0 comment Sunday, November 23, 2014 | admin
The most influential US Conservatives
My readers will know that I am always somewhat fascinated and sometimes bemused by these kinds of lists: the 'top 50' or 'top '100' in whatever category.
The London Daily Telegraph presents its list of the 'most influential US conservatives' which I've linked above. Suffice it to say that, as usual, the apellation 'conservative' is applied very broadly here. Those listed in this article are numbers 81-100, with the list being continued in future articles, just like counting down the top 100 on the hit parade, #1 being saved for last.
I won't list all of them; I will just mention a few of those on this list: Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Henry Kissinger, Peggy Noonan -- and Ron Paul. Oh, and I forgot Larry Craig.
Make of it what you will. The comments following are rather telling as to the state of conservatism. The most frequently-heard howl of protest is that Rush Limbaugh was not included; obviously the commenters don't understand that this is only a partial list. For all we know, Limbaugh could be #1, although likely President Bush will hold that spot.
Any guesses as to who the top five will be?
I still say we need a new label because the word 'conservative' has ceased to have any meaning, because it includes so many people who are almost polar opposites in their thinking. The Republican Party can make itself into a Big Tent, and include everybody under the sun, but conservatism cannot be whatever we choose it to mean, per Humpty Dumpty.
My readers will know that I am always somewhat fascinated and sometimes bemused by these kinds of lists: the 'top 50' or 'top '100' in whatever category.
The London Daily Telegraph presents its list of the 'most influential US conservatives' which I've linked above. Suffice it to say that, as usual, the apellation 'conservative' is applied very broadly here. Those listed in this article are numbers 81-100, with the list being continued in future articles, just like counting down the top 100 on the hit parade, #1 being saved for last.
I won't list all of them; I will just mention a few of those on this list: Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Henry Kissinger, Peggy Noonan -- and Ron Paul. Oh, and I forgot Larry Craig.
Make of it what you will. The comments following are rather telling as to the state of conservatism. The most frequently-heard howl of protest is that Rush Limbaugh was not included; obviously the commenters don't understand that this is only a partial list. For all we know, Limbaugh could be #1, although likely President Bush will hold that spot.
Any guesses as to who the top five will be?
I still say we need a new label because the word 'conservative' has ceased to have any meaning, because it includes so many people who are almost polar opposites in their thinking. The Republican Party can make itself into a Big Tent, and include everybody under the sun, but conservatism cannot be whatever we choose it to mean, per Humpty Dumpty.
Labels: Conservatives, Lists, Mainstream Media, Politics
0 comment Friday, October 24, 2014 | admin
The question came up recently in a discussion here as to why there are not more women who are 'race realists'. I think this is a valid question because I think it's true that women tend to be more liberal than men and on questions involving race, ethnicity, and other such touchy matters, women tend to be very liberal and less territorial than men.
But I think the question is really part of the larger issue of why women are more liberal in all respects than men. I speak in a general sense; women just tend to be more liberal, more softhearted, more 'feeling' in their approach, and more prone to sympathize and empathize, and to be 'inclusive' in the best liberal tradition.
Most women will readily concede this fact. Now, I recognize this isn't true of all women, and that there are exceptions. Obviously I'm not typical of women in that respect, and the women who read and post here are also atypical to some degree.
This piece from a dozen years ago discusses the 'gender gap in politics', and the voting patterns of women. I think it's still valid:
STANFORD -- The gender gap in politics, which pollsters expect to be especially large in next week's presidential election, can be attributed to a different stance between men and women toward social equality, says Felicia Pratto, a psychologist who studies political attitudes.
This difference does not consistently show up as a Republican-Democrat or liberal-conservative split, she says. Women voters in this country and elsewhere have been both more conservative and more liberal than male voters in the past, depending upon what the issues of the day were.
"When we ask people in polls to self-identify themselves as liberals or conservatives, we are saying we know what the meaning of those labels are, but I think we are deceived," Pratto says. "That's why it is useful to try to explain differences more explicitly and on a somewhat deeper level."
Gender differences or gaps in those political attitudes also can be explained largely by a tendency among men to want to enhance social hierarchy and a tendency among women to want to attenuate it.
Pratto and her UCLA-based colleague Jim Sidanius and their graduate students consistently find that men are more supportive than women of what Pratto calls "hierarchy enhancing" social policies, such as arresting the homeless for sleeping in public places or increasing military spending. Men are also more likely to endorse ideologies that state or at least imply that certain kinds of people are not as good as others � displaying class, ethnic, national or sexual prejudices, according to their studies.''
Interestingly, researchers who have attributed women's support of social welfare programs to self-interest have not made the same accusation about men's greater support of military and defense programs," she says.
[...]
"Self-interest doesn't explain, for example, why white women are more concerned about racial equality than white men are, and it doesn't explain why women are less opposed to immigration or gay and lesbian rights than men."
[Emphasis mine]
I have noticed this tendency of women to be more liberal on issues like racial equality and immigration, as well as on homosexuality, than men. In conversations I've noticed, too, that even women who can sound very tough and very conservative on issues like illegal immigration might, a short while later, say something very liberal on these issues. I've learned via experience that a woman might sound very conservative one moment and yet the next moment be lamenting 'racism' or 'hate', talking about how horrible we have been to minorities. I have met more than my share of women who are self-contradictory on these issues. I've learned that I have to tread very carefully with the truth when I am talking to such women. I can truly say that it's no wonder that men have tended to accuse women of being inconsistent or illogical; some women seem to waver considerably depending on the circumstances.
I know plenty of Christian women who hold very liberal positions on homosexuality, and who think that it's hateful to call homosexuality a sin. The best I can manage in trying to understand this is to say that it seems that women place a very high premium on being empathetic, and they empathize with the poor homosexuals and believe they are entitled to our compassion and understanding. Similarly with immigrants and ''others'' in general; they tend to feel sorry for the illegals and immigrants generally, and they are quick to believe all the sob stories about the travails and the persecutions of the illegals.
Some women may say something very negative about illegal immigrants, for example, and then a moment later, perhaps thinking better of what they said, will tut-tut about 'hate' towards immigrants, and say that we mustn't give in to 'hate.'
I find such a conversation a hard one to navigate. What does one say in response to that? What can we say that will not sound like a defense of ''hate'' or ''racism''? Nobody wants to defend either of those things.
