0 comment Monday, November 17, 2014 | admin
At Steve Sailer's blog, following a post called The Ennui of the Left, there was one brief comment that caught my attention among a number of interesting comments.
That very prolific commenter, 'Anonymous', said this:
Steve, you're so wrong about post-WWII USSR. It was culturally conservative in a million ways. Its death was a giant victory for leftism - for gay rights, loose sexual morals, drugs, feminism, violent crime, ugly modernist art, etc. across a huge part of the globe.
Pre-WWII USSR was indeed leftist. It's ignorant to confuse them.'
It's pretty obvious to most thinking people on the right that we (the West) did not really 'win the Cold War', as the triumphalist rhetoric on the mainstream right still boasts. The mythology is that when Reagan said 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' that Communism sort of crumbled, or melted like the Wicked Witch doused with water, and before we knew it, the Berlin wall was down and the Eastern bloc countries were 'free.'
I've alluded before on this blog to the curious fact that the old Soviet communists were very prudish and very traditional in many respects on social/sexual matters. They may have been lenient in regard to making abortion widely available, and they may have been very 'feminist' in that they put more women into leadership positions, but in regard to culture they were much more conservative than we in the Western ''free'' countries were, even in the 1950s. The 1950s, remember, was the decade most American leftists describe as hyper-conservative and repressed.
I've told the story before of a news event that was reported when I was a child, when Soviet leader Khrushchev visited America. He was given a tour of a movie set, where the movie 'Can-Can' was being filmed. He disapproved of what he saw, commenting that ''the face of humanity is more beautiful than its backside.'' That was his broken-clock moment; he was right on that point. Nowadays, our entertainment media and pop culture are more than ever fixated on people's 'backsides' and on titillating entertainment and 'art'. We've gone from relatively tame scenes, like the one Khrushchev witnessed, to Lady Gaga and beyond.
The old Soviet Union disapproved of rock'n roll and jazz, and promoted classical and folk music. At the time, it seemed that our country perversely decided that if the Russians disliked these things and censored them, then they must be good, and that in defiance of our enemies, we would wallow in the things they tut-tutted about. I see the same sort of thing in regard to Islam's prudishness. Many 'conservatives' see our Western cultural and social decadence as an act of defiance against Islam, and a statement of 'freedom.' I think we have gotten a little confused here.
The anonymous commenter at Sailer's blog refers to 'ugly modernist art' which the Soviet Union banned. This piece describes in detail how the arts were censored and how the Soviet State made sure that all art had the correct political message, delivered in the correct style.
Works of art were censored for the following reasons:
"...* political reasons (criticism of the Soviet Union, CPSU, Soviet regime, particular political bodies and figures);
* political unreliability (temporary or permanent) of an artist, whose work was the subject of the publication;
* political unreliability (temporary or permanent) of an author of a publication;
* mentioning an unreliable person, unworthy fact or event in the text unless it was criticized (possible cuttings of the text or plates);
* generally prohibited subject (for instance: unofficial Soviet art);
* propaganda of fascism, violence or terror (horror films belonged to that category);
* pornography (a magic word - none of the censors could ever give a distinct definition of this term in their special vocabulary; the most frequent reason for art publications to become banned as most of the artists, since the ancient times, had made the studies of the nude models);
* themes, subjects, facts, events which caused or might have caused undesirable thoughts, associations or illusions not in favour of the Soviet state.
[...] The criteria for division of art of the past into two categories was quite simple: the work of art should bare or not some peculiar signs of progressiveness, such as themes of labour, struggle for justice, protest against the bourgeois society, pity for suffering, depiction of poor people, social and class struggle. For obvious reasons the mediaeval art, being the art which served the religion, was not worth studying.''
What seems to have happened by the late 1970s when the 'dam burst', as the writer says, was that the censorship seemed to have only whetted the Soviet people's appetite for what was termed 'decadent Western bourgeois' art and ideas. The Russians seem, since the fall of the old regime, to have plunged headlong into that Western decadence.
