0 comment Friday, July 11, 2014 | admin
A few months back, one of my regulars here asked what we might do about the distressing situation facing our country. I don't pretend to have ready answers; this blog is an attempt to sound the alarm, and I hope, to provoke some thought and discussion, and to give expression to some thoughts which usually find no expression in our mass media. But I think beginning an open discussion of the situation is crucial, and I'm grateful there are a lot of discussions taking place in the blogosphere and in real life now. All of us can open discussions in our everyday life about these pressing issues, and I try to do so with those I encounter. Maybe by casting the seeds of ideas as broadly as possible, they may fall on ready soil. Or so I hope.
The majority of people in America, as in the rest of the Western countries, seems ambivalent at best and oblivious at worst to the vast changes taking place in our countries, and the very real threat to our way of life and our culture.
Unbelievably there are even those, despite 9/11 and 7/7, who maintain there is no problem, no crisis. The hardcore deniers are probably beyond help; if 9/11 didn't wake them up, they are comatose or braindead. But what of the rest of the people, who are vaguely aware, but not yet fully awake to the situation?
Occasionally the question is raised: can we who are cognizant of the danger to our culture and country, awaken those who are not yet aware of it, and more importantly, can they be persuaded to take part in any kind of counter-effort? Can we ''reach'' everybody, or are there some who will always "hug their chains"?
This leads to the larger question: is there an innate drive for freedom in human beings? We are certainly taught that there is, although I am not sure this is true. In an ideal world, which we certainly don't have, maybe all men would desire to be truly free. But I am not sure human beings are all equally predisposed to desire freedom, whether as individuals or as races. There seems to be an equally strong drive in human beings for security, and for some people this need leads them to prefer a 'nanny state' or a strong ruler who decides for them. Not all people or nations seem to have an equal drive for freedom. I think we in the West may have a greater innate need for autonomy and freedom than others; history seems to support that view, although it doesn't comport with the orthodoxy we are taught in this age of universalism and egalitarianism. But supposing there is an innate drive for freedom (in the western sense of the word); are all peoples, or all individuals, equally capable of it? Again, I would say the evidence of history says no.
Recently I've been involved in some discussions of whether or not we can "win people over" to our side in this effort to preserve our country and our way of life against the onslaught of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Of course ideally we would like to win over as many as we can, but I am increasingly convinced that it is not possible or realistic. Even a passing acquaintance with history indicates that in any given age, great changes, whether for good or ill, are effected by small numbers of people; almost never do the masses unite to bring about change, especially when the efforts needed involve risk, sacrifice, or great personal cost or effort. This seeming fact conflicts with our democratic ideal in which the majority should be represented in any movement to effect change. But even in our American Revolution, it has been widely accepted that a minority actively participated while another minority opposed it. The largest group of people sat it out, being actively involved on neither side. This, I think, is typical of the majority in any age, who are not concerned with great ideas or great ideals; this is not meant to disparage them; some people are best fitted to keep the everyday business running, and to tend to their immediate lives and families. This in itself is not to be deplored; we all have responsibilities to those around us, to work and family and community. So not everyone is in the thick of the great events in the life of a country. But the fact is, the majority of people are simply swept along by the strong currents of change in the wider world, and are content to be so. Many such people are "followers" who simply adapt and conform to the prevailing trends and winds of the times.
Any of us who lived through the 1960s and 70s saw vast changes take place in our society. The "old America" gave way in the space of less than a decade, and the momentum of that era continues to this day; in fact the counterculture is like a runaway train that we can scarcely slow down, let alone stop, decades later. The leftist counterculture which emerged in the late 60s has gone from strength to strength, succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, bringing us to our present chaotic world. The Clintons were the most prominent examples of the counterculture left, who had camouflaged themselves as mainstream politicians, and reached the pinnacle of power in the 1990s. But much of the change which began in the 1960s was not in the political realm, but in the personal sphere. The 1960s slogan, ''the personal is political'' has been borne out by the events which have transpired. The most far-reaching changes took place in the personal realm, having to do with society's mores.