I would like to find a way to get across to people that it isn't about ''hate'' but about a zeal for defending what is ours: our people, our kin, our neighbors, our homes, our way of life, our heritage. It's about loving and protecting and preserving all those things. It's about wanting the best we can provide for our own, and sometimes, like it or not, that has to come at the expense of others, others who are trying to wrest away what we are trying to hold on to. We can't all have what we want. Sometimes, it is a zero-sum game. It isn't about hate or ''racism''; it's about justice and about boundaries and about protecting and defending and preserving. Ultimately it's about love, love for those nearest to us, and about placing them in the favored position. Maybe most women don't have these protective instincts in the same way that men tend to, or perhaps women tend to want to nurture and help everybody indiscriminately. And it's true, conversely, that there are far too many effeminate men these days who are like the women in that respect. The blurring of gender roles affects all of us.
And yet there are women who think as I do, and who are more hard-line, women who ''get it.'' However I think they are rather few and far between; many women vacillate between defending their own and empathizing with the 'stranger' and the perceived underdog. But what makes some women less prone to that? Maybe I and women like me are some kind of aberration, but then I know there were many more women like me in past centuries. Plenty of colonist and settler women had to be strong, and had to even take up arms to defend the homestead if danger threatened when the menfolk were away. Had women of the past been as wimpy and as promiscuous in their empathy as many of today's women, we simply would not be here today. Women once had more of that 'territorial' instinct that is getting rarer these days among both sexes, it seems.
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I keep looking for signs that things are turning around, and that the old 'tribalism' which enabled us to survive and prevail in the past is resurgent. We have to hope that it is.
But I think the question is really part of the larger issue of why women are more liberal in all respects than men. I speak in a general sense; women just tend to be more liberal, more softhearted, more 'feeling' in their approach, and more prone to sympathize and empathize, and to be 'inclusive' in the best liberal tradition.
Most women will readily concede this fact. Now, I recognize this isn't true of all women, and that there are exceptions. Obviously I'm not typical of women in that respect, and the women who read and post here are also atypical to some degree.
This piece from a dozen years ago discusses the 'gender gap in politics', and the voting patterns of women. I think it's still valid:
STANFORD -- The gender gap in politics, which pollsters expect to be especially large in next week's presidential election, can be attributed to a different stance between men and women toward social equality, says Felicia Pratto, a psychologist who studies political attitudes.
This difference does not consistently show up as a Republican-Democrat or liberal-conservative split, she says. Women voters in this country and elsewhere have been both more conservative and more liberal than male voters in the past, depending upon what the issues of the day were.
"When we ask people in polls to self-identify themselves as liberals or conservatives, we are saying we know what the meaning of those labels are, but I think we are deceived," Pratto says. "That's why it is useful to try to explain differences more explicitly and on a somewhat deeper level."
Gender differences or gaps in those political attitudes also can be explained largely by a tendency among men to want to enhance social hierarchy and a tendency among women to want to attenuate it.
Pratto and her UCLA-based colleague Jim Sidanius and their graduate students consistently find that men are more supportive than women of what Pratto calls "hierarchy enhancing" social policies, such as arresting the homeless for sleeping in public places or increasing military spending. Men are also more likely to endorse ideologies that state or at least imply that certain kinds of people are not as good as others � displaying class, ethnic, national or sexual prejudices, according to their studies.''
Interestingly, researchers who have attributed women's support of social welfare programs to self-interest have not made the same accusation about men's greater support of military and defense programs," she says.
[...]
"Self-interest doesn't explain, for example, why white women are more concerned about racial equality than white men are, and it doesn't explain why women are less opposed to immigration or gay and lesbian rights than men."
[Emphasis mine]
I have noticed this tendency of women to be more liberal on issues like racial equality and immigration, as well as on homosexuality, than men. In conversations I've noticed, too, that even women who can sound very tough and very conservative on issues like illegal immigration might, a short while later, say something very liberal on these issues. I've learned via experience that a woman might sound very conservative one moment and yet the next moment be lamenting 'racism' or 'hate', talking about how horrible we have been to minorities. I have met more than my share of women who are self-contradictory on these issues. I've learned that I have to tread very carefully with the truth when I am talking to such women. I can truly say that it's no wonder that men have tended to accuse women of being inconsistent or illogical; some women seem to waver considerably depending on the circumstances.
I know plenty of Christian women who hold very liberal positions on homosexuality, and who think that it's hateful to call homosexuality a sin. The best I can manage in trying to understand this is to say that it seems that women place a very high premium on being empathetic, and they empathize with the poor homosexuals and believe they are entitled to our compassion and understanding. Similarly with immigrants and ''others'' in general; they tend to feel sorry for the illegals and immigrants generally, and they are quick to believe all the sob stories about the travails and the persecutions of the illegals.
Some women may say something very negative about illegal immigrants, for example, and then a moment later, perhaps thinking better of what they said, will tut-tut about 'hate' towards immigrants, and say that we mustn't give in to 'hate.'
I find such a conversation a hard one to navigate. What does one say in response to that? What can we say that will not sound like a defense of ''hate'' or ''racism''? Nobody wants to defend either of those things.
I would like to find a way to get across to people that it isn't about ''hate'' but about a zeal for defending what is ours: our people, our kin, our neighbors, our homes, our way of life, our heritage. It's about loving and protecting and preserving all those things. It's about wanting the best we can provide for our own, and sometimes, like it or not, that has to come at the expense of others, others who are trying to wrest away what we are trying to hold on to. We can't all have what we want. Sometimes, it is a zero-sum game. It isn't about hate or ''racism''; it's about justice and about boundaries and about protecting and defending and preserving. Ultimately it's about love, love for those nearest to us, and about placing them in the favored position. Maybe most women don't have these protective instincts in the same way that men tend to, or perhaps women tend to want to nurture and help everybody indiscriminately. And it's true, conversely, that there are far too many effeminate men these days who are like the women in that respect. The blurring of gender roles affects all of us.
And yet there are women who think as I do, and who are more hard-line, women who ''get it.'' However I think they are rather few and far between; many women vacillate between defending their own and empathizing with the 'stranger' and the perceived underdog. But what makes some women less prone to that? Maybe I and women like me are some kind of aberration, but then I know there were many more women like me in past centuries. Plenty of colonist and settler women had to be strong, and had to even take up arms to defend the homestead if danger threatened when the menfolk were away. Had women of the past been as wimpy and as promiscuous in their empathy as many of today's women, we simply would not be here today. Women once had more of that 'territorial' instinct that is getting rarer these days among both sexes, it seems.
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I keep looking for signs that things are turning around, and that the old 'tribalism' which enabled us to survive and prevail in the past is resurgent. We have to hope that it is.
