0 comment Tuesday, August 5, 2014 | admin
One of the vexing politically correct habits, which I've alluded to before is the knee-jerk, all-purpose response of ''they're not all like that.'' Our people seem to have had this ingrained into them, indelibly etched into their brains, judging by how often they employ this meme.
The ''They'' who are ''not all like that'' in this context means minorities, mainly nonwhites and non-Christians. It seems to be the way that liberals both Republican and Democrat, talk themselves into clinging to their 'colorblindness' and 'tolerance.' It is the ready answer when confronted with news stories involving interracial crime (black on white, to cite the most common) or misdeeds by other non-White or non-Christian people. The latter may be Moslems or they may be Jews; the colorblind Republican rigidly holds to the idea that all bad behavior, all aggression, passive or active, against us by such people, is the exception. They are not all like that! If you cite some outrage perpetrated by one of any of the favored victim groups, the colorblind conservatives will cite some exemplary person of that same group. The one person in a hundred or in a thousand is to be the 'real' example of their group, not the majority.
Events like the recent rash of violence at various McDonald's franchises simply calls forth references to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain or Allen West, or name your 'favorite' minority exemplar.
The prize-winner in this category was some poster on Free Republic who said, in discussing the McDonald's beating in Baltimore "I would die fighting for Allen West, Herman Cain, Walter Williams, or any of our black conservatives.'' Ponder the significance of that kind of thing coming from a White. How many White people today would defend their own folk in that fashion? That kind of devotion should belong only to God or to one's nearest and dearest, but yet we have people saying that about these public figures, who have somehow achieved demigod status among some conservatives.
This really does border on idolatry, as Cambria Will Not Yield alludes to on his blog frequently.
How does it happen that this kind of zeal on behalf of Others is so ingrained in many people today? The quick answer is 'programming, or indoctrination', but as we've asked here before, how did it come to be that our people were so susceptible to this kind of upside-down thinking?
It's no good answering ''Christianity programmed them'', considering that the rise of this kind of adulation of Others grew only as Christianity declined. Christianity, throughout most of its existence, was free of such deluded servility. The old-time Christian believed in bringing the gospel to far-off nations but most had realistic attitudes about the people in those countries. There was no looking up to them as sages or saviors, as with today's twisted multicult image of Third Worlders. Today's fawning attitudes owe more to Rousseau and his idea of the 'noble savage', the savage as innocent, unspoiled child, than to anything in Christianity. The left and their religious arm, the 'new agers', revere something called 'crazy wisdom' which they believe resides only in pure third-worlders or alien peoples and religions.
So now we have this mass of people whose knee-jerk impulse is to defend Others rather than their own flesh and bone.
And these people maintain their absurd ideas by telling themselves that all these violent crimes are anomalies, random acts, the work of only a few bad apples. The 'real' representatives of any given group are the few who conform to our standards.
This is true whether the group being discussed is blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews or whoever.
A few years ago when I posted links to articles about problems with Somalis refugees in Maine, I got an irate and condemnatory comment from some goody-two-shoes in Maine who claimed that Somalis are wonderful hard-working people who get along famously with their White neighbors.
So first comes the race card, or the victim card, followed closely by ''they're not all like that.'' Sometimes the next cliche on the list is that 'Whites commit lots of crimes too.''
I truly do see this attitude and defense mechanism as an impediment to facing reality. As long as our people can continue to take refuge in these facile cliches, these platitudes, I see little hope of honesty and clear-thinking.
And it seems that conservatives in particular cling fiercely to these notions, often lashing out at anybody who tries to dispute the facts with them.
Perhaps decades of maleducation has left many people unable to spot faulty logic or fallacious thinking. It should be obvious to anybody who can think that there are undeniable patterns, patterns which are unfailing predictors of how groups of people will generally behave. They truly think that if they can find one exception somewhere, the many 'bad apples' are therefore insignificant. We can disregard them, because they are not representative; the few are the real 'typical' members of that group, or so they maintain.