I remember when the so-called Iron Curtain came down being somewhat mortified by how fast the people seemed to embrace the libertine lifestyle, drugs, promiscuity, and the worst excesses of greed. Obviously they had not really believed in the stringent standards of their regime -- or were they just easily seduced away by rock music, blue jeans, porn, and the lure of easy money?
Just because our enemies hate the decadence they see in our popular culture, that is not justification for our taking pride in it or considering it a good example of 'freedom' as many people do.
But the question has often occurred to me: why was the old left socially and culturally conservative, honoring the best of classic Western art and culture, while the new left, the post-60s left, trashes our artistic and cultural heritage in favor of ugliness and corruption, worshipping the new and hideous rather than the old and aesthetically pleasing?
And now that the old Soviet Union seems to have been degraded culturally and socially, have 'we' won, or have they won? Or have we all lost? It seems that we have embraced some of the worst features of their leftism, and they have absorbed the worst of our ways.
Leftism seems to be able to morph itself into whatever form works best in the target society, like an opportunistic infection.
That very prolific commenter, 'Anonymous', said this:
Steve, you're so wrong about post-WWII USSR. It was culturally conservative in a million ways. Its death was a giant victory for leftism - for gay rights, loose sexual morals, drugs, feminism, violent crime, ugly modernist art, etc. across a huge part of the globe.
Pre-WWII USSR was indeed leftist. It's ignorant to confuse them.'
It's pretty obvious to most thinking people on the right that we (the West) did not really 'win the Cold War', as the triumphalist rhetoric on the mainstream right still boasts. The mythology is that when Reagan said 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' that Communism sort of crumbled, or melted like the Wicked Witch doused with water, and before we knew it, the Berlin wall was down and the Eastern bloc countries were 'free.'
I've alluded before on this blog to the curious fact that the old Soviet communists were very prudish and very traditional in many respects on social/sexual matters. They may have been lenient in regard to making abortion widely available, and they may have been very 'feminist' in that they put more women into leadership positions, but in regard to culture they were much more conservative than we in the Western ''free'' countries were, even in the 1950s. The 1950s, remember, was the decade most American leftists describe as hyper-conservative and repressed.
I've told the story before of a news event that was reported when I was a child, when Soviet leader Khrushchev visited America. He was given a tour of a movie set, where the movie 'Can-Can' was being filmed. He disapproved of what he saw, commenting that ''the face of humanity is more beautiful than its backside.'' That was his broken-clock moment; he was right on that point. Nowadays, our entertainment media and pop culture are more than ever fixated on people's 'backsides' and on titillating entertainment and 'art'. We've gone from relatively tame scenes, like the one Khrushchev witnessed, to Lady Gaga and beyond.
The old Soviet Union disapproved of rock'n roll and jazz, and promoted classical and folk music. At the time, it seemed that our country perversely decided that if the Russians disliked these things and censored them, then they must be good, and that in defiance of our enemies, we would wallow in the things they tut-tutted about. I see the same sort of thing in regard to Islam's prudishness. Many 'conservatives' see our Western cultural and social decadence as an act of defiance against Islam, and a statement of 'freedom.' I think we have gotten a little confused here.
The anonymous commenter at Sailer's blog refers to 'ugly modernist art' which the Soviet Union banned. This piece describes in detail how the arts were censored and how the Soviet State made sure that all art had the correct political message, delivered in the correct style.
Works of art were censored for the following reasons:
"...* political reasons (criticism of the Soviet Union, CPSU, Soviet regime, particular political bodies and figures);
* political unreliability (temporary or permanent) of an artist, whose work was the subject of the publication;
* political unreliability (temporary or permanent) of an author of a publication;
* mentioning an unreliable person, unworthy fact or event in the text unless it was criticized (possible cuttings of the text or plates);
* generally prohibited subject (for instance: unofficial Soviet art);
* propaganda of fascism, violence or terror (horror films belonged to that category);
* pornography (a magic word - none of the censors could ever give a distinct definition of this term in their special vocabulary; the most frequent reason for art publications to become banned as most of the artists, since the ancient times, had made the studies of the nude models);
* themes, subjects, facts, events which caused or might have caused undesirable thoughts, associations or illusions not in favour of the Soviet state.