Labels: Conservatives, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Solidarity, Gender, Group Cohesion, Liberals
0 comment Tuesday, October 7, 2014 | admin
There is a particular breed of 'conservative' whose main claim to conservatism is their penny-pinching proclivities. For these 'conservatives', the only thing they are truly interested in conserving is their bank accounts. This, unfortunately, contributes to the popular stereotype of conservatives or Republicans as money-grubbers and Scrooges, who will jump over a dollar to save a nickel.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not profligate with money; I like a bargain as much as the next, provided the 'bargain' does not come with a hidden price tag, or concealed costs. And I like value for my money; just saving a buck (or even a matter of cents) doesn't do much for me if I am getting shoddy merchandise for my money. That's being pennywise and pound-foolish. If I buy a cheap item and have to repair it or replace it before I get my money's worth, it was no bargain.
I've found that to make many 'conservatives' (or more accurately, Republicans) spitting mad, all you have to do is to disparage Wal-Mart.
When I first learned that Wal-Mart is a religion to many on the 'right', I was truly baffled. I mean, the 'low, low prices' are understandably attractive to many people, but why do some on the right defend Wal-Mart with more passion than they would defend their mother or their country or their flag or their religion? Notice, the next time you visit one of those 'conservative' mega-forums or blogs: any story which is critical of Wal-Mart is sure to draw scores of impassioned and angry responses. Why?
My best guess is that they are on fire for Wal-Mart mostly because 'the liberals' supposedly hate Wally-World. And if the 'liberals' hate it, then by golly, it's as sacred as the American flag. To be anti-Wal-Mart is to bring into question one's conservative credentials. If you don't love Wal-Mart, you don't love America, or free enterprise.
I haven't been a Rush Limbaugh listener in recent times, but I suspect he is a Wal-Mart zealot. Anything 'the liberals' criticize, he defends, in the most vociferous terms. That's what being a 'conservative' is all about, apparently, to Rush and his most devoted listeners. The liberals say white, you say black. It's simple; anyone can catch on. The liberals hate SUVs. so Republicans are supposed to angrily defend SUVs. See? Easy, right?
I admit to having bought Wal-Mart merchandise; I'm not so doctrinaire that I shun the place altogether. The main reason I avoid shopping there is that the things I have bought there were badly-made Chinese stuff, and on principle, I'd rather buy American-made. That's becoming harder and harder to do, though, as this country manufactures fewer and fewer things, and we become ridiculously, almost obscenely dependent on China and other third-world sources for our goods. And the fact is, very few of the things they make compare to American-made goods, at least in the days when America produced real quality merchandise. I like things which are made well, reliable, made to last. I don't like cheap tat that has to be thrown away a week or a month from now, and replaced. I don't like the disposable, throw-away society that we've become. I'd gladly pay a little more for the things that matter, like quality clothes and appliances. Maybe for some things, disposable is fine, but for many things, quality is more important than price.
And I would also prefer to support American companies, though that's becoming less possible all the time.
But I am considering boycotting Wal-Mart, when I read, in this Chronicles Magazine article, about Wal-Mart's habit of supporting leftist, subversive organizations:
According to the Capital Research Center, the corporate side of the Walton empire shoveled nearly $750,000 to leftists in 2004, compared with $2,500 to ''conservatives.'' None of this, of course, shows up on the foundation�s website. Among the recipients were the NAACP ($60,850), AARP ($3,750), the Izaak Walton League ($2,250), LULAC ($12,000), the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($10,000), and Planned Parenthood ($2,500). The biggest recipient of Wal-Mart money? The National Council of La Raza, at a cool $630,000.
La Raza (''The Race'') is the radical ''Latino'' organization that is aiding and abetting, by supporting illegal immigration, the Mexican reconquista of the American Southwest. La Raza is uprooting English as the national language, plowing under American history and heroes, and planting Mexican-''Latino'' culture, like so much maize, in the fertile ground of American public schools.'
I'm also aware that Wal-Mart has employed illegals, or used contractors who employed illegals. In any case, they do not have the interests of local communities or of America at heart. They are the epitome of the conscienceless globalist corporation, and that philosophy is behind the real threat to America, via open borders, outsourcing, multiculturalism, and all the rest.
So Wal-Mart is akin to McDonald's: It is the apotheosis of everything wrong with America. Entering the maw of a Wal-Mart is creepy. Any normal person over the age of 40 viscerally feels, as the cornucopia of junk and tatterdemalion illegal immigrants who shop there deluge his eyes, that something is horribly wrong beneath the garish consumerism and materialism. Well, something is wrong. The company knows no loyalty.''
That sums up my visceral feelings very well. I like the phrase, 'cornucopia of junk'. I think it characterizes much of our 'culture' these days: we've got a surfeit, a glut of many things, choices galore -- but most of it junk, worthless.
And if the hidden cost of those bargains includes supporting illegal immigration and the Reconquista, along with other leftist causes, saving those few pennies or dollars is more expensive than our country can afford.
Wal-Mart's vision is not what America should be. And the 'cornucopia of junk' may well be the 'mess of pottage' we are getting in exchange for our American birthright.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not profligate with money; I like a bargain as much as the next, provided the 'bargain' does not come with a hidden price tag, or concealed costs. And I like value for my money; just saving a buck (or even a matter of cents) doesn't do much for me if I am getting shoddy merchandise for my money. That's being pennywise and pound-foolish. If I buy a cheap item and have to repair it or replace it before I get my money's worth, it was no bargain.
I've found that to make many 'conservatives' (or more accurately, Republicans) spitting mad, all you have to do is to disparage Wal-Mart.
When I first learned that Wal-Mart is a religion to many on the 'right', I was truly baffled. I mean, the 'low, low prices' are understandably attractive to many people, but why do some on the right defend Wal-Mart with more passion than they would defend their mother or their country or their flag or their religion? Notice, the next time you visit one of those 'conservative' mega-forums or blogs: any story which is critical of Wal-Mart is sure to draw scores of impassioned and angry responses. Why?
My best guess is that they are on fire for Wal-Mart mostly because 'the liberals' supposedly hate Wally-World. And if the 'liberals' hate it, then by golly, it's as sacred as the American flag. To be anti-Wal-Mart is to bring into question one's conservative credentials. If you don't love Wal-Mart, you don't love America, or free enterprise.
I haven't been a Rush Limbaugh listener in recent times, but I suspect he is a Wal-Mart zealot. Anything 'the liberals' criticize, he defends, in the most vociferous terms. That's what being a 'conservative' is all about, apparently, to Rush and his most devoted listeners. The liberals say white, you say black. It's simple; anyone can catch on. The liberals hate SUVs. so Republicans are supposed to angrily defend SUVs. See? Easy, right?