For instance, in talking with people I have cited the correlation between 'diversity' in a city or town and crime, or social deterioration and pathology. I can show people statistic after statistic as evidence of the link between demographics and the 'liveability' of a given place. Detroit is probably the prime example of this, but then you are met with these absurd explanations such as the articles about the 'Ruins of Detroit' being examples of Democrat misrule! For many 'conservatives', minority dysfunction or bad behavior is due to 'liberals keeping them ignorant and dependent.' In other words, if only they would read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, or listen to Allen West, blacks might all be successful businessmen and high-achieving, law-abiding citizens.
But the mere existence of Williams or Sowell or Cain is incontrovertible proof that ''they're not all like that'' -- they are all in fact potential Herman Cains, and Hispanics are all potential Marco Rubios.
I cited my personal experiences in my previous post, with being a crime victim, and since those things happened, I've had a great variety of unpleasant interactions with random 'Others' who behaved aggressively towards me or mine. However, I'm sorry to say it was years before the cumulative weight of all those bad experiences, and of hearing or seeing the bad experiences of others, led me to see how preposterous our racial cliches are, how out of touch with reality, how false.
It seems it often takes much hard experience to wake people up -- yet some people persist in their stubborn delusions. Why? It must have some payoff for them; it makes them ''feel good about themselves'' to know that whatever they are they are not 'racist'. For most Americans, sad to say, that is the single most defining proof of virtue or character, to be 'colorblind' or 'tolerant.' Some people will even give up their lives rather than relinquish their illusions.
A variant on this 'they're not all like that' meme is the 'favorite minority'. I see this a lot among HBDers, who, even in using the acronym, 'NAM', indicate that Asians are given an exemption from criticism; they are the good immigrants who will benefit our country by bringing us their high IQs and 'successful'' wealth-creating ways. The Non-Asians are the group who are the lesser -- though many of the HBDers seem enamored of Hispanics, especially the 'hot' Hispanic women or Filipinas. At AmRen, many regulars seem to have their favorite minorities, including even the Sikhs, who have been involved in violence according to recent news stories.
In a way I think even people who are 'race realists' or even WNs believe in the proposition nation business; they are willing to accept others, however alien, if they think that these people accept American laws or 'contribute to society' or don't commit too many crimes.
How do we persuade people who refuse to recognize patterns and accept reality?
Or again, is it even necessary to win them over? Do we need the majority on board with us, or do we just need to neutralize this nonsense and hope they will stop working against their own folk?
The ''They'' who are ''not all like that'' in this context means minorities, mainly nonwhites and non-Christians. It seems to be the way that liberals both Republican and Democrat, talk themselves into clinging to their 'colorblindness' and 'tolerance.' It is the ready answer when confronted with news stories involving interracial crime (black on white, to cite the most common) or misdeeds by other non-White or non-Christian people. The latter may be Moslems or they may be Jews; the colorblind Republican rigidly holds to the idea that all bad behavior, all aggression, passive or active, against us by such people, is the exception. They are not all like that! If you cite some outrage perpetrated by one of any of the favored victim groups, the colorblind conservatives will cite some exemplary person of that same group. The one person in a hundred or in a thousand is to be the 'real' example of their group, not the majority.
Events like the recent rash of violence at various McDonald's franchises simply calls forth references to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain or Allen West, or name your 'favorite' minority exemplar.
The prize-winner in this category was some poster on Free Republic who said, in discussing the McDonald's beating in Baltimore "I would die fighting for Allen West, Herman Cain, Walter Williams, or any of our black conservatives.'' Ponder the significance of that kind of thing coming from a White. How many White people today would defend their own folk in that fashion? That kind of devotion should belong only to God or to one's nearest and dearest, but yet we have people saying that about these public figures, who have somehow achieved demigod status among some conservatives.
This really does border on idolatry, as Cambria Will Not Yield alludes to on his blog frequently.
How does it happen that this kind of zeal on behalf of Others is so ingrained in many people today? The quick answer is 'programming, or indoctrination', but as we've asked here before, how did it come to be that our people were so susceptible to this kind of upside-down thinking?
It's no good answering ''Christianity programmed them'', considering that the rise of this kind of adulation of Others grew only as Christianity declined. Christianity, throughout most of its existence, was free of such deluded servility. The old-time Christian believed in bringing the gospel to far-off nations but most had realistic attitudes about the people in those countries. There was no looking up to them as sages or saviors, as with today's twisted multicult image of Third Worlders. Today's fawning attitudes owe more to Rousseau and his idea of the 'noble savage', the savage as innocent, unspoiled child, than to anything in Christianity. The left and their religious arm, the 'new agers', revere something called 'crazy wisdom' which they believe resides only in pure third-worlders or alien peoples and religions.