[...] The criteria for division of art of the past into two categories was quite simple: the work of art should bare or not some peculiar signs of progressiveness, such as themes of labour, struggle for justice, protest against the bourgeois society, pity for suffering, depiction of poor people, social and class struggle. For obvious reasons the mediaeval art, being the art which served the religion, was not worth studying.''
What seems to have happened by the late 1970s when the 'dam burst', as the writer says, was that the censorship seemed to have only whetted the Soviet people's appetite for what was termed 'decadent Western bourgeois' art and ideas. The Russians seem, since the fall of the old regime, to have plunged headlong into that Western decadence.
I remember when the so-called Iron Curtain came down being somewhat mortified by how fast the people seemed to embrace the libertine lifestyle, drugs, promiscuity, and the worst excesses of greed. Obviously they had not really believed in the stringent standards of their regime -- or were they just easily seduced away by rock music, blue jeans, porn, and the lure of easy money?
Just because our enemies hate the decadence they see in our popular culture, that is not justification for our taking pride in it or considering it a good example of 'freedom' as many people do.
But the question has often occurred to me: why was the old left socially and culturally conservative, honoring the best of classic Western art and culture, while the new left, the post-60s left, trashes our artistic and cultural heritage in favor of ugliness and corruption, worshipping the new and hideous rather than the old and aesthetically pleasing?
And now that the old Soviet Union seems to have been degraded culturally and socially, have 'we' won, or have they won? Or have we all lost? It seems that we have embraced some of the worst features of their leftism, and they have absorbed the worst of our ways.
Leftism seems to be able to morph itself into whatever form works best in the target society, like an opportunistic infection.
Labels: Art, Censorship, Communism, Conservatism Anti-Communism, Cultural Conservatism, Cultural Marxism
0 comment Thursday, September 11, 2014 | admin
Check out this discussion from American Thinker.
The subject is, of all things, the John Birch Society.
From the AT article:
''The Birchers were repudiated by the American center-right soon after they appeared -- most famously by William F. Buckley, who read them out of the movement with comments about their "paranoid and idiotic" behavior. Even Ayn Rand, no friend of Buckley or other conservative leaders, was dismissive of the Birchers: "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for Capitalism but merely against Communism."
But repudiation didn't work. Throughout the '60s, American liberals succeeded in connecting Birchers with the center-right, convincing the public at large that everybody from Buckley on down was a nascent Jack Ripper, crazy as a rat in a can, and ready to go off at a touch. Their crowning victory was the trashing of Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. After the organization endorsed Goldwater, the media ran with it, depicting the senator as a demented extremist even though he was not a Birch Society member, had no contact with them, and disagreed with them in detail. The "Bircher" accusation went on to serve the left well for nearly twenty years.''
I am not sure why Mr. Dunn is in such high dudgeon over the JBS. From what he implies in the piece, it seems that in the comments section of a previous article, somebody had the temerity to suggest that the Birch Society was right about some things. I gather that he read this as an attempt to smear AT by association with 'far-right' extremism and general nutjobbery. Smear them with whom? The left, presumably.
Firstly, I think it's generally understood by readers of any given blog that on a blog with a degree of free speech (and few blogs have a 100 percent unmoderated comment section) there will be comments made that the blog author or owner does not necessarily agree with. I don't always agree with all comments that are left here, although in general I am blessed with a good group of commenters who write intelligent comments. However I may not agree with any or every comment I get here. If I disagree, I may or may not attempt to respond to comments made, to indicate where I stand.