I admit to having bought Wal-Mart merchandise; I'm not so doctrinaire that I shun the place altogether. The main reason I avoid shopping there is that the things I have bought there were badly-made Chinese stuff, and on principle, I'd rather buy American-made. That's becoming harder and harder to do, though, as this country manufactures fewer and fewer things, and we become ridiculously, almost obscenely dependent on China and other third-world sources for our goods. And the fact is, very few of the things they make compare to American-made goods, at least in the days when America produced real quality merchandise. I like things which are made well, reliable, made to last. I don't like cheap tat that has to be thrown away a week or a month from now, and replaced. I don't like the disposable, throw-away society that we've become. I'd gladly pay a little more for the things that matter, like quality clothes and appliances. Maybe for some things, disposable is fine, but for many things, quality is more important than price.
And I would also prefer to support American companies, though that's becoming less possible all the time.
But I am considering boycotting Wal-Mart, when I read, in this Chronicles Magazine article, about Wal-Mart's habit of supporting leftist, subversive organizations:
According to the Capital Research Center, the corporate side of the Walton empire shoveled nearly $750,000 to leftists in 2004, compared with $2,500 to ''conservatives.'' None of this, of course, shows up on the foundation�s website. Among the recipients were the NAACP ($60,850), AARP ($3,750), the Izaak Walton League ($2,250), LULAC ($12,000), the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($10,000), and Planned Parenthood ($2,500). The biggest recipient of Wal-Mart money? The National Council of La Raza, at a cool $630,000.
La Raza (''The Race'') is the radical ''Latino'' organization that is aiding and abetting, by supporting illegal immigration, the Mexican reconquista of the American Southwest. La Raza is uprooting English as the national language, plowing under American history and heroes, and planting Mexican-''Latino'' culture, like so much maize, in the fertile ground of American public schools.'
I'm also aware that Wal-Mart has employed illegals, or used contractors who employed illegals. In any case, they do not have the interests of local communities or of America at heart. They are the epitome of the conscienceless globalist corporation, and that philosophy is behind the real threat to America, via open borders, outsourcing, multiculturalism, and all the rest.
So Wal-Mart is akin to McDonald's: It is the apotheosis of everything wrong with America. Entering the maw of a Wal-Mart is creepy. Any normal person over the age of 40 viscerally feels, as the cornucopia of junk and tatterdemalion illegal immigrants who shop there deluge his eyes, that something is horribly wrong beneath the garish consumerism and materialism. Well, something is wrong. The company knows no loyalty.''
That sums up my visceral feelings very well. I like the phrase, 'cornucopia of junk'. I think it characterizes much of our 'culture' these days: we've got a surfeit, a glut of many things, choices galore -- but most of it junk, worthless.
And if the hidden cost of those bargains includes supporting illegal immigration and the Reconquista, along with other leftist causes, saving those few pennies or dollars is more expensive than our country can afford.
Wal-Mart's vision is not what America should be. And the 'cornucopia of junk' may well be the 'mess of pottage' we are getting in exchange for our American birthright.
Labels: Conservatives, Wal-Mart
0 comment Wednesday, September 24, 2014 | admin
The quality of the attacks on Ron Paul has not been impressive so far and has been deteriorating, with some rather over-the-top rants.
And the vehemence with which some people oppose Ron Paul is a little bewildering: if the critics think Paul is a 'kook' as some of the less imaginative call him, or 'your crazy old uncle who lives in the attic' as some other critic ungraciously called him (and these are 'conservatives' speaking, by the way) then why are they so upset over his candidacy and his ideas? If he is a fringe figure who has a slim chance of being elected, or even nominated, why waste any time denouncing him? Just ignore him as the irrelevancy he is.
However it seems that many 'conservatives' or Republicans, most especially the devoted party types, are worried that Paul's candidacy may siphon off a few votes from their fave candidates, and given that Giuliani and Romney and the fast-fading McCain need whatever support they can glean, since they are generating only lukewarm support, I suppose it makes sense for some people to try to discredit Ron Paul. Or maybe they are irritated by his candidacy because they realize that someone who actually supports conservative principles will draw attention to their candidates' conspicuous lack of conservative credibility.
Or maybe they are rationalizing their own unfaithfulness to any semblance of conservative principles.
I can't guess what motivates John Derbyshire's piece
That Old-Time Religion
which is somewhat fair to Ron Paul, but in the end, dismissive of him.
Nits aside, the broad outlook there is conservative in a way we don�t often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity. Reading through those policy positions, an American conservative can hear the mystic chords of memory sounding in the distance, and hear the call of ancestral voices wafted on the breeze: Hayek, von Mises, Rothbart, Nock, Kirk, John Chamberlain... Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father�s conservatism � the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul�s policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?
So why aren�t we all piling into the wagon behind Dr. Ron? It�s not that the guy is personally unacceptable in any way. A pious family man, he has worked in an honorable profession � Ob/Gyn medical practice � all his life. (Paul has the slight political advantage of having brought several hundred of his constituents into the world.) He is personally charming and likeable. If not exactly eloquent in the florid, gassy manner American voters are used to from their politicians, he speaks clearly and well, keeps his wits about him, minds his temper, and holds his own in debate. With the positions he has, it�s easy to see why he�s not ahead with the media or the polls, but why isn�t he leading the pack among conservatives?
[...]
If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington�s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.
[...]
On the whole, though, we have settled in with this system. We are used to it. It�s not going away, absent a revolution; and conservatives are � duh! � not, by temperament, revolutionaries.
Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! � whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!
Ain�t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!''
Derbyshire acknowledges that some conservatives will be attracted to the conservative policies Paul stands for, but he then dismisses those principles as unrealistic, unattainable, and hence a chimera, a distraction.
This line of argument sounds strangely familiar; we've been here before. The example that comes most readily to my mind is the recall election of 2003, in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was running against Republican -- and conservative -- Tom McClintock.
Ironically, in this op-ed piece which appeared at NRO during that campaign, the NRO editorial supported McClintock:
We know that McClintock is currently behind Schwarzenegger in the polls. But we also know that if elected, McClintock would fight the spenders and taxers in Sacramento. About Arnold Schwarzenegger we know no such thing.''
The op-ed writers were correct; Schwarzenegger has proven to be a disappointment to conservatives since taking office.
