0 comment Monday, November 10, 2014 | admin
Every Christmas and Easter, the liberal media run numerous stories attempting to cast doubt on the Bible or the existence of Jesus Christ; in other words, to attack Christianity.
Now it looks like Independence Day is to be an official occasion to disparage the Founding Fathers. I blogged about such attacks the other day, and it looks like the barrage continues with the ABC commentators saying that the Founding Fathers weren't gods, just 'guys who didn't let women vote' and didn't free the slaves.
Just for the record, I don't believe the Founding Fathers were gods either, nor am I likening them to Jesus Christ by my mention in the first paragraph of this post. The Founders were flawed human beings as all of us are. However, I won't fall into the trap of having to make disparaging comments about them because I want to display 'fairness' by conceding anything to the carping leftists. Why concede anything to them?
The Founding Fathers, flaws notwithstanding, were intelligent men, much more so than the great majority of 'Americans' today. They were head and shoulders above today's devious and ignorant 'leaders' and politicians. And this is true of the least of the Founding generation.
The Founding Fathers did not give the franchise to women. And so what? Why do people today, even on the ''right'', insist on judging the past by today's false standards? Why is feminism so honored by 'conservatives' today, and its claims treated as a given?
The Founding Fathers, some of them, thought slavery ought to be abolished, but they were, for the most part, practical men who knew that they could not suddenly emancipate great numbers of people who were not prepared for independent life, or full citizenship. Our Founders did believe that we needed a literate and informed populace in order for our system of government to work as it should, and for our society to function. Do these dreamers on the left (and the 'colorblind' right) not see how radical a move it would be to suddenly free a large number of people who had known only slavery? Even the 'forty acres and a mule' idea would not have done much to make the transition practical or wise.
Read the FReepers comments on the news story, and see them climb over each other to protest how most of our Founders really wanted to free the slaves. If they were informed they would know that even their idol, Honest Abe, did not believe such would be a wise move.
"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race" - Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, September 18, 1858
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.''
Jefferson thought that emancipation was inevitable but he saw the difficulty that would accompany the freeing of slaves. He likened the situation to 'having a wolf by the ears', wherein letting go would be a great danger, but holding on would prove impossible.
Most Republicans, like those self-styled conservatives at FR, would probably denounce Jefferson's analogy quoted above as ''racist.'' I would bet money that most FReepers would not be familiar with the Jefferson quotes above, nor even with Lincoln's statement. They have become persuaded, or persuaded themselves that liberal egalitarian principles are the standard by which everything must be judged. They have become defenders of feminism and racial Marxism. Next (and this is already beginning) they will claim that homosexual 'marriage' is actually a conservative principle, and that everyone should have a 'right' to marry a person, or persons, of their choosing, regardless.
The Marxists/liberals/progressives have tricked the so-called right in this country into defending the values that the left has given birth to, much like cowbirds leave their eggs in other species' nests to be nurtured by them.
The 'right' is under the spell of the left today, and is really nothing more than a pale shadow of the left, in most cases.
While the conventional right imagine themselves to be guardians of the Founding Fathers' principles, they really do not know the Founders, nor do they stand for what the Founding Fathers stood for.
One of the comments on the FReeper thread has Jefferson saying that 'homosexuality is a mental illness.' I had to laugh out loud at that. First off, the word 'homosexuality' was, I think, not even used in the 18th century. In the law, it was called 'buggery' which is the word they tended to use then. And as for 'mental illness', the 18th century knew no such concept, much less terminology; 'mental illness' wasn't invented until the 19th or 20th century, and we are the worse for it.
The Founders, to be sure, were no gods; nobody claims they were. But whatever you might label them -- and today's political labels belong to our time, not 1776 -- they were not egalitarians or cultural Marxists.
Now it looks like Independence Day is to be an official occasion to disparage the Founding Fathers. I blogged about such attacks the other day, and it looks like the barrage continues with the ABC commentators saying that the Founding Fathers weren't gods, just 'guys who didn't let women vote' and didn't free the slaves.
