are still appearing on various blogs and webzines.
Disappointingly, but predictably, some Republicans and 'conservatives' are going the route of protesting that they have seen the light and 'moved beyond race', and now if only the liberals would let blacks do the same, we could all get along. Or there are the responses which essentially concede the blacks' grievances, and issue mea culpas about how we were a terribly 'racist' country but we are all better now; we've learned our lesson. We've repented and paid our debt to society, so give us some credit.
Those kinds of weak and defensive responses are useless, and worse than useless, because they are simply playing along with the politically correct games. They just keep us caught in this endless loop of grievances and demands for apologies, and then apologies and supplications for mercy from our side. Somebody has to break the cycle; if only someone of national stature would do just that, publicly, and repudiate the whole thing. If only we could see a chain reaction of individuals who finally see through the PC conditioning, and resolve to break it and refuse to play the game anymore. Yet many people are looking for a leader to set the example and give 'permission' as it were.
Another discussion that is interesting, though exasperating at times to watch, is the discussion about secession which has been going on this thread at AmRen as well as in a number of other places where the 'state sovereignty' movement is being talked about.
I just want to get one nitpick out of the way first: I wish some of those discussing the topic would learn that the word is SEcession not SUCcession, as so many people seem to be spelling it everywhere, including the AmRen thread. What is it with this confusion? The words don't even sound alike, unless one mispronounces 'secession' as 'suh-cession' as some are wont to do.
End of rant.
But apart from that, the most exasperating thing for me in reading those discussions is the ubiquitous naysayers. You know what I mean: the ones who say 'Secession (or succession, as the case may be) is a fantasy. It's impossible. You're dreaming. Never happen, in a million years. Impossible.''
All I can say is, it's a good thing that attitude didn't prevail back in 1776.
And I am baffled by the people who think that secession is somehow 'illegal' or immoral or shocking or radical (which it may be) or disloyal or un-American or just plain evil. Do they not know that our country came into being by means of secession? If it is wrong now, it was wrong in 1776.
And there are always those who, having been taught the orthodox pro-Northern view of the War Between the States, believe that the South was treasonous and criminal to have seceded from the Sacrosanct Union. There is not much chance of persuading these people otherwise.
It may well be that the naysayers and the doomsayers are right, but I take issue with their dogmatic attitude, and the underlying assumption that they have some kind of crystal ball which gives them perfect knowledge of the future, or some kind of superior knowledge of what is and isn't possible. There are just so many variables and unknowns in our present situation; there are many possible paths that may unfold. Who would have guessed, say, five years ago, that we would be exactly where we are now? Who could have guessed ten years ago that things would be as they are today? We've all seen some staggering changes in our country and in the West generally. You'd think the unexpected twists and turns we've seen over the last decade, or even the last few years, would humble most of us and make us realize that we are in uncharted territory, and that none of us can anticipate exactly what the future holds. We can extrapolate or make educated guesses, but there are a great many unknown factors and variables. So I think those who make categorical statements about what CANNOT happen are on shaky ground, and should not be taken seriously.
And more than that, I think those who make these sweeping pronouncements about how certain futures are 'impossible', or who tell us our fate is sealed, are harming our prospects of working any kind of change for the better. They may not succeed in discouraging people -- if that is their aim in making their gloomy announcements, but they tend to dampen enthusiasm and contribute to the attitude of resignation and passivity which some are prone to these days. So I think these naysayers should be tuned out.
Those who counsel caution and realism are not in the same category as the ''we're doomed, nothing can ever change for the better'' crowd, however.
I think that there are a number of scenarios which might open up a number of unforeseen possibilities.
Many of the naysayers seem to take an 'all or nothing' attitude: either we regain the whole country, or nothing. And since the former seems unattainable, it seems we are doomed. Some like to focus on the problems, which they proceed to tell us are insurmountable. I wonder if our forefathers had to deal with so many people like this in their generation, when they founded this country?
My favorite excuse given by the naysayers is that ''the feds would never let anybody secede.'' This whole mindset is so passive and fatalistic that I am inclined to call it truly un-American. It's just alien to our way of thinking, the idea that we are helpless pawns who can only do what others 'let us' do, rather than what we have the natural right to do.
Our founding forefathers spelled out for us why we have a right to separate ourselves from a government which is destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.''
The Declaration of Independence alone tells us all that we need to know about whether or not we have a 'right' to separate from any given government. And it seems to be becoming clear that our existing system is not responsive to our collective will, and that it is beyond repair or reform, and impervious to our concerns.
Some of us still think we can tweak our existing system a little, or elect better people; good luck with that hope. Sadly, I think it is a vain hope, as we will likely see over the next few months and years. However I am open to being proven wrong.
If our system could be once more restored to what it was meant to be, a legitimate government based on the 'consent of the governed' and responsive to the will of the people, then I would be happy to stay with the system our forefathers designed for us. But I see little hope of that; the existing evils are becoming entrenched and are expanding.
And as our Founding Fathers said more than once, the system they designed was made for a particular people and a particular time and place. It was meant for a 'moral and religious people', for an educated electorate, and for a people with a common faith, ancestry, and way of life. It cannot be expected to function in a multicultural bedlam, divided every which way.
This brings up an obvious problem which is illustrated by the discussion on the AmRen thread: there is much dissension even among those who are supposedly all pro-White: you have the unbelievers who don't care for Christians, the regional disagreements, the 'culture is more important than kinship' people, the pro-secession people vs. those who think secession is 'surrender.' How do we deal with all these sharp differences?
All I can really say at this point is that it's necessary to keep options open, and 'never say never', because things can change quickly, just as they have been changing over these recent months and years. I simply think we can expect more surprises, for which we must be flexible and prepared to adapt.
