0 comment Friday, October 17, 2014 | admin
One of the issues which I see as being a huge problem to ethnonationalists is this plague of infighting and division.
It would probably be best for my state of mind if I just left off reading comment threads on any of the blogs or forums out there. It's just disheartening. I've mentioned before that I have had to talk myself into believing that many of the divisive people who are serial commenters on the ethnopatriot blogs are provocateurs of some sort or another. Sometimes I almost think there are about 14 individuals at most who make up most of the commenters out there, so limited is the range of ideas that is discussed, and so frequently are certain memes repeated, and certain arguments and canards bandied about.
First, there's the ever-present Anglophobes, who go out of their way to inject blame for Anglo-Saxons into every discussion. At one blog one of these Anglo-haters said that the Communist agents who were named in the McCarthy era were mostly Jews -- and WASPs. As an example of 'WASPs', he named one Lauchlin Currie (good old English name, there. I mean you can't get more Scottish than Lauchlin Currie). Then he mentioned Alger Hiss, and the only 'Hiss' name-bearers I've found were German. Nice try, though.
Next up, the Christian-haters. AmRen in particular has its own resident anti-Christian who makes his home on all the comment threads. I've objected to his constant shots at Christians and most often my comments are not accepted. Yet this person has free rein to slam Christianity every day of the year. I can only conclude AmRen's moderators agree with him.
So far, we have 'ethnopatriots' or WNs taking shots at Anglo-Saxons and Christians, and that covers the majority old Americans, I think. Nice way to alienate the greatest number of White Americans.
In passing, I'll mention the doomsayers, who usually show up to make their dark pronouncements, predicting defeat and oblivion.
Then there are the libertarians, the 'every man is an island' crowd. I don't know why they are there on ethnonationalist blogs or forums; I thought libertarians scorned all 'collectivism', believing only in the Individual or the sacred Market.
Actually the libertarians are a minor annoyance. The real problem is that libertarianism in its most demotic form has just about consumed all of what was once called the 'conservative movement.' There are few 'gentleman conservatives' who care about the old order of things, of preserving what is best of our past and our heritage; there are only worshipers of the Market and the Self, and these people are most often social liberals who fully support most of the agenda of the 1960s, even while they profess to loathe 'liberals' ahd 'hippies.' And they can't even see the absurdity of that position.
Here's a puzzle. There are those who note the hand of Jews in just about every radical idea or destructive trend in our society. Sometimes Christianity is condemned by the Judeo-skeptical because they say it is a 'Jewish cult', it's an 'alien belief system' forced on us and alien to us.
But here's the paradox: the same people who say this often idolize Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and the rest of the gang. Anybody notice anything about the makeup of the libertarian pantheon? It looks to me as though Libertarianism truly is a 'Jewish cult' and an alien belief system.
I occasionally agree with libertarians on isolated issues, and I have quoted from some libertarian writers like Albert Jay Nock. But overall, I think libertarianism has been almost as much of a destructive force to Western Christian values and society as Marxism and all its permutations. It has promoted more social atomization and more libertinism, more contempt for our fellow man and more selfishness, more abandonment of loyalty, all things which our de-Christianized society already possesses in excess. It has sort of counterculturalized many who might otherwise be resistant to leftism in its social forms.
The dearth of loyalty towards our folk is really at the heart of this everybody-for-himself attitude which dominates our society now.
Most on our side claim to care about our folk and our survival, and our posterity, but when you come right down to it, there is a sort of every man his own king approach, wherein everyone wants to prescribe his own personal utopian vision of how things should be -- if we ever manage to recover our sovereignty and self-rule. Few seem able or willing to accept things that go against their personal, tailor-made philosophy and ideology. The unbelievers will not accept Christians or Christ in their utopia-to-be, the non-Anglo-Saxons say that 'WASPs' should be kept away from power or authority. The Yankees generally hate the Southrons. The young hate the old. Some of the young adults do not like children, and would live in a state of perpetual adolescence if they had their way.