It was striking, back in the late 60s - early70s, to see the "sexual revolution" transform America and the West.
That revolution had to do with more than people's private lives, changing our ideas about marriage, family, community, the role of women, the rearing of children, and society's stake in all of the above. It was startling to see how quickly people dropped the old taboos and mores, and became "non-judgmental" about behaviors which up until them had drawn strict opprobrium. For example, pregnancy outside marriage, which until the late 60s in most places was considered scandalous, was suddenly accepted more openly; the stigma all but disappeared, and quickly. Concomitantly, girls and women who gave birth out of wedlock suddenly began to keep their children rather than discreetly adopting them out. The results to society of that change were far-reaching, as adoption became much more difficult for childless married couples. Many more single mothers and their children suddenly existed, and often lived in relative poverty. There was a sudden epidemic of "latchkey children" going home to an empty dwelling while their mothers worked or went to school or even just socialized while their children were left unsupervised. Children being raised by daycare (or by televison and peers) became a problem. It's instructive to consider the far-reaching changes wrought by society's acceptance of the "new morality", the so-called morality of non-judgmentalism and acceptance of everything. The countercultural rationale for "personal liberation" was that "it's my life; it's my private business." But the truth is, the individual decisions people made affect society as a whole.
The readiness, even eagerness, with which many people dropped the old mores, especially regarding sexual behavior, was telling. This changing in the blink of an eye reveals that the "old morality" as Christian morality was disparagingly called, was not deeply held by most people. It was apparently only held together by the flimsiest of threads, that thread being the perceived popular opinion.
Many, if not most people, are not truly independent thinkers, and perhaps they don't have deeply held beliefs, but merely float along with popular opinion. They think and 'believe' what their peers, friends, colleagues, neighbors think. Increasingly, the liberal mass media shape popular opinion, and average people follow along. Many others take most of their cues from what their group of peers deems acceptable or popular. This is not just true of teens and others who are considered peer-group conformists, but it is true of people in many walks of life, especially in fields like the media and academia. But in fact most people find it very hard to buck popular opinion and peer pressure; fitting in with one's social set is important.
I think Political Correctness has held sway to the extent that it has because people are reluctant to break ranks, to break the social taboos, except in situations where they know they can do so without consequence, as when they are with others who are non-PC. Otherwise they tend to toe the line, even though they may not believe in the PC orthodoxies, but because of career or social concerns, they don't rock the boat. They go along to get along. The same situation prevailed with the old sexual mores: many people, human nature being what it is, were eager to cast off the strictures of the old (Christian) morality, but they did so only in secret, while paying lip service to the old morality. People were concerned to maintain a respectable public reputation, even while they no longer respected Christian morality. Now, in the post-60s era, all kinds of sexual behavior, even the most bizarre, is accepted without judgment by most people, while Political Correctness is the rigidly-enforced code that 'respectable' people must adhere to.
Given the right circumstances, more people tend to feel free to drop the pretenses and hypocrisies of PC and all the respectable liberal mores of today, but the majority wil only come along when they perceive it to be safe, when there is no price that must be paid for dissenting, only when the overwhelming majority seems ready to cast off the shackles. The majority will never lead, but only follow, and when there is no great price to be paid.
The leftists/liberals know this, and because they know this, they are zealous about controlling and shaping public opinion via the mass media, both the "news" media and the entertainment media. However, they can't completely control and censor all communication of ideas; there's always private, face-to-face interaction, and of course now the Internet, especially the blogosphere.
So can we or will we get the majority on our side? Probably not, given the tendency of most people to follow rather than lead, and to follow only when there is no cost to be paid for doing so. Most people will not, at least until they perceive it to be "safe", and until it's cost-free, shed the liberal ideas which are mostly hypocrisies now.
