Tampering with the past
0 comment Thursday, June 19, 2014 |
Frank Ellis on multicultural societies:
''It is the power of the charge of "racism" that stifles the derision that would otherwise meet the idea that we should "value diversity." If "diversity" had real benefits whites would want more of it, and would ask that yet more cities in the U.S. and Europe be handed over to immigrants. Of course, they are not rushing to embrace diversity and multiculturalism; they are in headlong flight in the opposite direction. Valuing diversity is a hobby for people who do not have to endure its benefits.
A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a huge growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the "multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society ever more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the idea of the West.
How is such a radical program carried forward? The Soviet Union had a massive system of censorship the Communists even censored street maps and it is worth noting there were two kinds of censorship: the blatant censorship of state agencies and the more subtle self-censorship that the inhabitants of "peoples democracies" soon learned.''
Subtle self-censorship: this is what I referred to as 'democratic censorship', done of people's own volition more or less, but subtly promoted by the powers-that-be. And then there is the use of the arts and the media:
"A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current obsession with fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bartold Brecht's principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be. This is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges; street-wise, straight-shooting lady policemen; minority computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men. This is almost a direct borrowing from Soviet-style socialist realism, with its idealized depictions of sturdy proletarians routing capitalist vermin.''
The post I wrote yesterday dealt with this kind of thing, with the use of entertainment (so-called) deployed to provide fictional role models for minorities, feminists and so on, and at the same time to diminish and defame majority Whites -- and to alter the past in our minds.
It could be called a form of 'gaslighting', couldn't it?
Some of you may have seen the 1944 movie Gaslight, with Charles Boyer as a husband attempting to manipulate his young wife into insanity. He changes and alters things in their home in order to make her doubt her own sanity. He denies her perceptions and slowly convinces her that she is mad, and that she is the culprit in the mysterious things that are happening. He plays on her vulnerabilities and soon has her believing the opposite of reality.
That's what the leftists in the media and their masters are doing to us. They fill our heads with lies and distortions. They deny us the right to feel what we feel about what is being done. They make us out to be psychotic and paranoid if we notice what is happening, and if we object to the changes that are being forced on us all.
''What changes?'' they ask. According to the media and the rewriters of history, we have always been a multicultural nation. It was recently, was it not, that our president said that Moslems and Hindus had always been part of America. Any denial of these newly-minted 'facts' is met with an accusation of conspiracy-mongering and paranoia. Some years ago I said that legal immigrants came mostly from the Third World, and someone challenged me very angrily on that statement. ''That's crazy! That's not true.'' So I had to decide who to believe, and I chose my lying eyes -- and statistics. But lots of people begin to doubt their lying eyes, and to doubt the old history books or the statistics they may come across. There are many people who don't seem to be able to stand up to the subtle conditioning and 're-education.'
People who 'gaslight' others in personal situations usually go about it by undermining the self-confidence and the perceptions of the gaslight-ee. They make the target doubt himself, and doubt the rightness of his feelings. That is what is being done to us. It is being done by the news media as well as by the 'entertainment' media and by educators who toe the politically correct line. We are told (as Mr. Wise told us in that seething letter a couple of weeks ago) that the world we remember from the pre-PC era never existed. This is a frequent device used by the left; they try to undermine even our memories. We are told that we are misremembering, that we are re-framing the past to view it through rose-colored lenses, or that we are confabulating the whole picture of old America. Some leftists make whole careers on 'debunking' pre-PC America.
From Publishers Weekly
The golden age of the American family never existed, asserts Coontz ( The Social Origns [sic] of Private Life ) in a wonderfully perceptive, myth-debunking report. The "Leave It to Beaver" ideal of breadwinner father, full-time homemaker mother and dependent children was a fiction of the 1950s, she shows. Real families of that period were rife with conflict, repression and anxiety, frequently poor and much less idyllic than many assume; teen pregnancy rates in the '50s were higher than today. Further, Coontz contends, the nuclear family was elevated to a central source of personal satisfaction only in the late 19th century, thereby weakening people's community ties and sense of civic obligation. Coontz disputes the idea that children can be raised properly only in traditional families. Viewing modern domestic problems as symptoms of a much larger socioeconomic crisis, she demonstrates that no single type of household has ever protected Americans from social disruption or poverty.''
This is gaslighting. The message is that your memories and my memories are false and mistaken. In reality, the world was always a grim and ugly place, so if you find today's America grim and ugly, well, the world has always been just like that. Things have not worsened; you are just crazy or senile to think so.
And America was always multicultural; all those old movies and still pictures that show White people just prove that the racist Whites kept minorities out of sight, just as with gays and lesbians.
Perhaps it comforts some people to believe this kind of thing, because if they (like most young people) believe that the past was horribly flawed, full of sexism, racism, and homophobia, then they can congratulate themselves on how much 'freer' we all are now than we were then.
The rewriting of history books, along with the rewriting of long-established legends and lore, is part of this gaslighting program. The idea is to efface the memory of the real past, and substitute a politically corrected past, one in which Britain was 'always a multicultural/multiracial nation' or to establish the idea that Britain is populated today by people who are descendants of many races all mingled together. There is no ''White race'', as I have heard many leftists say. In fact, there is no ''race'' at all. It's all your imagination.
Glenn Beck and his 'black Founding Fathers' also fit in with this kind of agenda.
I've already noted on this blog that people, the public at large, anyway, seem to be more and more 'fuzzy' on the concept of race. I wrote of my bewilderment at hearing many White Americans claim that the president is ''not really black'' or ''just as White as he is black.'' That would never have been said just a couple of decades ago. And I was baffled at people saying that the president ''looked just like his mother'' or his maternal grandfather. What? How did we all come to see things so differently? I can only conclude that this increasing confusion about race is the product of many years of hearing 'race is a social construct' and 'we are all one race.'
The obvious social divisions (and racial divisions) in our society are not news to anybody, but it seems that the younger generations and even many of the older generations are actually starting to see, to physically see, race differently -- or perhaps not to see race at all. Can programming really alter people's perceptions so radically? Or is this something like what we have all seen in depictions of night-club hypnotists convincing their subjects that they see pink elephants in the room.
I am lost for an explanation. I do know that many people are very suggestible and easily manipulated, and I don't doubt that there are some very sophisticated and well-planned efforts to alter people's thinking and perceptions. And I don't doubt that they are very pleased with the apparent success of their efforts.
But of course that's just paranoia, isn't it?

Labels: , , ,