How can all these squabbling groups and factions ever agree and come together in any kind of common allegiance? It would seem there cannot be any kind of larger nationalism (such as a generic American identity). I don't see enough affection or loyalty, or even as much as a grudging tolerance, that could keep it together. What kept us together in the past was a commonality based on blood and a common religious/cultural heritage. Now, the latter has been splintered, and our blood bonds seem weakened.
Everybody thinks that the 'other guy' has to bend and give in for the sake of agreement.
The left has succeeded in making many of us hate our American heritage, and to consider our history and our past heroes and myths as tainted and corrupt. I get the sense that only a Jacobin-like overthrow of all that the past contained will be enough for many of the younger and more indoctrinated of our people. I can imagine that the young would try to reinvent the wheel, to start with some sort of ideology to try to create a new nation from whole cloth, because they consider the existing cultural remnant to be not worth saving. And yet if a new ''nation'' was created around new belief systems and ideologies, it would be more or less a 'proposition nation', which I think most of us have agreed to be an untenable idea.
If we must overthrow any belief system, if we must pull anything up by the roots, it should instead be all the rotten fruits of the 1960s, all things that are associated with leftism and radical individualism. The tried and true is the most sensible path to take, rather than starting from the ground up and conducting some new utopian experiment and trust that it will work out. We are now living out the results of a few generations of social engineering. It's that which must be rooted out of our culture, not the millennia of custom and tradition which served us well for such a long time.
I can't help being reminded again of Jeremiah 6:16
''Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.''
All the same, I can't join the doomsayers. As long as there are a faithful few, there's hope. It's always the few, not the many, who make history. The question is, which few will it be?
It would probably be best for my state of mind if I just left off reading comment threads on any of the blogs or forums out there. It's just disheartening. I've mentioned before that I have had to talk myself into believing that many of the divisive people who are serial commenters on the ethnopatriot blogs are provocateurs of some sort or another. Sometimes I almost think there are about 14 individuals at most who make up most of the commenters out there, so limited is the range of ideas that is discussed, and so frequently are certain memes repeated, and certain arguments and canards bandied about.
First, there's the ever-present Anglophobes, who go out of their way to inject blame for Anglo-Saxons into every discussion. At one blog one of these Anglo-haters said that the Communist agents who were named in the McCarthy era were mostly Jews -- and WASPs. As an example of 'WASPs', he named one Lauchlin Currie (good old English name, there. I mean you can't get more Scottish than Lauchlin Currie). Then he mentioned Alger Hiss, and the only 'Hiss' name-bearers I've found were German. Nice try, though.
Next up, the Christian-haters. AmRen in particular has its own resident anti-Christian who makes his home on all the comment threads. I've objected to his constant shots at Christians and most often my comments are not accepted. Yet this person has free rein to slam Christianity every day of the year. I can only conclude AmRen's moderators agree with him.
So far, we have 'ethnopatriots' or WNs taking shots at Anglo-Saxons and Christians, and that covers the majority old Americans, I think. Nice way to alienate the greatest number of White Americans.
In passing, I'll mention the doomsayers, who usually show up to make their dark pronouncements, predicting defeat and oblivion.
Then there are the libertarians, the 'every man is an island' crowd. I don't know why they are there on ethnonationalist blogs or forums; I thought libertarians scorned all 'collectivism', believing only in the Individual or the sacred Market.
Actually the libertarians are a minor annoyance. The real problem is that libertarianism in its most demotic form has just about consumed all of what was once called the 'conservative movement.' There are few 'gentleman conservatives' who care about the old order of things, of preserving what is best of our past and our heritage; there are only worshipers of the Market and the Self, and these people are most often social liberals who fully support most of the agenda of the 1960s, even while they profess to loathe 'liberals' ahd 'hippies.' And they can't even see the absurdity of that position.
Here's a puzzle. There are those who note the hand of Jews in just about every radical idea or destructive trend in our society. Sometimes Christianity is condemned by the Judeo-skeptical because they say it is a 'Jewish cult', it's an 'alien belief system' forced on us and alien to us.
But here's the paradox: the same people who say this often idolize Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and the rest of the gang. Anybody notice anything about the makeup of the libertarian pantheon? It looks to me as though Libertarianism truly is a 'Jewish cult' and an alien belief system.