Just as in the old Eastern-bloc Communist regimes, people do not really, deeply believe the orthodoxies of the day. And just as in those regimes, there is probably only a small core of true believers, ideologues, maintaining the rickety structure of the regime, while the greater number simply go along to get along.
There are a few people who question the orthodoxies, the lies, and they are vaguely uneasy about the situation they perceive around us. In America, illegal immigration and our government's bizarre facilitation of it has stirred many otherwise uninvolved people. They may be open to persuasion because they are often disaffected and looking for answers.
But hoping that the majority will have a mass awakening or even come to awareness a few at a time is probably an unrealistic hope. The relative few who are aware will have to do the heavy lifting, as always in history. That's the way it happened during colonial days, and so it will be in our day.
With that in mind, is it realistic to try to 'win over' the majority, and to tailor the truth to mass taste? For example, to try to be as middle-of-the-road and nonoffensive as possible? I know there is a school of thought which says so, but I tend to disagree. I think the lukewarm and the Politically Correct would not be of much help in trying to salvage what is left of our Republic and of the West.
And I am not sure that some people can be reached, even if we had all the time in the world to win them over. Just notice the numbers of people who see absolutely no problem with the state of our country or the world; there are some people who are blase and sanguine to a pathological degree, and who will never, ever admit that there is a problem, even as our society crumbles around us. There are some of the rainbow utopia crowd that even in the aftermath of 9/11 and everything that has happened since then see nothing threatening about Islam or about large-scale mass immigration and hostile people marching in their streets. The human capacity for denial is absolutely staggering. There are some people of the blind loyalist type who will happily follow their chosen leaders off a cliff, or who will remain loyal to The Party no matter what. These people cannot be helped, if they don't come to their senses on their own.
I maintain that in any given age, even in ages which are far less propagandized and indoctrinated than ours, there are only a few independent thinkers; the majority, much as I would wish it to be otherwise, will bend with the wind, and follow the prevailing trends. It's always been thus. The problem, however, is not those passive, disengaged people, who exist in every age, it's the active obstructionists on the other side: the true liberal believers (in both parties) who will ally with the invaders and with harmful ideologies like 'open borders' and multiculturalism. These people are the ones who will pose the biggest problem for patriots. Is it possible to win them over? Somehow I doubt it. We can only hope that their devotion to their failed ideologies is weaker than our devotion to truth and to the ideals of this country.
The majority of people in America, as in the rest of the Western countries, seems ambivalent at best and oblivious at worst to the vast changes taking place in our countries, and the very real threat to our way of life and our culture.
Unbelievably there are even those, despite 9/11 and 7/7, who maintain there is no problem, no crisis. The hardcore deniers are probably beyond help; if 9/11 didn't wake them up, they are comatose or braindead. But what of the rest of the people, who are vaguely aware, but not yet fully awake to the situation?
Occasionally the question is raised: can we who are cognizant of the danger to our culture and country, awaken those who are not yet aware of it, and more importantly, can they be persuaded to take part in any kind of counter-effort? Can we ''reach'' everybody, or are there some who will always "hug their chains"?
This leads to the larger question: is there an innate drive for freedom in human beings? We are certainly taught that there is, although I am not sure this is true. In an ideal world, which we certainly don't have, maybe all men would desire to be truly free. But I am not sure human beings are all equally predisposed to desire freedom, whether as individuals or as races. There seems to be an equally strong drive in human beings for security, and for some people this need leads them to prefer a 'nanny state' or a strong ruler who decides for them. Not all people or nations seem to have an equal drive for freedom. I think we in the West may have a greater innate need for autonomy and freedom than others; history seems to support that view, although it doesn't comport with the orthodoxy we are taught in this age of universalism and egalitarianism. But supposing there is an innate drive for freedom (in the western sense of the word); are all peoples, or all individuals, equally capable of it? Again, I would say the evidence of history says no.