Just for the record, I don't believe the Founding Fathers were gods either, nor am I likening them to Jesus Christ by my mention in the first paragraph of this post. The Founders were flawed human beings as all of us are. However, I won't fall into the trap of having to make disparaging comments about them because I want to display 'fairness' by conceding anything to the carping leftists. Why concede anything to them?
The Founding Fathers, flaws notwithstanding, were intelligent men, much more so than the great majority of 'Americans' today. They were head and shoulders above today's devious and ignorant 'leaders' and politicians. And this is true of the least of the Founding generation.
The Founding Fathers did not give the franchise to women. And so what? Why do people today, even on the ''right'', insist on judging the past by today's false standards? Why is feminism so honored by 'conservatives' today, and its claims treated as a given?
The Founding Fathers, some of them, thought slavery ought to be abolished, but they were, for the most part, practical men who knew that they could not suddenly emancipate great numbers of people who were not prepared for independent life, or full citizenship. Our Founders did believe that we needed a literate and informed populace in order for our system of government to work as it should, and for our society to function. Do these dreamers on the left (and the 'colorblind' right) not see how radical a move it would be to suddenly free a large number of people who had known only slavery? Even the 'forty acres and a mule' idea would not have done much to make the transition practical or wise.
Read the FReepers comments on the news story, and see them climb over each other to protest how most of our Founders really wanted to free the slaves. If they were informed they would know that even their idol, Honest Abe, did not believe such would be a wise move.
"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race" - Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, September 18, 1858
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.''
Jefferson thought that emancipation was inevitable but he saw the difficulty that would accompany the freeing of slaves. He likened the situation to 'having a wolf by the ears', wherein letting go would be a great danger, but holding on would prove impossible.
Most Republicans, like those self-styled conservatives at FR, would probably denounce Jefferson's analogy quoted above as ''racist.'' I would bet money that most FReepers would not be familiar with the Jefferson quotes above, nor even with Lincoln's statement. They have become persuaded, or persuaded themselves that liberal egalitarian principles are the standard by which everything must be judged. They have become defenders of feminism and racial Marxism. Next (and this is already beginning) they will claim that homosexual 'marriage' is actually a conservative principle, and that everyone should have a 'right' to marry a person, or persons, of their choosing, regardless.
The Marxists/liberals/progressives have tricked the so-called right in this country into defending the values that the left has given birth to, much like cowbirds leave their eggs in other species' nests to be nurtured by them.
The 'right' is under the spell of the left today, and is really nothing more than a pale shadow of the left, in most cases.
While the conventional right imagine themselves to be guardians of the Founding Fathers' principles, they really do not know the Founders, nor do they stand for what the Founding Fathers stood for.
One of the comments on the FReeper thread has Jefferson saying that 'homosexuality is a mental illness.' I had to laugh out loud at that. First off, the word 'homosexuality' was, I think, not even used in the 18th century. In the law, it was called 'buggery' which is the word they tended to use then. And as for 'mental illness', the 18th century knew no such concept, much less terminology; 'mental illness' wasn't invented until the 19th or 20th century, and we are the worse for it.
The Founders, to be sure, were no gods; nobody claims they were. But whatever you might label them -- and today's political labels belong to our time, not 1776 -- they were not egalitarians or cultural Marxists.
Labels: American History, Colorblind Conservatives, Egalitarianism, Founding Fathers
0 comment Friday, August 29, 2014 | admin
It appears that some sane people showed up to comment on the thread I linked in the post below this one. It is heartening to see that some people are not buying into this silly name-calling match as to who is the ''real racist'' and who is the best friend of blacks.
The writer of the linked article answers critics by protesting that she herself is from the South -- that is irrelevant; whoever buys the PC view of history is effectively siding against their Southron forebears. And that's all that matters, in my judgement.