Disappointingly, but predictably, some Republicans and 'conservatives' are going the route of protesting that they have seen the light and 'moved beyond race', and now if only the liberals would let blacks do the same, we could all get along. Or there are the responses which essentially concede the blacks' grievances, and issue mea culpas about how we were a terribly 'racist' country but we are all better now; we've learned our lesson. We've repented and paid our debt to society, so give us some credit.
Those kinds of weak and defensive responses are useless, and worse than useless, because they are simply playing along with the politically correct games. They just keep us caught in this endless loop of grievances and demands for apologies, and then apologies and supplications for mercy from our side. Somebody has to break the cycle; if only someone of national stature would do just that, publicly, and repudiate the whole thing. If only we could see a chain reaction of individuals who finally see through the PC conditioning, and resolve to break it and refuse to play the game anymore. Yet many people are looking for a leader to set the example and give 'permission' as it were.
Another discussion that is interesting, though exasperating at times to watch, is the discussion about secession which has been going on this thread at AmRen as well as in a number of other places where the 'state sovereignty' movement is being talked about.
I just want to get one nitpick out of the way first: I wish some of those discussing the topic would learn that the word is SEcession not SUCcession, as so many people seem to be spelling it everywhere, including the AmRen thread. What is it with this confusion? The words don't even sound alike, unless one mispronounces 'secession' as 'suh-cession' as some are wont to do.
End of rant.
But apart from that, the most exasperating thing for me in reading those discussions is the ubiquitous naysayers. You know what I mean: the ones who say 'Secession (or succession, as the case may be) is a fantasy. It's impossible. You're dreaming. Never happen, in a million years. Impossible.''
All I can say is, it's a good thing that attitude didn't prevail back in 1776.
And I am baffled by the people who think that secession is somehow 'illegal' or immoral or shocking or radical (which it may be) or disloyal or un-American or just plain evil. Do they not know that our country came into being by means of secession? If it is wrong now, it was wrong in 1776.
And there are always those who, having been taught the orthodox pro-Northern view of the War Between the States, believe that the South was treasonous and criminal to have seceded from the Sacrosanct Union. There is not much chance of persuading these people otherwise.
It may well be that the naysayers and the doomsayers are right, but I take issue with their dogmatic attitude, and the underlying assumption that they have some kind of crystal ball which gives them perfect knowledge of the future, or some kind of superior knowledge of what is and isn't possible. There are just so many variables and unknowns in our present situation; there are many possible paths that may unfold. Who would have guessed, say, five years ago, that we would be exactly where we are now? Who could have guessed ten years ago that things would be as they are today? We've all seen some staggering changes in our country and in the West generally. You'd think the unexpected twists and turns we've seen over the last decade, or even the last few years, would humble most of us and make us realize that we are in uncharted territory, and that none of us can anticipate exactly what the future holds. We can extrapolate or make educated guesses, but there are a great many unknown factors and variables. So I think those who make categorical statements about what CANNOT happen are on shaky ground, and should not be taken seriously.
And more than that, I think those who make these sweeping pronouncements about how certain futures are 'impossible', or who tell us our fate is sealed, are harming our prospects of working any kind of change for the better. They may not succeed in discouraging people -- if that is their aim in making their gloomy announcements, but they tend to dampen enthusiasm and contribute to the attitude of resignation and passivity which some are prone to these days. So I think these naysayers should be tuned out.
Those who counsel caution and realism are not in the same category as the ''we're doomed, nothing can ever change for the better'' crowd, however.
I think that there are a number of scenarios which might open up a number of unforeseen possibilities.
Many of the naysayers seem to take an 'all or nothing' attitude: either we regain the whole country, or nothing. And since the former seems unattainable, it seems we are doomed. Some like to focus on the problems, which they proceed to tell us are insurmountable. I wonder if our forefathers had to deal with so many people like this in their generation, when they founded this country?
My favorite excuse given by the naysayers is that ''the feds would never let anybody secede.'' This whole mindset is so passive and fatalistic that I am inclined to call it truly un-American. It's just alien to our way of thinking, the idea that we are helpless pawns who can only do what others 'let us' do, rather than what we have the natural right to do.
Our founding forefathers spelled out for us why we have a right to separate ourselves from a government which is destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.''
The Declaration of Independence alone tells us all that we need to know about whether or not we have a 'right' to separate from any given government. And it seems to be becoming clear that our existing system is not responsive to our collective will, and that it is beyond repair or reform, and impervious to our concerns.
Some of us still think we can tweak our existing system a little, or elect better people; good luck with that hope. Sadly, I think it is a vain hope, as we will likely see over the next few months and years. However I am open to being proven wrong.
If our system could be once more restored to what it was meant to be, a legitimate government based on the 'consent of the governed' and responsive to the will of the people, then I would be happy to stay with the system our forefathers designed for us. But I see little hope of that; the existing evils are becoming entrenched and are expanding.
And as our Founding Fathers said more than once, the system they designed was made for a particular people and a particular time and place. It was meant for a 'moral and religious people', for an educated electorate, and for a people with a common faith, ancestry, and way of life. It cannot be expected to function in a multicultural bedlam, divided every which way.
This brings up an obvious problem which is illustrated by the discussion on the AmRen thread: there is much dissension even among those who are supposedly all pro-White: you have the unbelievers who don't care for Christians, the regional disagreements, the 'culture is more important than kinship' people, the pro-secession people vs. those who think secession is 'surrender.' How do we deal with all these sharp differences?
All I can really say at this point is that it's necessary to keep options open, and 'never say never', because things can change quickly, just as they have been changing over these recent months and years. I simply think we can expect more surprises, for which we must be flexible and prepared to adapt.
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Secession, State Sovereignty, Tenth Amendment