But the arguments against McClintock, solid conservative that he was, ran something along the lines of this:
For starters, Democrats know McClintock cannot win. They know that he has ran [sic] for statewide office twice before and lost both times. McClintock�s problem is not so much that he�s unknown but that Californians know about him and have rejected his candidacy time and again. Knowing this, a Democrat plot to boost McClintock�s candidacy at Schwarzenegger�s expense has already surfaced.''
And the reason McClintock was declared unelectable? He was 'too conservative', said Schwarzenegger's minions and the usual party hacks.
I don't live in California, hence I had no direct stake in that election, but I spent many an hour arguing online with Republicans on forums who kept arguing that McClintock should drop out and let Schwarzenegger have a clear field; after all, we all knew, said they, that a 'right-wing' type like McClintock was a loser. ''You don't know California; no right-winger can win. Schwarzenegger is the best we can get here. McClintock is a purist, he's too conservative, he'll lose. We need a moderate, somebody who is electable.'' So they got their wish: Schwarzenegger was elected. What's the old saying. be careful what you wish for?
This argument, that McClintock was unelectable, was the most respectable argument against the 'too-conservative, too-purist' McClintock; the less intelligent critics made constant cruel remarks about his slight strabismus, and ridiculed his appearance, much as some of Paul's more dimwitted opponents resort to cheap shots about his age or his haircut.
But it seems to me that Derbyshire is resorting to those old arguments about how being too conservative is political poison. How many times have I heard the 'pragmatists' drag out that quote from Bismarck about politics being ''the art of the possible"? In other words, we can only ever hope to elect candidates who hew to the accepted party line or who don't rock the boat too much, because to support principled men (or women) dooms us to unelectability and political oblivion. Ultimately the message underlying this mindset is that we are doomed to the status quo, however corrupt or pedestrian or hopeless or unacceptable that status quo is. The status quo, the presently accepted order of things, or some slight variant thereof, is all that is 'possible', and we are doomed to the 'possible', to more of the same, in other words.
Thanks but no thanks.
At some point, this mindset becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: we decree that anybody who is radical enough to try to remind us of the Founding Fathers' principles, or even the principles of a half-century ago, is 'unelectable' because he is quixotic or a dreamer or a wacko or a kook or a 'reactionary' or a purist or unelectable. I wonder how many people back in the 18th century said the same things about our Founding Fathers? It seems that a substantial percentage of people in that era were not in favor of our independence from Britain; no doubt they thought the Founding Fathers were extremists or 'fringe' elements. Most people prefer the 'devil they know', the status quo; no matter how unacceptable things are, we are used to them, and few people like real change; it's disruptive and it's frightening for many people. And it's especially frightening to those who have a vested interest in keeping things just as they are, for example, party functionaries and people who are insiders in the existing political structures. Or media people.
But if we continue to insist that only people who hew to the existing party line are 'electable' then we guarantee that only such people will ever be nominated and elected. How can we declare in advance that a certain candidate is unelectable? Why even have elections if we know in advance who can or cannot be elected? Let's just poll the party members and media elites and let them tell us who we want. That seems to be what our system amounts to, if these people can tell us in advance who we will or won't vote for.
The only way we can know who the people will choose or won't choose is to let them choose, and let them do so in the voting booth.
If I had my way, we'd stop running so many polls which tell us every other day who and what we want. Polls are intended to influence opinion and shape it as much as to check and report public opinion.
As others have said, the only polls that matter -- or should matter -- are the ones on election day, when we cast our ballots.
But the idea that conservatism cannot do anything but rubber-stamp and preserve the liberal status quo is to make conservatism merely a useless philosophy that does little but try feebly to slow down liberal change, and preserve yesterday's radical left innovations.
And Derbyshire's argument that we couldn't, say, throw out the U.N. because of the predictable howls of protest from the left means essentially that we can't do anything that upsets the left and provokes one of their frequent tantrums. If that is true, we are really and truly done for as a country; reversing some of the harm done by leftists is essential if this Republic is to survive, and we have been far too cowed by the left's hissy fits for too long. Let them howl like spoiled children; they've been allowed to blackmail us by means of their emotional abuse and the result is the chaotic society we live in today.
And the oft-repeated cliche that you can't turn the clock back -- who decreed that? I turn my clock back every fall, when we go back to standard time. I turn my clock back when I travel west across time zones. The idea that once liberals have done something it can never be undone is absurd.
We can nominate an 'electable' Republican who is no conservative, and 'win' as a party, but if conservatism loses, and we elect more of the same failed policies, the Republic loses. What do the fortunes of the party matter, if our country goes down? What have we 'won' if we get another open borders, globalist, big business, interventionist, disconnected elitist?
There's something to be said for daring, and stepping out of line, away from the failed status quo, and trying something different -- or, going back to the tried and true which did work for us for centuries. We know the status quo does not work. Doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result is madness, so the saying goes.
''If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, so we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.'' - Russell Kirk
"We all want progress, but if you�re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." - C. S. Lewis
And the vehemence with which some people oppose Ron Paul is a little bewildering: if the critics think Paul is a 'kook' as some of the less imaginative call him, or 'your crazy old uncle who lives in the attic' as some other critic ungraciously called him (and these are 'conservatives' speaking, by the way) then why are they so upset over his candidacy and his ideas? If he is a fringe figure who has a slim chance of being elected, or even nominated, why waste any time denouncing him? Just ignore him as the irrelevancy he is.
However it seems that many 'conservatives' or Republicans, most especially the devoted party types, are worried that Paul's candidacy may siphon off a few votes from their fave candidates, and given that Giuliani and Romney and the fast-fading McCain need whatever support they can glean, since they are generating only lukewarm support, I suppose it makes sense for some people to try to discredit Ron Paul. Or maybe they are irritated by his candidacy because they realize that someone who actually supports conservative principles will draw attention to their candidates' conspicuous lack of conservative credibility.
Or maybe they are rationalizing their own unfaithfulness to any semblance of conservative principles.
I can't guess what motivates John Derbyshire's piece
That Old-Time Religion
which is somewhat fair to Ron Paul, but in the end, dismissive of him.
Nits aside, the broad outlook there is conservative in a way we don�t often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity. Reading through those policy positions, an American conservative can hear the mystic chords of memory sounding in the distance, and hear the call of ancestral voices wafted on the breeze: Hayek, von Mises, Rothbart, Nock, Kirk, John Chamberlain... Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father�s conservatism � the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul�s policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?