I am not sure if the following post is by the same Ernest who comments here, but good job anyway:
Posted by: Ernest
Oct 26, 05:49 AM
Good grief. I don't know who is more pathetic. You are the ones claiming hater. While you try to outdo each other as the ultimate hater, racist, oppressor, slave holder and just all around bad white people. The Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, MEChA, NAACP, LaRaza and hundreds of other race groups are laughing their asses off. No wonder our nation is swirling the drain. The Marxist have us all tied up in PCland.''
The following comments make good points, too:
Posted by: Quartermaster
Oct 26, 06:46 AM
You really do need to give some historical context to teh time period of 1850-1877. All you've done is parrot a leftist line about the evil Confederacy that is not, and never has been true except in the fevered minds of leftists. The leftists were the Republicans, not the Dems. People like Davis, Jefferson, and Jackson would not recognize what therir party has become and would be utterly disgusted with it.
Posted by: Gunner57
Oct 26, 06:56 AM
I don't agree with your underlying politically correct accusation that the plight of blacks in America are part of some diabolical scheme concocted by white people that is merely aided by a few opportunistic blacks. Cut me a break! BTW, I am no Democrat. Martin Luther King had his fingerprints all over the "Great Society". King was a full blown socialist, yet conservatives grovel at his feet and still talk about his "content of character" statement which has a hollow ring in Obamaland. The Obamaland that over 90% of blacks still support. Do you really believe Michelle Obama doesn't believe in these giveaways but is just being an opportunist Democrat? I don't think so. She is motivated by her hatred of white people. She wants to steal eveything she can from white people. Sadly, Republicans "play me too" all the time and still do to racially exclusive policies.
Are Democrats keeping blacks down by awarding them scholarships, entrance to our best academic institutions, degrees, jobs, mortgages, business loans when they don't qualify for any of them? Then let me be one of the downtrodden. No African nation could ever compete with a first world nation if they did not have the assistance of white people. That is a fact. God help those poor people when Arab Muslims intervene in their affairs. They still enslave them. Heaven only knows how the Chinese would exploit these people. Ms. Shiver why do these people need all this help in the first place? Is it because of some pseudo-science invented by white people? I don't think so.''
I am surprised some of these comments made it through; I rarely if ever see any such ideas expressed on American Thinker. Maybe all is not lost, yet.
I had long since given up commenting on ''colorblind conservative'' forums, but maybe there is some fertile ground there after all.
The writer of the linked article answers critics by protesting that she herself is from the South -- that is irrelevant; whoever buys the PC view of history is effectively siding against their Southron forebears. And that's all that matters, in my judgement.
I am not sure if the following post is by the same Ernest who comments here, but good job anyway:
Posted by: Ernest
Oct 26, 05:49 AM
Good grief. I don't know who is more pathetic. You are the ones claiming hater. While you try to outdo each other as the ultimate hater, racist, oppressor, slave holder and just all around bad white people. The Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, MEChA, NAACP, LaRaza and hundreds of other race groups are laughing their asses off. No wonder our nation is swirling the drain. The Marxist have us all tied up in PCland.''
The following comments make good points, too:
Posted by: Quartermaster
Oct 26, 06:46 AM
You really do need to give some historical context to teh time period of 1850-1877. All you've done is parrot a leftist line about the evil Confederacy that is not, and never has been true except in the fevered minds of leftists. The leftists were the Republicans, not the Dems. People like Davis, Jefferson, and Jackson would not recognize what therir party has become and would be utterly disgusted with it.