This blast against the John Birch Society seems a bit of an overreaction. A few pro-JBS comments among dozens does not amount to a resurgence of John Birchery, or 'right-wing extremism' of whatever sort. And if it did, given today's insanely left-wing culture, would that be so shocking? Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
The second thing I would like to point out is that I am not very knowledgeable on the JBS, although I am considered far-right by many people. The John Birch Society was a little before my time. Being a child who read newspapers and had an interest in politics and current events ever since I could read, I was aware of JBS, because there was quite a bit of criticism of it from the mainstream media back in the early 1960s. It was the bogeyman of the 'respectables' back then. I didn't understand what the issues were. I knew that communism was bad, so it rather confused me that those who opposed communism could also be bad. I kept hearing the term ''right-wing extremist'' then. Actually it seems that as the left began to solidify its dominance of the media in the 60s, I began to hear that term 'right-wing extremist' with increasing frequency. I gathered that there were right-wing people who were supposedly akin to the Nazis and fascists -- or so said the respectable news magazines and TV panel hosts of that time. I trust them far less now than I did as a child.
Dunn uses the left-wing Stanley Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove to ridicule such organizations --- as if such cartoonish characters as Jack D. Ripper were anything but a caricature.
And to get right to the heart of the issue of the supposedly extreme anti-Communism of the JBS, can we deny that they were right in warning about Communism? Even now, our media ridicule and vilify Joe McCarthy and the 'red-baiting' anti-Communists, the so-called 'witch hunters' who sounded warnings. Perhaps their warnings were too insistent, but if you saw your country in danger would you not shout a warning? That's what motivated this blog.
It looks very much to me as though the anti-Communist warnings were valid, and that we ignored those warnings to our great harm and detriment. We would surely not be where we are today had we taken the warnings seriously and acted accordingly.
The whole Communist conspiracy thing perhaps sounded fantastic to many people, who being naive, could not believe that something could be so insidious, so far-reaching, and so relentless. How anyone today of even a slightly conservative bent, can dismiss the warnings or scoff at the idea of such an overarching plan is incomprehensible. After all, it's coming to fruition before our eyes.
The left did a superb, bang-up job of fostering in the American public a knee-jerk reaction to any talk of a conspiracy, as if conspiracies per se are impossible, and anyone who warns of them is automatically an 'extremist' or a nutjob. To be fair, the 'respectable right' does its own part in encouraging this attitude, too.
The left, meanwhile, has been quite brazen lately with their talk of one-world governance, their celebration of minority status for White people in this country, and their triumph over traditional America.
Dunn creates a straw-man here, describing the Bircher's beliefs:
'' Bircher beliefs can be summed up quite simply:
* A) That everything that occurs in public life, without exception, is caused by the communists.
* B) That everybody who is not a Bircher is a communist.
Moving on, here are some choice elements of Bircher thought: That Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist agent, that the civil rights movement was a communist plot, that the Vietnam War was a communist plot (I know, I know -- I don't get it either). That the Christian ecumenical movement was a communist plot, that the mental health establishment was run by communists. That free trade was a communist plot. (I'd like to hear somebody try to square that circle.) That the collapse of the Soviet empire was bogus, a ruse designed to make us let down our guard. Birchers were also opposed to every war the U.S. was involved in since the organization's founding in 1958, on the grounds that they were fought on behalf of guess who? (All they need is a few posters saying "God hates fags" and they'd be all set.)''
Points A and B are obviously caricatures of their position, especially point B. I do not know any Birchers (although some open-borders Republican accused me of being one) but I doubt they think everybody but Birchers are Communists.
The Christian ecumenical movement is certainly fostered by people with liberal political views and liberal 'Christian' theology. Some of the mainline churches have been quite open about supporting third-world revolutionary communists. This is fact, not conjecture or conspiracy theory. Gramscian communism quite openly prescribes infiltrating the churches and all other institutions. That is no fantasy. I need not spell all this out.
As far as his citing William F. Buckley's and Ayn Rand's condemnations of the JBS, I hardly consider them as authorities on things conservative. Rand was an ideologue, no conservative, and Buckley was an elitist who craved respectability among a certain social circle. Their opinions hold little weight with me.