Recently I've been involved in some discussions of whether or not we can "win people over" to our side in this effort to preserve our country and our way of life against the onslaught of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Of course ideally we would like to win over as many as we can, but I am increasingly convinced that it is not possible or realistic. Even a passing acquaintance with history indicates that in any given age, great changes, whether for good or ill, are effected by small numbers of people; almost never do the masses unite to bring about change, especially when the efforts needed involve risk, sacrifice, or great personal cost or effort. This seeming fact conflicts with our democratic ideal in which the majority should be represented in any movement to effect change. But even in our American Revolution, it has been widely accepted that a minority actively participated while another minority opposed it. The largest group of people sat it out, being actively involved on neither side. This, I think, is typical of the majority in any age, who are not concerned with great ideas or great ideals; this is not meant to disparage them; some people are best fitted to keep the everyday business running, and to tend to their immediate lives and families. This in itself is not to be deplored; we all have responsibilities to those around us, to work and family and community. So not everyone is in the thick of the great events in the life of a country. But the fact is, the majority of people are simply swept along by the strong currents of change in the wider world, and are content to be so. Many such people are "followers" who simply adapt and conform to the prevailing trends and winds of the times.
Any of us who lived through the 1960s and 70s saw vast changes take place in our society. The "old America" gave way in the space of less than a decade, and the momentum of that era continues to this day; in fact the counterculture is like a runaway train that we can scarcely slow down, let alone stop, decades later. The leftist counterculture which emerged in the late 60s has gone from strength to strength, succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, bringing us to our present chaotic world. The Clintons were the most prominent examples of the counterculture left, who had camouflaged themselves as mainstream politicians, and reached the pinnacle of power in the 1990s. But much of the change which began in the 1960s was not in the political realm, but in the personal sphere. The 1960s slogan, ''the personal is political'' has been borne out by the events which have transpired. The most far-reaching changes took place in the personal realm, having to do with society's mores.
It was striking, back in the late 60s - early70s, to see the "sexual revolution" transform America and the West.
That revolution had to do with more than people's private lives, changing our ideas about marriage, family, community, the role of women, the rearing of children, and society's stake in all of the above. It was startling to see how quickly people dropped the old taboos and mores, and became "non-judgmental" about behaviors which up until them had drawn strict opprobrium. For example, pregnancy outside marriage, which until the late 60s in most places was considered scandalous, was suddenly accepted more openly; the stigma all but disappeared, and quickly. Concomitantly, girls and women who gave birth out of wedlock suddenly began to keep their children rather than discreetly adopting them out. The results to society of that change were far-reaching, as adoption became much more difficult for childless married couples. Many more single mothers and their children suddenly existed, and often lived in relative poverty. There was a sudden epidemic of "latchkey children" going home to an empty dwelling while their mothers worked or went to school or even just socialized while their children were left unsupervised. Children being raised by daycare (or by televison and peers) became a problem. It's instructive to consider the far-reaching changes wrought by society's acceptance of the "new morality", the so-called morality of non-judgmentalism and acceptance of everything. The countercultural rationale for "personal liberation" was that "it's my life; it's my private business." But the truth is, the individual decisions people made affect society as a whole.
The readiness, even eagerness, with which many people dropped the old mores, especially regarding sexual behavior, was telling. This changing in the blink of an eye reveals that the "old morality" as Christian morality was disparagingly called, was not deeply held by most people. It was apparently only held together by the flimsiest of threads, that thread being the perceived popular opinion.
Many, if not most people, are not truly independent thinkers, and perhaps they don't have deeply held beliefs, but merely float along with popular opinion. They think and 'believe' what their peers, friends, colleagues, neighbors think. Increasingly, the liberal mass media shape popular opinion, and average people follow along. Many others take most of their cues from what their group of peers deems acceptable or popular. This is not just true of teens and others who are considered peer-group conformists, but it is true of people in many walks of life, especially in fields like the media and academia. But in fact most people find it very hard to buck popular opinion and peer pressure; fitting in with one's social set is important.