Posted by: Gunner57
Oct 26, 06:56 AM
I don't agree with your underlying politically correct accusation that the plight of blacks in America are part of some diabolical scheme concocted by white people that is merely aided by a few opportunistic blacks. Cut me a break! BTW, I am no Democrat. Martin Luther King had his fingerprints all over the "Great Society". King was a full blown socialist, yet conservatives grovel at his feet and still talk about his "content of character" statement which has a hollow ring in Obamaland. The Obamaland that over 90% of blacks still support. Do you really believe Michelle Obama doesn't believe in these giveaways but is just being an opportunist Democrat? I don't think so. She is motivated by her hatred of white people. She wants to steal eveything she can from white people. Sadly, Republicans "play me too" all the time and still do to racially exclusive policies.
Are Democrats keeping blacks down by awarding them scholarships, entrance to our best academic institutions, degrees, jobs, mortgages, business loans when they don't qualify for any of them? Then let me be one of the downtrodden. No African nation could ever compete with a first world nation if they did not have the assistance of white people. That is a fact. God help those poor people when Arab Muslims intervene in their affairs. They still enslave them. Heaven only knows how the Chinese would exploit these people. Ms. Shiver why do these people need all this help in the first place? Is it because of some pseudo-science invented by white people? I don't think so.''
I am surprised some of these comments made it through; I rarely if ever see any such ideas expressed on American Thinker. Maybe all is not lost, yet.
I had long since given up commenting on ''colorblind conservative'' forums, but maybe there is some fertile ground there after all.
Labels: Colorblind Conservatives, Party Politics, Pc Conservatives, Respectable Republicans, South, War Between The States
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
0 comment Monday, July 7, 2014 | admin
From the blog The Philosopher's Fortress, this interesting piece by Jack Kerwick, called Alienation and Obama.
''Much to the chagrin of many a leftist, from its inception to the present day, the vast majority of America's citizens have been white. The segment of the population with ancestral roots in Europe has diminished some in recent decades, it's true, but the country remains predominantly white.
[...]
However, as Obama�s opponents have repeatedly insisted, the color of his skin alone isn�t relevant to their feelings toward him and their government. After all, contrary to popular opinion, no one, white, black, or other, ever sees just color. Race is never thought of as a just a matter of biology. In every person�s mind, race encompasses certain cultural, and even ideological, characteristics. Blacks more so than anyone recognize this, a fact that explains such otherwise puzzling phenomena as their description of Bill Clinton as "the first black president" and the insistence of left-leaning blacks that their more conservative minded brethren aren�t really black.
Read the rest of the article at the link above.
The ''colorblind conservatives'' and Republicans often repeat phrases like 'it's not his color, it's his politics that I reject'', or something like ''I wouldn't care if he was black, white, or purple, as long as he was conservative. But I'd vote for Thomas Sowell if he ran, so it's not about race.''
It's obvious to any honest person that race is in fact not 'just about skin color'; it usually connotes a lot more, as Kerwick says in the article.
''Much to the chagrin of many a leftist, from its inception to the present day, the vast majority of America's citizens have been white. The segment of the population with ancestral roots in Europe has diminished some in recent decades, it's true, but the country remains predominantly white.
[...]
However, as Obama�s opponents have repeatedly insisted, the color of his skin alone isn�t relevant to their feelings toward him and their government. After all, contrary to popular opinion, no one, white, black, or other, ever sees just color. Race is never thought of as a just a matter of biology. In every person�s mind, race encompasses certain cultural, and even ideological, characteristics. Blacks more so than anyone recognize this, a fact that explains such otherwise puzzling phenomena as their description of Bill Clinton as "the first black president" and the insistence of left-leaning blacks that their more conservative minded brethren aren�t really black.
Read the rest of the article at the link above.
The ''colorblind conservatives'' and Republicans often repeat phrases like 'it's not his color, it's his politics that I reject'', or something like ''I wouldn't care if he was black, white, or purple, as long as he was conservative. But I'd vote for Thomas Sowell if he ran, so it's not about race.''
It's obvious to any honest person that race is in fact not 'just about skin color'; it usually connotes a lot more, as Kerwick says in the article.
Labels: Colorblind Conservatives, Gop, Tea Party