I also don't look to Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and the other talk-radio figures he cites as exemplars.
They, like respectable conservatives in general, stay within the bounds of political correctness, and their quest for respectability (and employability) is based on their not being labeled 'right-wing extremists', though they are labeled as such by the media and liberals generally.
It seems to me that the quest for acceptance by the left wing or the ''middle'' is a futile one; if you are the tiniest bit to the right of 'center' you are a right-wing crazy in our narrow-minded political society today. In fact, the much-praised ''middle'', which seems to pride itself on its moderation and lack of right-wing nuttery, is in reality moving ever-leftward as the center of political gravity is pulled in that direction by the left moving the boundaries constantly. Can anyone deny or doubt that the whole political debate has moved, drastically, to the left even in the last 10 years? The 'center' now occupies what was once extreme left-wing territory. That's how it works.
And that's how the left wants it to work.
They want Republicans to continue letting them define the terms politically, and letting them control the discourse and the language and the definitions. They want to keep the right on the defensive, constantly insecure and scrambling to prove how not-extreme they are, and how respectable, diverse, and inclusive they are. That way, the left continues to move everything towards their goal, and the respectables get towed along, willingly.
I got slammed, and lost some readers recently because I criticized Glenn Beck. I was told that I was violating Reagan's 11th commandment. Well, I only know of ten commandments. Reagan said that we should not criticize other conservatives -- and I generally don't condemn people to MY right. In the quest for appearing respectable, many will throw genuine allies overboard, people who are in agreement with the basic goals. That is unwise. We are not so many, those of us who try to defend our cause, that we can afford to turn up our noses at someone just because we think they will embarrass us or make us look bad to hostile third parties.
And if we do manage to reverse the catastrophic events that have happened over the last few years, it will likely be because of the efforts of the ones who are not afraid to step outside the bounds of political correctness.
Whose respect are the respectables courting, anyway? The left, and that of the media, all of whom are hostile to us and to all we believe in. Why seek the respect of those who oppose and loathe us?
As for the John Birch Society, those of you who don't know about them might check the facts. I know all of you can do your own research and decide for yourselves what you think of them.
The subject is, of all things, the John Birch Society.
From the AT article:
''The Birchers were repudiated by the American center-right soon after they appeared -- most famously by William F. Buckley, who read them out of the movement with comments about their "paranoid and idiotic" behavior. Even Ayn Rand, no friend of Buckley or other conservative leaders, was dismissive of the Birchers: "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for Capitalism but merely against Communism."
But repudiation didn't work. Throughout the '60s, American liberals succeeded in connecting Birchers with the center-right, convincing the public at large that everybody from Buckley on down was a nascent Jack Ripper, crazy as a rat in a can, and ready to go off at a touch. Their crowning victory was the trashing of Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. After the organization endorsed Goldwater, the media ran with it, depicting the senator as a demented extremist even though he was not a Birch Society member, had no contact with them, and disagreed with them in detail. The "Bircher" accusation went on to serve the left well for nearly twenty years.''
I am not sure why Mr. Dunn is in such high dudgeon over the JBS. From what he implies in the piece, it seems that in the comments section of a previous article, somebody had the temerity to suggest that the Birch Society was right about some things. I gather that he read this as an attempt to smear AT by association with 'far-right' extremism and general nutjobbery. Smear them with whom? The left, presumably.
Firstly, I think it's generally understood by readers of any given blog that on a blog with a degree of free speech (and few blogs have a 100 percent unmoderated comment section) there will be comments made that the blog author or owner does not necessarily agree with. I don't always agree with all comments that are left here, although in general I am blessed with a good group of commenters who write intelligent comments. However I may not agree with any or every comment I get here. If I disagree, I may or may not attempt to respond to comments made, to indicate where I stand.