I occasionally agree with libertarians on isolated issues, and I have quoted from some libertarian writers like Albert Jay Nock. But overall, I think libertarianism has been almost as much of a destructive force to Western Christian values and society as Marxism and all its permutations. It has promoted more social atomization and more libertinism, more contempt for our fellow man and more selfishness, more abandonment of loyalty, all things which our de-Christianized society already possesses in excess. It has sort of counterculturalized many who might otherwise be resistant to leftism in its social forms.
The dearth of loyalty towards our folk is really at the heart of this everybody-for-himself attitude which dominates our society now.
Most on our side claim to care about our folk and our survival, and our posterity, but when you come right down to it, there is a sort of every man his own king approach, wherein everyone wants to prescribe his own personal utopian vision of how things should be -- if we ever manage to recover our sovereignty and self-rule. Few seem able or willing to accept things that go against their personal, tailor-made philosophy and ideology. The unbelievers will not accept Christians or Christ in their utopia-to-be, the non-Anglo-Saxons say that 'WASPs' should be kept away from power or authority. The Yankees generally hate the Southrons. The young hate the old. Some of the young adults do not like children, and would live in a state of perpetual adolescence if they had their way.
How can all these squabbling groups and factions ever agree and come together in any kind of common allegiance? It would seem there cannot be any kind of larger nationalism (such as a generic American identity). I don't see enough affection or loyalty, or even as much as a grudging tolerance, that could keep it together. What kept us together in the past was a commonality based on blood and a common religious/cultural heritage. Now, the latter has been splintered, and our blood bonds seem weakened.
Everybody thinks that the 'other guy' has to bend and give in for the sake of agreement.
The left has succeeded in making many of us hate our American heritage, and to consider our history and our past heroes and myths as tainted and corrupt. I get the sense that only a Jacobin-like overthrow of all that the past contained will be enough for many of the younger and more indoctrinated of our people. I can imagine that the young would try to reinvent the wheel, to start with some sort of ideology to try to create a new nation from whole cloth, because they consider the existing cultural remnant to be not worth saving. And yet if a new ''nation'' was created around new belief systems and ideologies, it would be more or less a 'proposition nation', which I think most of us have agreed to be an untenable idea.
If we must overthrow any belief system, if we must pull anything up by the roots, it should instead be all the rotten fruits of the 1960s, all things that are associated with leftism and radical individualism. The tried and true is the most sensible path to take, rather than starting from the ground up and conducting some new utopian experiment and trust that it will work out. We are now living out the results of a few generations of social engineering. It's that which must be rooted out of our culture, not the millennia of custom and tradition which served us well for such a long time.
I can't help being reminded again of Jeremiah 6:16
''Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.''
All the same, I can't join the doomsayers. As long as there are a faithful few, there's hope. It's always the few, not the many, who make history. The question is, which few will it be?
Labels: Atomized Society, Divide And Rule, Divisiveness, Hyperindividualism
0 comment Thursday, October 9, 2014 | admin
Kudos to Paul Craig Roberts. He's written a piece about the assault on 'entitlements', especially Social Security, in the wake of the huge budget deficits.
Suddenly, in the last six months or so, it almost seems as if someone declared open season on the old and the disabled. Once upon a time, only the real curmudgeons decried things like Social Security, and suggested cutting off this program, which for many older Americans is their only source of sustenance.
Hard economic times have caused a commensurate hardness of hearts on the part of many conservatives and libertarians. Actually, though, I don't think that is true, when I reflect on it. I think they have always been hard-hearted, and now feel emboldened to say some heartless things that would not have been said in polite company, definitely not in Christian circles, anyway.
I haven't read many of Roberts' pieces on VDare. I do agree with him about the costly and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iran, but it seemed he wrote about nothing else, and I generally go to VDare to read articles about immigration and the demographic warfare on this country. Roberts never seemed interested in any of that, but I give him credit for addressing this issue and speaking out where nobody else would. I fully expect the 'FReepers' and other conservative/libertarian mammon-worshippers will rake him over the coals for this column, but he is right.