I think Political Correctness has held sway to the extent that it has because people are reluctant to break ranks, to break the social taboos, except in situations where they know they can do so without consequence, as when they are with others who are non-PC. Otherwise they tend to toe the line, even though they may not believe in the PC orthodoxies, but because of career or social concerns, they don't rock the boat. They go along to get along. The same situation prevailed with the old sexual mores: many people, human nature being what it is, were eager to cast off the strictures of the old (Christian) morality, but they did so only in secret, while paying lip service to the old morality. People were concerned to maintain a respectable public reputation, even while they no longer respected Christian morality. Now, in the post-60s era, all kinds of sexual behavior, even the most bizarre, is accepted without judgment by most people, while Political Correctness is the rigidly-enforced code that 'respectable' people must adhere to.
Given the right circumstances, more people tend to feel free to drop the pretenses and hypocrisies of PC and all the respectable liberal mores of today, but the majority wil only come along when they perceive it to be safe, when there is no price that must be paid for dissenting, only when the overwhelming majority seems ready to cast off the shackles. The majority will never lead, but only follow, and when there is no great price to be paid.
The leftists/liberals know this, and because they know this, they are zealous about controlling and shaping public opinion via the mass media, both the "news" media and the entertainment media. However, they can't completely control and censor all communication of ideas; there's always private, face-to-face interaction, and of course now the Internet, especially the blogosphere.
So can we or will we get the majority on our side? Probably not, given the tendency of most people to follow rather than lead, and to follow only when there is no cost to be paid for doing so. Most people will not, at least until they perceive it to be "safe", and until it's cost-free, shed the liberal ideas which are mostly hypocrisies now.
Just as in the old Eastern-bloc Communist regimes, people do not really, deeply believe the orthodoxies of the day. And just as in those regimes, there is probably only a small core of true believers, ideologues, maintaining the rickety structure of the regime, while the greater number simply go along to get along.
There are a few people who question the orthodoxies, the lies, and they are vaguely uneasy about the situation they perceive around us. In America, illegal immigration and our government's bizarre facilitation of it has stirred many otherwise uninvolved people. They may be open to persuasion because they are often disaffected and looking for answers.
But hoping that the majority will have a mass awakening or even come to awareness a few at a time is probably an unrealistic hope. The relative few who are aware will have to do the heavy lifting, as always in history. That's the way it happened during colonial days, and so it will be in our day.
With that in mind, is it realistic to try to 'win over' the majority, and to tailor the truth to mass taste? For example, to try to be as middle-of-the-road and nonoffensive as possible? I know there is a school of thought which says so, but I tend to disagree. I think the lukewarm and the Politically Correct would not be of much help in trying to salvage what is left of our Republic and of the West.
And I am not sure that some people can be reached, even if we had all the time in the world to win them over. Just notice the numbers of people who see absolutely no problem with the state of our country or the world; there are some people who are blase and sanguine to a pathological degree, and who will never, ever admit that there is a problem, even as our society crumbles around us. There are some of the rainbow utopia crowd that even in the aftermath of 9/11 and everything that has happened since then see nothing threatening about Islam or about large-scale mass immigration and hostile people marching in their streets. The human capacity for denial is absolutely staggering. There are some people of the blind loyalist type who will happily follow their chosen leaders off a cliff, or who will remain loyal to The Party no matter what. These people cannot be helped, if they don't come to their senses on their own.
I maintain that in any given age, even in ages which are far less propagandized and indoctrinated than ours, there are only a few independent thinkers; the majority, much as I would wish it to be otherwise, will bend with the wind, and follow the prevailing trends. It's always been thus. The problem, however, is not those passive, disengaged people, who exist in every age, it's the active obstructionists on the other side: the true liberal believers (in both parties) who will ally with the invaders and with harmful ideologies like 'open borders' and multiculturalism. These people are the ones who will pose the biggest problem for patriots. Is it possible to win them over? Somehow I doubt it. We can only hope that their devotion to their failed ideologies is weaker than our devotion to truth and to the ideals of this country.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Societal Decay