So why aren�t we all piling into the wagon behind Dr. Ron? It�s not that the guy is personally unacceptable in any way. A pious family man, he has worked in an honorable profession � Ob/Gyn medical practice � all his life. (Paul has the slight political advantage of having brought several hundred of his constituents into the world.) He is personally charming and likeable. If not exactly eloquent in the florid, gassy manner American voters are used to from their politicians, he speaks clearly and well, keeps his wits about him, minds his temper, and holds his own in debate. With the positions he has, it�s easy to see why he�s not ahead with the media or the polls, but why isn�t he leading the pack among conservatives?
[...]
If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington�s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.
[...]
On the whole, though, we have settled in with this system. We are used to it. It�s not going away, absent a revolution; and conservatives are � duh! � not, by temperament, revolutionaries.
Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! � whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!
Ain�t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!''
Derbyshire acknowledges that some conservatives will be attracted to the conservative policies Paul stands for, but he then dismisses those principles as unrealistic, unattainable, and hence a chimera, a distraction.
This line of argument sounds strangely familiar; we've been here before. The example that comes most readily to my mind is the recall election of 2003, in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was running against Republican -- and conservative -- Tom McClintock.
Ironically, in this op-ed piece which appeared at NRO during that campaign, the NRO editorial supported McClintock:
We know that McClintock is currently behind Schwarzenegger in the polls. But we also know that if elected, McClintock would fight the spenders and taxers in Sacramento. About Arnold Schwarzenegger we know no such thing.''
The op-ed writers were correct; Schwarzenegger has proven to be a disappointment to conservatives since taking office.
But the arguments against McClintock, solid conservative that he was, ran something along the lines of this:
For starters, Democrats know McClintock cannot win. They know that he has ran [sic] for statewide office twice before and lost both times. McClintock�s problem is not so much that he�s unknown but that Californians know about him and have rejected his candidacy time and again. Knowing this, a Democrat plot to boost McClintock�s candidacy at Schwarzenegger�s expense has already surfaced.''
And the reason McClintock was declared unelectable? He was 'too conservative', said Schwarzenegger's minions and the usual party hacks.
I don't live in California, hence I had no direct stake in that election, but I spent many an hour arguing online with Republicans on forums who kept arguing that McClintock should drop out and let Schwarzenegger have a clear field; after all, we all knew, said they, that a 'right-wing' type like McClintock was a loser. ''You don't know California; no right-winger can win. Schwarzenegger is the best we can get here. McClintock is a purist, he's too conservative, he'll lose. We need a moderate, somebody who is electable.'' So they got their wish: Schwarzenegger was elected. What's the old saying. be careful what you wish for?
This argument, that McClintock was unelectable, was the most respectable argument against the 'too-conservative, too-purist' McClintock; the less intelligent critics made constant cruel remarks about his slight strabismus, and ridiculed his appearance, much as some of Paul's more dimwitted opponents resort to cheap shots about his age or his haircut.
But it seems to me that Derbyshire is resorting to those old arguments about how being too conservative is political poison. How many times have I heard the 'pragmatists' drag out that quote from Bismarck about politics being ''the art of the possible"? In other words, we can only ever hope to elect candidates who hew to the accepted party line or who don't rock the boat too much, because to support principled men (or women) dooms us to unelectability and political oblivion. Ultimately the message underlying this mindset is that we are doomed to the status quo, however corrupt or pedestrian or hopeless or unacceptable that status quo is. The status quo, the presently accepted order of things, or some slight variant thereof, is all that is 'possible', and we are doomed to the 'possible', to more of the same, in other words.
Thanks but no thanks.
At some point, this mindset becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: we decree that anybody who is radical enough to try to remind us of the Founding Fathers' principles, or even the principles of a half-century ago, is 'unelectable' because he is quixotic or a dreamer or a wacko or a kook or a 'reactionary' or a purist or unelectable. I wonder how many people back in the 18th century said the same things about our Founding Fathers? It seems that a substantial percentage of people in that era were not in favor of our independence from Britain; no doubt they thought the Founding Fathers were extremists or 'fringe' elements. Most people prefer the 'devil they know', the status quo; no matter how unacceptable things are, we are used to them, and few people like real change; it's disruptive and it's frightening for many people. And it's especially frightening to those who have a vested interest in keeping things just as they are, for example, party functionaries and people who are insiders in the existing political structures. Or media people.
But if we continue to insist that only people who hew to the existing party line are 'electable' then we guarantee that only such people will ever be nominated and elected. How can we declare in advance that a certain candidate is unelectable? Why even have elections if we know in advance who can or cannot be elected? Let's just poll the party members and media elites and let them tell us who we want. That seems to be what our system amounts to, if these people can tell us in advance who we will or won't vote for.
The only way we can know who the people will choose or won't choose is to let them choose, and let them do so in the voting booth.
If I had my way, we'd stop running so many polls which tell us every other day who and what we want. Polls are intended to influence opinion and shape it as much as to check and report public opinion.
As others have said, the only polls that matter -- or should matter -- are the ones on election day, when we cast our ballots.
But the idea that conservatism cannot do anything but rubber-stamp and preserve the liberal status quo is to make conservatism merely a useless philosophy that does little but try feebly to slow down liberal change, and preserve yesterday's radical left innovations.
And Derbyshire's argument that we couldn't, say, throw out the U.N. because of the predictable howls of protest from the left means essentially that we can't do anything that upsets the left and provokes one of their frequent tantrums. If that is true, we are really and truly done for as a country; reversing some of the harm done by leftists is essential if this Republic is to survive, and we have been far too cowed by the left's hissy fits for too long. Let them howl like spoiled children; they've been allowed to blackmail us by means of their emotional abuse and the result is the chaotic society we live in today.
And the oft-repeated cliche that you can't turn the clock back -- who decreed that? I turn my clock back every fall, when we go back to standard time. I turn my clock back when I travel west across time zones. The idea that once liberals have done something it can never be undone is absurd.
We can nominate an 'electable' Republican who is no conservative, and 'win' as a party, but if conservatism loses, and we elect more of the same failed policies, the Republic loses. What do the fortunes of the party matter, if our country goes down? What have we 'won' if we get another open borders, globalist, big business, interventionist, disconnected elitist?
There's something to be said for daring, and stepping out of line, away from the failed status quo, and trying something different -- or, going back to the tried and true which did work for us for centuries. We know the status quo does not work. Doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result is madness, so the saying goes.
''If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, so we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.'' - Russell Kirk
"We all want progress, but if you�re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." - C. S. Lewis
Labels: Conservatism, Conservatives, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Saturday, August 23, 2014 | admin
David Thompson gives us his take, as always interesting, on the recent controversies over 'hate speech,' for example in the Islamic Awareness Week at Tufts University.