If all the people baying for the elimination or drastic reduction in Social Security are doing so because they care about reducing out-of-control government spending, why are they not first attacking the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are not only an enormous waste of money, but a waste of the lives of our young people. Yet none of these right-wing advocates of reducing spending will mention the costly wars.
''There is not enough non-military discretionary spending in the budget to cover the cost of the wars even if every dollar is cut. As long as the $1,200 billion ($1.2 trillion) annual budget for the military/security complex is off limits, nothing can be done about the U.S. budget deficit except to renege on obligations to the elderly, confiscate private assets, or print enough money to inflate away all debts.''
He mentions, too, the factor of offshoring of business and the loss of much of our tax base (due to unemployment). The budget-slashers don't usually address those things.
''In America destruction is done with jobs offshoring, financial deregulation, and fraudulent financial instruments. In Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) is it done with bombs and drones.
Where is all this leading?
It is leading to the destruction of Social Security and Medicare.
Republicans have convinced a large percentage of voters that America is in trouble, not because it wastes 20% of the annual budget on wars of aggression and Homeland Security porn-scanners, but because of the poor and retirees.''
Roberts mentions the fact that between 1984 and 2009, Americans contributed $2 trillion more to Social Security and Medicare than was paid out. What happened, he asks, to that surplus? Roberts says that it went for wars and bailouts, mainly.
But for whatever reason, it is being blamed on those greedy old folks who wanted to live in luxury on their Social Security checks when they retired.
When the proposed government health care system was working its way through Congress, I wrote then about the way that it transferred money from the old and chronically ill to the young, and it seemed to assume that the old are a burden and should be abandoned and neglected to death, while we used resources mostly for those who are still productive. And think about the demographics there: the old are the Whitest of all age groups, while the young are the least White. It is clear that there was hardly an impartial distribution of health care here. It looked like an effort to hasten the demise of the old, and transfer spending to the young, many of whom are foreign-born, and not citizens.
At the time, I was shocked by some of the commentary here and there which showed outright hostility to old people. 'Good riddance' or 'they were all a bunch of hippies' or 'they sold us out' were the kinds of comments heard here and there. I was taken aback. Is this what we've come to?
I believe Rush Limbaugh and other such 'conservatives' are fueling this kind of attitude. This is where I part company with the 'conservatives' and the libertarians who worship the Market and profits, and who have made a god of small government. These people who think the abstract principle of 'smaller government' (which I generally favor) is an absolute that must be sought even at the cost of human lives.
And if they think we must cut budgets drastically, why not start with cutting all benefits (ALL benefits) to or for non-citizens, whether here or in their own countries. Why are the slashers not directing their zeal toward cutting all foreign aid or benefits for immigrants? There are plenty of places where cuts could and should be made. Yet we are willing only to sacrifice our own folk.
I wonder what those who favor eliminating Social Security or Medicare plan to do when they are old or otherwise rendered obsolete in the work force? Have they all got a few million socked away for their 'twilight years'? Are they all rolling in money like Rush Limbaugh or the budget-cutting Republicans who are set for life, with all their government perquisites and benefits?
But as Roberts says, the government no longer represents us, the American people; it represents the powerful and the elite.
But somehow most Republicans and libertarians have chosen to identify with the wealthy and the privileged, not with the common, ordinary man.
Perhaps there needs to be a party which will remember the common man, the little guy. As of now, neither major party cares about the man on the street, and we have been duped into thinking that they do, or that the interests of Big Business always coincide with the interests of the average American.
If I sound as though I have strayed off the 'conservative' reservation, I won't deny it. I don't make a god of 'small government' or The Market. I care about my folk and about the common good. If that makes me an anomaly, so be it. I am content to be a minority of one, if need be.
Suddenly, in the last six months or so, it almost seems as if someone declared open season on the old and the disabled. Once upon a time, only the real curmudgeons decried things like Social Security, and suggested cutting off this program, which for many older Americans is their only source of sustenance.
