0 comment Sunday, August 10, 2014 | admin
I've been spending some hours visiting various right-wing/conservative blogs to get a feel for what people are saying about these latest instances of violence in the news. I'd like to be able to say that I see movement towards some kind of realism, or an 'awakening'. According to the still-extant ''worse is better'' philosophy, there ought to be a mass awakening to reality by now, or very soon. I don't see much of it.
I do see that there is a lot of blunt, even harsh rhetoric on the part of many mainstream 'conventional conservatives.' But I think the bluntness somewhat belies the fact that underneath some of the tough talk, there survives much of the 'colorblind' memes.
For example, a lot of the comments express the creaky old idea that the violence is due to 'liberalism'. The liberal welfare state and the media and school propaganda have kept blacks down, held them back, and made them dysfunctional. Had it not been for the Great Society or the New Frontier, and the myriad liberal programs since then, blacks would by now have blended in seamlessly with the rest of us, and enmity between or amongst the different races would not exist.
Occasionally, even on this blog from time to time, somebody will say that before the 60s, there was no problem, with black dysfunction or crime. Apparently they were all well-behaved and docile. There is a grain of truth here; things have gotten worse since the 60s, but there were problems before. Read old books and histories; there are indications that things were not as orderly in the past as some Republicans want to believe.
This idea dies hard.
In my post last night, I blamed the media to some extent for fomenting conflict, actively stoking the flames of hatred towards Whites. But in saying that, I was by no means excusing the people who commit violence. The media did not create the very real animosity, nor did 'liberalism' or The Democrat Plantation nor any of the other handy scapegoats so favored by the aracial right. The media exacerbate the existing bad blood; they egg it on, goad those who are already prone to acting out violently. They are instigators and spectators gleefully observing the mayhem from the stadium seats. I do believe some leftists, too wimpy to act out themselves except verbally, use minorities as surrogates to carry out the deeds they would do, if they were not to cowardly to do so themselves.
You could also say that the media are like those arsonists who set fires, then call the firemen, and skulk in the shadows watching the conflagration with excitement. Then they can boast that they did their part to curtail the damage, when in fact they lit the match.
But again, they are sparking a situation which is already combustible.
But how do we answer the conservatives who say that 'liberalism' and the Democrats are to blame? One obvious answer is to point to the violence endemic to many countries where there are no Democrats or American-style liberals to blame. Look at Haiti, and various African countries. The pattern holds true there.
But the liberal-conservative Republican type will not acknowledge this; they have their story and they're sticking to it, facts notwithstanding.
The other fall-back argument that stubborn 'colorblinds' use is the 'Thomas Sowell' argument, or the Walter Williams argument, or Herman Cain, or whoever the current paragon of black conservative virtue. This is a variation of the ''they're not all like that!' argument, which is one that exasperates me. In other words, until every individual, every last one, of a given group is actively attacking you, then there is no problem. Generalizations can't be made, even if 99 percent fit the stereotype.
And as always, liberal Republicans are just as likely as liberal Democrats to pull out the old, frayed race card: ''you're a racist'' or a ''supremacist'' or an extremist. A hater. A bigot.
This of course is not an argument at all, just verbal abuse, but it's the best they have, or so they think.
I am always looking for the half-full glass, but optimism is not the same as pollyannaism or denial. I would love to see some movement towards common sense, self-respect, confidence, and a spirit of unity amongst our people, but as of this moment, it seems a long way off.
It is easier to teach those who realize they don't have all the answers than to teach or persuade those who have an ironclad certainty that they know it all. So until something or someone shakes the know-it-all attitude of the smug conservative who is up on his PC moral high horse, I am afraid we won't see the ''hope and change'' that we need.
I do see that there is a lot of blunt, even harsh rhetoric on the part of many mainstream 'conventional conservatives.' But I think the bluntness somewhat belies the fact that underneath some of the tough talk, there survives much of the 'colorblind' memes.
For example, a lot of the comments express the creaky old idea that the violence is due to 'liberalism'. The liberal welfare state and the media and school propaganda have kept blacks down, held them back, and made them dysfunctional. Had it not been for the Great Society or the New Frontier, and the myriad liberal programs since then, blacks would by now have blended in seamlessly with the rest of us, and enmity between or amongst the different races would not exist.
Occasionally, even on this blog from time to time, somebody will say that before the 60s, there was no problem, with black dysfunction or crime. Apparently they were all well-behaved and docile. There is a grain of truth here; things have gotten worse since the 60s, but there were problems before. Read old books and histories; there are indications that things were not as orderly in the past as some Republicans want to believe.
This idea dies hard.
In my post last night, I blamed the media to some extent for fomenting conflict, actively stoking the flames of hatred towards Whites. But in saying that, I was by no means excusing the people who commit violence. The media did not create the very real animosity, nor did 'liberalism' or The Democrat Plantation nor any of the other handy scapegoats so favored by the aracial right. The media exacerbate the existing bad blood; they egg it on, goad those who are already prone to acting out violently. They are instigators and spectators gleefully observing the mayhem from the stadium seats. I do believe some leftists, too wimpy to act out themselves except verbally, use minorities as surrogates to carry out the deeds they would do, if they were not to cowardly to do so themselves.
You could also say that the media are like those arsonists who set fires, then call the firemen, and skulk in the shadows watching the conflagration with excitement. Then they can boast that they did their part to curtail the damage, when in fact they lit the match.
But again, they are sparking a situation which is already combustible.
But how do we answer the conservatives who say that 'liberalism' and the Democrats are to blame? One obvious answer is to point to the violence endemic to many countries where there are no Democrats or American-style liberals to blame. Look at Haiti, and various African countries. The pattern holds true there.
But the liberal-conservative Republican type will not acknowledge this; they have their story and they're sticking to it, facts notwithstanding.
The other fall-back argument that stubborn 'colorblinds' use is the 'Thomas Sowell' argument, or the Walter Williams argument, or Herman Cain, or whoever the current paragon of black conservative virtue. This is a variation of the ''they're not all like that!' argument, which is one that exasperates me. In other words, until every individual, every last one, of a given group is actively attacking you, then there is no problem. Generalizations can't be made, even if 99 percent fit the stereotype.
And as always, liberal Republicans are just as likely as liberal Democrats to pull out the old, frayed race card: ''you're a racist'' or a ''supremacist'' or an extremist. A hater. A bigot.
This of course is not an argument at all, just verbal abuse, but it's the best they have, or so they think.
I am always looking for the half-full glass, but optimism is not the same as pollyannaism or denial. I would love to see some movement towards common sense, self-respect, confidence, and a spirit of unity amongst our people, but as of this moment, it seems a long way off.
It is easier to teach those who realize they don't have all the answers than to teach or persuade those who have an ironclad certainty that they know it all. So until something or someone shakes the know-it-all attitude of the smug conservative who is up on his PC moral high horse, I am afraid we won't see the ''hope and change'' that we need.
Labels: Political Correctness, Race Denial, Racial Realism