Fear and Hate
It should, I think, be unnecessary to point out that claims of being offended don�t, in themselves, entitle one to anything in particular, and certainly not rights of unilateral censorship. But we live in strange times and some repetition may be in order. As I wrote back in May 2005:
In this fashionable rush to condemn those who cause offence, we are in danger of overlooking something important. All grievances are not of equal merit. Nor are they deserving of equal sensitivity or accommodation. Whether or not a person is offended may not depend on what is actually said or written, which may be perfectly coherent, measured in tone and serious in intent. The perceived offence may depend on the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the supposedly aggrieved party... Very civil and inarguable comments can, for instance, cause "offence" to someone who is determined to be offended for political gain and determined to exploit the pretence of being hurt. Indeed, the pantomime of being conspicuously aggrieved can be a form of passive-aggressivism - a way to express hostility or dominance while hiding being the role of victim. This tactic is widely employed by the morally incontinent and by bullies of all kinds.
In light of those comments, the following may be of interest. Mike Adams has developed a similar line of thinking and arrived at an interesting, and quite helpful, definition of "hate speech":
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener�s inability to offer an intelligent response. Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: (1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and (2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.''
Good commentary from both Thompson and Mike Adams.
Thompson says, of Adams' ideas:
If, as Adams suggests, "hate speech" is defined by the listener�s inability to tolerate dissent or formulate an intelligent response, then advantage is given to those who least deserve it. Those who resort to threats and howls of impropriety gain leverage over people who are prepared to listen and rebut with argument and evidence. Thus, moral incontinence, idiocy and bullying prevail.''
All in all, it's an interesting piece. The entire thing should be read, and please do read the discussion thread, which, sadly, illustrates yet another example of neocon/right-liberal political correctness, in which the bogeymen assume the usual guise of 'racists and bigots.' The Klan are invoked, and poor old James Watson is again given a drubbing for his comments. I notice however that as usual nobody has a cogent argument with which to refute anything Watson has said, but I guess you don't need one if you have noble motives such as defending the downtrodden victims.
Is there any hope of disabusing the 'conservative' apostles of political correctness? They seem quite convinced that they are the epitome of 'conservative' righteousness. They seem to have no inkling that they are following along two steps behind their left counterparts, as regards their adherence to PC.
Somebody coined the term 'the righteous Right' to describe conservative Christians, but I am inclined to use that term for the PC adherents on the 'right' who get the vapors when somebody says something politically incorrect. Get the smelling salts. Maybe they are the 'self-righteous right.' Or maybe some of the commenters are actually liberals of the garden variety. It's getting so hard to tell these days.
Fear and Hate
It should, I think, be unnecessary to point out that claims of being offended don�t, in themselves, entitle one to anything in particular, and certainly not rights of unilateral censorship. But we live in strange times and some repetition may be in order. As I wrote back in May 2005:
In this fashionable rush to condemn those who cause offence, we are in danger of overlooking something important. All grievances are not of equal merit. Nor are they deserving of equal sensitivity or accommodation. Whether or not a person is offended may not depend on what is actually said or written, which may be perfectly coherent, measured in tone and serious in intent. The perceived offence may depend on the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the supposedly aggrieved party... Very civil and inarguable comments can, for instance, cause "offence" to someone who is determined to be offended for political gain and determined to exploit the pretence of being hurt. Indeed, the pantomime of being conspicuously aggrieved can be a form of passive-aggressivism - a way to express hostility or dominance while hiding being the role of victim. This tactic is widely employed by the morally incontinent and by bullies of all kinds.
In light of those comments, the following may be of interest. Mike Adams has developed a similar line of thinking and arrived at an interesting, and quite helpful, definition of "hate speech":
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener�s inability to offer an intelligent response. Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: (1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and (2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.''
Good commentary from both Thompson and Mike Adams.
Thompson says, of Adams' ideas:
If, as Adams suggests, "hate speech" is defined by the listener�s inability to tolerate dissent or formulate an intelligent response, then advantage is given to those who least deserve it. Those who resort to threats and howls of impropriety gain leverage over people who are prepared to listen and rebut with argument and evidence. Thus, moral incontinence, idiocy and bullying prevail.''
All in all, it's an interesting piece. The entire thing should be read, and please do read the discussion thread, which, sadly, illustrates yet another example of neocon/right-liberal political correctness, in which the bogeymen assume the usual guise of 'racists and bigots.' The Klan are invoked, and poor old James Watson is again given a drubbing for his comments. I notice however that as usual nobody has a cogent argument with which to refute anything Watson has said, but I guess you don't need one if you have noble motives such as defending the downtrodden victims.
Is there any hope of disabusing the 'conservative' apostles of political correctness? They seem quite convinced that they are the epitome of 'conservative' righteousness. They seem to have no inkling that they are following along two steps behind their left counterparts, as regards their adherence to PC.
Somebody coined the term 'the righteous Right' to describe conservative Christians, but I am inclined to use that term for the PC adherents on the 'right' who get the vapors when somebody says something politically incorrect. Get the smelling salts. Maybe they are the 'self-righteous right.' Or maybe some of the commenters are actually liberals of the garden variety. It's getting so hard to tell these days.
Labels: Conservatives, First Amendment, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Political Parties
0 comment Sunday, August 17, 2014 | admin
Chapter II in the 'shape up or....?' story begins with Newt Gingrich, who was on Fox News today, selling his dandy new '5-step Assimilation Plan' for immigrants. Now I confess that I didn't have time to catch the whole segment, and I saw only the beginning, where he began with the obligatory disclaimer, you know, the bit where the smarmy politician says 'I'm all in favor of legal immigration...' , so as to ward off the racism charges. Now that phrase usually causes me to reach for the remote, because I know that what follows will be some kind of half-hearted, serpent-tongued denunciation of illegal immigration, while still being immigrant-friendly.
However, I caught enough of Newt to hear him say that he favors legal immigration, and he believes that most immigrants come here because they want to be Americans, but they need to learn English. So we need to have a program for teaching them English, so that they assimilate.
Just as with John Howard's plea for immigrants to Australia to learn English and assimilate, as far as it goes, that idea is fine, but is it enough? Does speaking English guarantee assimilation? Yes, it is a part of assimilating, but does learning the language in and of itself lead inevitably to assimilating, and is it a proof of assimilation?