Hard economic times have caused a commensurate hardness of hearts on the part of many conservatives and libertarians. Actually, though, I don't think that is true, when I reflect on it. I think they have always been hard-hearted, and now feel emboldened to say some heartless things that would not have been said in polite company, definitely not in Christian circles, anyway.
I haven't read many of Roberts' pieces on VDare. I do agree with him about the costly and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iran, but it seemed he wrote about nothing else, and I generally go to VDare to read articles about immigration and the demographic warfare on this country. Roberts never seemed interested in any of that, but I give him credit for addressing this issue and speaking out where nobody else would. I fully expect the 'FReepers' and other conservative/libertarian mammon-worshippers will rake him over the coals for this column, but he is right.
If all the people baying for the elimination or drastic reduction in Social Security are doing so because they care about reducing out-of-control government spending, why are they not first attacking the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are not only an enormous waste of money, but a waste of the lives of our young people. Yet none of these right-wing advocates of reducing spending will mention the costly wars.
''There is not enough non-military discretionary spending in the budget to cover the cost of the wars even if every dollar is cut. As long as the $1,200 billion ($1.2 trillion) annual budget for the military/security complex is off limits, nothing can be done about the U.S. budget deficit except to renege on obligations to the elderly, confiscate private assets, or print enough money to inflate away all debts.''
He mentions, too, the factor of offshoring of business and the loss of much of our tax base (due to unemployment). The budget-slashers don't usually address those things.
''In America destruction is done with jobs offshoring, financial deregulation, and fraudulent financial instruments. In Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) is it done with bombs and drones.
Where is all this leading?
It is leading to the destruction of Social Security and Medicare.
Republicans have convinced a large percentage of voters that America is in trouble, not because it wastes 20% of the annual budget on wars of aggression and Homeland Security porn-scanners, but because of the poor and retirees.''
Roberts mentions the fact that between 1984 and 2009, Americans contributed $2 trillion more to Social Security and Medicare than was paid out. What happened, he asks, to that surplus? Roberts says that it went for wars and bailouts, mainly.
But for whatever reason, it is being blamed on those greedy old folks who wanted to live in luxury on their Social Security checks when they retired.
When the proposed government health care system was working its way through Congress, I wrote then about the way that it transferred money from the old and chronically ill to the young, and it seemed to assume that the old are a burden and should be abandoned and neglected to death, while we used resources mostly for those who are still productive. And think about the demographics there: the old are the Whitest of all age groups, while the young are the least White. It is clear that there was hardly an impartial distribution of health care here. It looked like an effort to hasten the demise of the old, and transfer spending to the young, many of whom are foreign-born, and not citizens.
At the time, I was shocked by some of the commentary here and there which showed outright hostility to old people. 'Good riddance' or 'they were all a bunch of hippies' or 'they sold us out' were the kinds of comments heard here and there. I was taken aback. Is this what we've come to?
I believe Rush Limbaugh and other such 'conservatives' are fueling this kind of attitude. This is where I part company with the 'conservatives' and the libertarians who worship the Market and profits, and who have made a god of small government. These people who think the abstract principle of 'smaller government' (which I generally favor) is an absolute that must be sought even at the cost of human lives.
And if they think we must cut budgets drastically, why not start with cutting all benefits (ALL benefits) to or for non-citizens, whether here or in their own countries. Why are the slashers not directing their zeal toward cutting all foreign aid or benefits for immigrants? There are plenty of places where cuts could and should be made. Yet we are willing only to sacrifice our own folk.
I wonder what those who favor eliminating Social Security or Medicare plan to do when they are old or otherwise rendered obsolete in the work force? Have they all got a few million socked away for their 'twilight years'? Are they all rolling in money like Rush Limbaugh or the budget-cutting Republicans who are set for life, with all their government perquisites and benefits?
But as Roberts says, the government no longer represents us, the American people; it represents the powerful and the elite.
But somehow most Republicans and libertarians have chosen to identify with the wealthy and the privileged, not with the common, ordinary man.
Perhaps there needs to be a party which will remember the common man, the little guy. As of now, neither major party cares about the man on the street, and we have been duped into thinking that they do, or that the interests of Big Business always coincide with the interests of the average American.