This blast against the John Birch Society seems a bit of an overreaction. A few pro-JBS comments among dozens does not amount to a resurgence of John Birchery, or 'right-wing extremism' of whatever sort. And if it did, given today's insanely left-wing culture, would that be so shocking? Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
The second thing I would like to point out is that I am not very knowledgeable on the JBS, although I am considered far-right by many people. The John Birch Society was a little before my time. Being a child who read newspapers and had an interest in politics and current events ever since I could read, I was aware of JBS, because there was quite a bit of criticism of it from the mainstream media back in the early 1960s. It was the bogeyman of the 'respectables' back then. I didn't understand what the issues were. I knew that communism was bad, so it rather confused me that those who opposed communism could also be bad. I kept hearing the term ''right-wing extremist'' then. Actually it seems that as the left began to solidify its dominance of the media in the 60s, I began to hear that term 'right-wing extremist' with increasing frequency. I gathered that there were right-wing people who were supposedly akin to the Nazis and fascists -- or so said the respectable news magazines and TV panel hosts of that time. I trust them far less now than I did as a child.
Dunn uses the left-wing Stanley Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove to ridicule such organizations --- as if such cartoonish characters as Jack D. Ripper were anything but a caricature.
And to get right to the heart of the issue of the supposedly extreme anti-Communism of the JBS, can we deny that they were right in warning about Communism? Even now, our media ridicule and vilify Joe McCarthy and the 'red-baiting' anti-Communists, the so-called 'witch hunters' who sounded warnings. Perhaps their warnings were too insistent, but if you saw your country in danger would you not shout a warning? That's what motivated this blog.
It looks very much to me as though the anti-Communist warnings were valid, and that we ignored those warnings to our great harm and detriment. We would surely not be where we are today had we taken the warnings seriously and acted accordingly.
The whole Communist conspiracy thing perhaps sounded fantastic to many people, who being naive, could not believe that something could be so insidious, so far-reaching, and so relentless. How anyone today of even a slightly conservative bent, can dismiss the warnings or scoff at the idea of such an overarching plan is incomprehensible. After all, it's coming to fruition before our eyes.
The left did a superb, bang-up job of fostering in the American public a knee-jerk reaction to any talk of a conspiracy, as if conspiracies per se are impossible, and anyone who warns of them is automatically an 'extremist' or a nutjob. To be fair, the 'respectable right' does its own part in encouraging this attitude, too.
The left, meanwhile, has been quite brazen lately with their talk of one-world governance, their celebration of minority status for White people in this country, and their triumph over traditional America.
Dunn creates a straw-man here, describing the Bircher's beliefs:
'' Bircher beliefs can be summed up quite simply:
* A) That everything that occurs in public life, without exception, is caused by the communists.
* B) That everybody who is not a Bircher is a communist.
Moving on, here are some choice elements of Bircher thought: That Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist agent, that the civil rights movement was a communist plot, that the Vietnam War was a communist plot (I know, I know -- I don't get it either). That the Christian ecumenical movement was a communist plot, that the mental health establishment was run by communists. That free trade was a communist plot. (I'd like to hear somebody try to square that circle.) That the collapse of the Soviet empire was bogus, a ruse designed to make us let down our guard. Birchers were also opposed to every war the U.S. was involved in since the organization's founding in 1958, on the grounds that they were fought on behalf of guess who? (All they need is a few posters saying "God hates fags" and they'd be all set.)''
Points A and B are obviously caricatures of their position, especially point B. I do not know any Birchers (although some open-borders Republican accused me of being one) but I doubt they think everybody but Birchers are Communists.
The Christian ecumenical movement is certainly fostered by people with liberal political views and liberal 'Christian' theology. Some of the mainline churches have been quite open about supporting third-world revolutionary communists. This is fact, not conjecture or conspiracy theory. Gramscian communism quite openly prescribes infiltrating the churches and all other institutions. That is no fantasy. I need not spell all this out.
As far as his citing William F. Buckley's and Ayn Rand's condemnations of the JBS, I hardly consider them as authorities on things conservative. Rand was an ideologue, no conservative, and Buckley was an elitist who craved respectability among a certain social circle. Their opinions hold little weight with me.