So now we have this mass of people whose knee-jerk impulse is to defend Others rather than their own flesh and bone.
And these people maintain their absurd ideas by telling themselves that all these violent crimes are anomalies, random acts, the work of only a few bad apples. The 'real' representatives of any given group are the few who conform to our standards.
This is true whether the group being discussed is blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews or whoever.
A few years ago when I posted links to articles about problems with Somalis refugees in Maine, I got an irate and condemnatory comment from some goody-two-shoes in Maine who claimed that Somalis are wonderful hard-working people who get along famously with their White neighbors.
So first comes the race card, or the victim card, followed closely by ''they're not all like that.'' Sometimes the next cliche on the list is that 'Whites commit lots of crimes too.''
I truly do see this attitude and defense mechanism as an impediment to facing reality. As long as our people can continue to take refuge in these facile cliches, these platitudes, I see little hope of honesty and clear-thinking.
And it seems that conservatives in particular cling fiercely to these notions, often lashing out at anybody who tries to dispute the facts with them.
Perhaps decades of maleducation has left many people unable to spot faulty logic or fallacious thinking. It should be obvious to anybody who can think that there are undeniable patterns, patterns which are unfailing predictors of how groups of people will generally behave. They truly think that if they can find one exception somewhere, the many 'bad apples' are therefore insignificant. We can disregard them, because they are not representative; the few are the real 'typical' members of that group, or so they maintain.
For instance, in talking with people I have cited the correlation between 'diversity' in a city or town and crime, or social deterioration and pathology. I can show people statistic after statistic as evidence of the link between demographics and the 'liveability' of a given place. Detroit is probably the prime example of this, but then you are met with these absurd explanations such as the articles about the 'Ruins of Detroit' being examples of Democrat misrule! For many 'conservatives', minority dysfunction or bad behavior is due to 'liberals keeping them ignorant and dependent.' In other words, if only they would read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, or listen to Allen West, blacks might all be successful businessmen and high-achieving, law-abiding citizens.
But the mere existence of Williams or Sowell or Cain is incontrovertible proof that ''they're not all like that'' -- they are all in fact potential Herman Cains, and Hispanics are all potential Marco Rubios.
I cited my personal experiences in my previous post, with being a crime victim, and since those things happened, I've had a great variety of unpleasant interactions with random 'Others' who behaved aggressively towards me or mine. However, I'm sorry to say it was years before the cumulative weight of all those bad experiences, and of hearing or seeing the bad experiences of others, led me to see how preposterous our racial cliches are, how out of touch with reality, how false.
It seems it often takes much hard experience to wake people up -- yet some people persist in their stubborn delusions. Why? It must have some payoff for them; it makes them ''feel good about themselves'' to know that whatever they are they are not 'racist'. For most Americans, sad to say, that is the single most defining proof of virtue or character, to be 'colorblind' or 'tolerant.' Some people will even give up their lives rather than relinquish their illusions.
A variant on this 'they're not all like that' meme is the 'favorite minority'. I see this a lot among HBDers, who, even in using the acronym, 'NAM', indicate that Asians are given an exemption from criticism; they are the good immigrants who will benefit our country by bringing us their high IQs and 'successful'' wealth-creating ways. The Non-Asians are the group who are the lesser -- though many of the HBDers seem enamored of Hispanics, especially the 'hot' Hispanic women or Filipinas. At AmRen, many regulars seem to have their favorite minorities, including even the Sikhs, who have been involved in violence according to recent news stories.
In a way I think even people who are 'race realists' or even WNs believe in the proposition nation business; they are willing to accept others, however alien, if they think that these people accept American laws or 'contribute to society' or don't commit too many crimes.
How do we persuade people who refuse to recognize patterns and accept reality?
Or again, is it even necessary to win them over? Do we need the majority on board with us, or do we just need to neutralize this nonsense and hope they will stop working against their own folk?
Labels: Colorblind Conservatives, Ethnoloyalty, Indoctrination, Political Correctness