If I sound as though I have strayed off the 'conservative' reservation, I won't deny it. I don't make a god of 'small government' or The Market. I care about my folk and about the common good. If that makes me an anomaly, so be it. I am content to be a minority of one, if need be.
Labels: Atomized Society, Big Government, Corporate Welfare, Fiscal Conservatism, Social Services
0 comment Tuesday, September 16, 2014 | admin
...this ruling is not the last word, unfortunately.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday in Pensacola, Fla., that the Democrats' Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in particular the mandate that forces uninsured individuals to buy coverage, runs afoul of the Constitution.
"The individual mandate falls outside the boundary of Congress' Commerce Clause authority," Vinson writes in his 78-page ruling, "and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers."
Neither can it "be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not constitutional," concluded the Reagan appointee.''
This is good as far as it goes. But as we know, the left will continue to try to push their agenda despite these unfavorable decisions.
What troubles me the most is that too many 'conservatives' are in agreement with the left about health care for those they consider useless. Over at one blog (which shall remain nameless), a discussion is going on in which somebody quotes John Adams' famous line about how our system of government will only be capable of governing ''a moral and religious people.''' Another commenter adds an 'amen' to that quote -- while he has just finished saying that there should be NO medical care for the aged, only palliative care.
How can someone say 'amen' to Adams' words, referring to our government being for a 'moral and religious people'' while saying 'no medical care for the aged'? What kind of Christian, or in fact what kind of 'civilized' person says that?
This is your brain on libertarianism or 'tough-minded conservatism.'
This is what I meant about many 'conservatives' being crypto-libertarians, having read too many Ayn Rand books in youth.
Nietzsche, Rand et al have done more to destroy traditional values than just about anybody. 'Rand' or whatever her real name, and her acolytes and admirers have been useful to the left in destroying what is left of our old Christian-based traditional civilization.
There is really not much left to conserve, at this point.
If 'conservatives' (or libertarians in conservative guise) are the alternative to leftism, then we are in real trouble as a civilization. There will be nobody to speak up for the weaker members of society. Conservatives are starting to sound like Ebenezer Scrooge when he said ''let them die and decrease the surplus population.''
If this is 'conservatism' then I want no part of it. It is not compatible with Biblical Christianity.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday in Pensacola, Fla., that the Democrats' Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in particular the mandate that forces uninsured individuals to buy coverage, runs afoul of the Constitution.
"The individual mandate falls outside the boundary of Congress' Commerce Clause authority," Vinson writes in his 78-page ruling, "and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers."
Neither can it "be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not constitutional," concluded the Reagan appointee.''
This is good as far as it goes. But as we know, the left will continue to try to push their agenda despite these unfavorable decisions.
What troubles me the most is that too many 'conservatives' are in agreement with the left about health care for those they consider useless. Over at one blog (which shall remain nameless), a discussion is going on in which somebody quotes John Adams' famous line about how our system of government will only be capable of governing ''a moral and religious people.''' Another commenter adds an 'amen' to that quote -- while he has just finished saying that there should be NO medical care for the aged, only palliative care.
How can someone say 'amen' to Adams' words, referring to our government being for a 'moral and religious people'' while saying 'no medical care for the aged'? What kind of Christian, or in fact what kind of 'civilized' person says that?
This is your brain on libertarianism or 'tough-minded conservatism.'
This is what I meant about many 'conservatives' being crypto-libertarians, having read too many Ayn Rand books in youth.
Nietzsche, Rand et al have done more to destroy traditional values than just about anybody. 'Rand' or whatever her real name, and her acolytes and admirers have been useful to the left in destroying what is left of our old Christian-based traditional civilization.
There is really not much left to conserve, at this point.
If 'conservatives' (or libertarians in conservative guise) are the alternative to leftism, then we are in real trouble as a civilization. There will be nobody to speak up for the weaker members of society. Conservatives are starting to sound like Ebenezer Scrooge when he said ''let them die and decrease the surplus population.''
If this is 'conservatism' then I want no part of it. It is not compatible with Biblical Christianity.
Labels: Atomized Society, Economic Conservatism, Mammon, Rugged Individualism