I also don't look to Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and the other talk-radio figures he cites as exemplars.
They, like respectable conservatives in general, stay within the bounds of political correctness, and their quest for respectability (and employability) is based on their not being labeled 'right-wing extremists', though they are labeled as such by the media and liberals generally.
It seems to me that the quest for acceptance by the left wing or the ''middle'' is a futile one; if you are the tiniest bit to the right of 'center' you are a right-wing crazy in our narrow-minded political society today. In fact, the much-praised ''middle'', which seems to pride itself on its moderation and lack of right-wing nuttery, is in reality moving ever-leftward as the center of political gravity is pulled in that direction by the left moving the boundaries constantly. Can anyone deny or doubt that the whole political debate has moved, drastically, to the left even in the last 10 years? The 'center' now occupies what was once extreme left-wing territory. That's how it works.
And that's how the left wants it to work.
They want Republicans to continue letting them define the terms politically, and letting them control the discourse and the language and the definitions. They want to keep the right on the defensive, constantly insecure and scrambling to prove how not-extreme they are, and how respectable, diverse, and inclusive they are. That way, the left continues to move everything towards their goal, and the respectables get towed along, willingly.
I got slammed, and lost some readers recently because I criticized Glenn Beck. I was told that I was violating Reagan's 11th commandment. Well, I only know of ten commandments. Reagan said that we should not criticize other conservatives -- and I generally don't condemn people to MY right. In the quest for appearing respectable, many will throw genuine allies overboard, people who are in agreement with the basic goals. That is unwise. We are not so many, those of us who try to defend our cause, that we can afford to turn up our noses at someone just because we think they will embarrass us or make us look bad to hostile third parties.
And if we do manage to reverse the catastrophic events that have happened over the last few years, it will likely be because of the efforts of the ones who are not afraid to step outside the bounds of political correctness.
Whose respect are the respectables courting, anyway? The left, and that of the media, all of whom are hostile to us and to all we believe in. Why seek the respect of those who oppose and loathe us?
As for the John Birch Society, those of you who don't know about them might check the facts. I know all of you can do your own research and decide for yourselves what you think of them.
Labels: Communism, Conservatism Anti-Communism, Faux Conservatism, Respectable Conservatism, Right-Wing Extremism
0 comment Sunday, August 31, 2014 | admin
So much of the 'news' lately reported in the old media, and even in the blogosphere, seems to be so much distraction from some of the rather unsettling things that are happening quietly, unbeknownst to most Americans.
I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.
HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.
The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.
Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''
There's also a related bill here.
Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:
"Barack Obama will require you to work."
"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual � uninvolved, uninformed � you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged."
These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.
Any reactions? Comments?
I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.
HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.
The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.
Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''
There's also a related bill here.
Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:
"Barack Obama will require you to work."
"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual � uninvolved, uninformed � you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged."
These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.
Any reactions? Comments?
Labels: Communism, Congress, Indoctrination, Mass Media, National Service, Socialism, Volunteerism
0 comment Saturday, July 5, 2014 | admin
In recent months, for whatever reason, there has been a flurry of stories in the media about the infamous Jim Jones of the 'People's Temple' and the Jonestown cult.
I think many people who are not familiar with the story are under the misimpression that Jones was a Christian who simply became a megalomaniac, whereas the truth is that he was a Communist who used Christianity as a vehicle to promote his leftist multiculturalist belief system. His followers in some cases seemed to be primarily political leftists who joined Jones' cult in order to pursue their brand of political activism under a religious guise. The first linked article above tells us something about prominent cult members, who were far from being your average churchgoing traditional Chrisitans.
I alluded briefly to Jones in a post of a few months back, but over at Tom's Big Picture, there is an excellent post on Jones and the meaning of his bizarre agenda for our present situation. And it contains an interesting little analogy:
A fun activity when I was a boy was to take a shovel to a large antpile and carry a huge chunk of it to another antpile. The ants would provide entertainment as they attempted to repel their invaders.
Jim Jones liked to stir up antpiles, those natural divisions of human life that, like firebreaks in a forest, served to prevent evil from infecting the whole lump of humanity. He probably even saw this explicitly, as Communists in the early 20th century came to the conclusion that national pride and identity was the major impediment to bringing the proletariat and intellectuals into worldwide alliance. And so the program was adopted and applied to the present.''
'Stirring up antpiles' -- it's an apt analogy.
I also like the following phrase ''those natural divisions of human life, that, like firebreaks in a forest, served to prevent evil from infecting the whole lump of humanity.'
The idea of checks and balances in the form of natural divisions among men and nations is a sound one. One does not have to be a Christian to recognize the truth behind the story of Babel; nations were divided so as to provide a division of power. Our government, as it was ordained by our Founding Fathers, recognized this principle, and therefore set up a system with a separation of powers, so that corruption or malfeasance in one branch would be contained or counteracted, and ideally corrected by a separate branch of government.
The idea that divisions of any kind are in and of themselves evil or unjust is a lie, plain and simple. And there are dangers when masses of people, especially those in positions of power, believe so firmly in a lie.
When Jones� utopia experiment didn�t work, his followers were willing to kill themselves rather than admit they were living a lie. Such is the power of this lie, of the brotherhood of man, like the original lie, that we should be as gods. For what else do you call it when we war against the ordained order of things? ''
It is a war against the ordained order of things, this Jonestown experiment with which the elites are dabbling.
Read the entire piece at Tom's Big Picture.
I think many people who are not familiar with the story are under the misimpression that Jones was a Christian who simply became a megalomaniac, whereas the truth is that he was a Communist who used Christianity as a vehicle to promote his leftist multiculturalist belief system. His followers in some cases seemed to be primarily political leftists who joined Jones' cult in order to pursue their brand of political activism under a religious guise. The first linked article above tells us something about prominent cult members, who were far from being your average churchgoing traditional Chrisitans.
I alluded briefly to Jones in a post of a few months back, but over at Tom's Big Picture, there is an excellent post on Jones and the meaning of his bizarre agenda for our present situation. And it contains an interesting little analogy:
A fun activity when I was a boy was to take a shovel to a large antpile and carry a huge chunk of it to another antpile. The ants would provide entertainment as they attempted to repel their invaders.
Jim Jones liked to stir up antpiles, those natural divisions of human life that, like firebreaks in a forest, served to prevent evil from infecting the whole lump of humanity. He probably even saw this explicitly, as Communists in the early 20th century came to the conclusion that national pride and identity was the major impediment to bringing the proletariat and intellectuals into worldwide alliance. And so the program was adopted and applied to the present.''
'Stirring up antpiles' -- it's an apt analogy.
I also like the following phrase ''those natural divisions of human life, that, like firebreaks in a forest, served to prevent evil from infecting the whole lump of humanity.'
The idea of checks and balances in the form of natural divisions among men and nations is a sound one. One does not have to be a Christian to recognize the truth behind the story of Babel; nations were divided so as to provide a division of power. Our government, as it was ordained by our Founding Fathers, recognized this principle, and therefore set up a system with a separation of powers, so that corruption or malfeasance in one branch would be contained or counteracted, and ideally corrected by a separate branch of government.
The idea that divisions of any kind are in and of themselves evil or unjust is a lie, plain and simple. And there are dangers when masses of people, especially those in positions of power, believe so firmly in a lie.
When Jones� utopia experiment didn�t work, his followers were willing to kill themselves rather than admit they were living a lie. Such is the power of this lie, of the brotherhood of man, like the original lie, that we should be as gods. For what else do you call it when we war against the ordained order of things? ''
It is a war against the ordained order of things, this Jonestown experiment with which the elites are dabbling.
Read the entire piece at Tom's Big Picture.
Labels: Communism, Diversity, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Social Divisions, Social Engineering