Learning English is the bare minimum of what we must expect of would-be immigrants. In fact if they are determined to come to this country, common sense would suggest that they ought to know some English even before they make the trip here. American culture is a worldwide thing these days, (to the chagrin of many people); so those who want to learn English can even learn a fair bit from movies or TV programs. Enterprising immigrants of the past have learned English in that fashion. However, as we know, there are many outwardly-acculturated immigrants and even children of immigrants who are not assimilated. Yesterday I mentioned the Lackawanna Six, the terror plotters who had grown up in an American suburb, but who were conspiring towards some act of terror towards 'fellow' Americans. The 7/7 bombers in the UK are another example of outwardly assimilated Moslems who were so full of hatred towards those whose country had nurtured and educated them that they were willing to kill others, strangers, and even themselves for their twisted ideals. Speaking fluent English, using the latest youth slang, made none of these young people part of the countries they lived in. They were in the country but not of it. The 'we' they identified with was not Britain, or the United States, but the Islamic 'we.' Just as many of our Latino immigrants, and even native-born Hispanics, identify with their Raza, their 'gente', and fly the Mexican flag or the Dominican flag or whatever, pledging their allegiance to their blood kin, not to Americans.
So Gingrich is peddling facile, cheap answers, and in doing so, is furthering the multicultural agenda. If he can lull the easily-pleased among us into thinking that we can solve the difficult problems of mass immigration by his '5-step program', then he is part of the problem. He is promoting, by implication, the idea that we are all really the same, and interchangeable, if only we all learn a common language and participate in a common, lowest common denominator mass culture.
Evidently Newt is one of those who believes that everybody is potentially an American, but the evidence of reality and common sense tells us that not everybody is equally assimilable, and further, that maybe some are not assimilable in any real sense at all. But admitting this is denying the liberal presuppositions of egalitarianism, and the core liberal idea that we all self-create, and that the key is to make immigrants want to be American. We just have to get them to want to re-invent themselves as Americans, and the way to do that is to have a 5-step program, or reach out to them, and so on; just the kind of thing the neoconservatives in the GOP have been pushing.
Why are some immigrants seemingly impervious to assimilation, or Americanization, as it used to be called? The real ideologues among us would deny that such is the case. They will continue to insist that everybody is the same, despite surface differences. But history indicates otherwise. In the past, most of our immigrants came from European cultures, and the process of acculturation and assimilation were relatively easy, although some groups have been much slower to assimilate. We might argue that some groups have resisted assimilation, and this is true to the extent that their cultures were dissimilar to the core Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture. But eventually most European immigrants did assimilate. However with our current predominantly non-Western immigrants, legal and illegal, their cultures are at odds with our own to a considerable extent; their mores, their habits, their ways, are distant from our own. Add to this the fact that most of our immigrants of today come from cultures in which Westerners, especially Americans, are viewed negatively. Americans in particular may be envied by many but they are also greatly resented. Many people in Third World countries view Americans as obscenely rich, and expect handouts from Americans as their due. I learned this first-hand, when my home address was made known in a publication, and I began to receive begging -- and demanding -- letters from strangers in African countries. They assumed that all Americans were fabulously rich and that they need only ask, and receive money or gifts. I suppose the 'Nigerian e-mail scam' had not been thought of yet, but the same phenomenon is at work there. Americans are seen, at best, as rich, gullible, and there for the fleecing. At worst, we are pictured as exploiters, oppressors, usurpers of their territory, in the case of our Latino neighbors. Now what can be expected when we import these attitudes en masse to our country? And can a few English lessons, or even fluency in English hope to counter all of that? In fact, when the immigrants are fluent enough in English to watch American TV and read English-language newspapers, they will simply be exposed to even more anti-American propaganda, as served up by our leftist entertainment media and news media. Our educational system, too, is riddled with disparaging messages about American history and American society.
Assimilation worked, in the past, for several reasons: we were selective about who we admitted to this country. They came from compatible countries, and we limited the numbers. We never admitted immigrants indiscriminately as we are doing now with our de facto open borders. Large numbers of immigrants, and the establishment of immigrant enclaves were never part of the plan.
We were able to assimilate immigrants in part, too, because ours was a confident, assertive culture, and we did not adopt a weak, appeasing attitude to newcomers.
There was no large-scale support for foreign-language communities in old America; they were expected to learn English, and most of them did so willingly. Few or none of our past immigrants came here with a grudge against America for some perceived past wrong or injustice. Few or none came here with the intent of doing harm to Americans or of subverting American society, or reclaiming it in the name of their native country.
Now, we are recklessly opening the doors to people who may well have a subversive agenda, as at least some of our Hispanic immigrants, or they may even desire to actually kill and destroy, as the 9/11 hijackers did.
Another complicating factor in our policies of admitting mostly third-world, minority immigrants is our current, ongoing racial issues. America, since the 1960s especially, has been embroiled in the mainstreaming of black Americans into our society. As a result, the more extreme black leaders perpetuate racial conflict and a whole industry built on the guilt feelings of the American majority. We are still trying to negotiate our way beyond that impasse, and now, into the middle of an already difficult situation, we import millions of non-white immigrants who are now adding their voices to the chorus of grievances against majority America. We now have preferential policies like 'Affirmative Action', supposedly in the name of making restitution for past discrimination (two wrongs apparently do make a right, according to some), and now the newly-arrived minorities, who have absolutely no claim to having been 'historic victims of discrimination' in America, are now entitled to all the benefits of AA, as well as many other social entitlements based on skin color or ethnicity. Now, thanks to mass third-world immigration, majority Americans have millions of new claimants to special considerations, and eligible for benefits. How will this all play out when the American majority is the new minority? How will the descendants of majority Americans, as an outnumbered minority, still be expected to make amends and restitution to an aggrieved collection of former minorities?
None of those who have concocted this present insane immigration policy has ever addressed any of these questions. Instead they pretend that things can go on just as they are, even when the demographics of this country are absolutely turned on their head, with today's majority reduced to a minority. But considerations like this don't enter the minds of the social engineers. And I consider Newt to be as much a part of the problem as any of the rest of the immigration enthusiasts.
Newt, how many is too many? Does this country have a carrying capacity? Or do we just keep on packing them in until we reach India-style population density? And by the way, Mr. Arch-conservative Newt, what about the economic burden all this immigration creates? Aren't conservatives supposed to be the small government guys, the ones who crunch the numbers and see that we aren't living beyond our means? Where's the fiscal responsibility?
On a much smaller scale, I wonder what the costs of Newt's little 'assimilation program' would be? Our government already spends, big-time, on 'Hispanic outreach', interpreters, counselors, special studies of the Hispanic population and their needs, educational programs, subsidized tuition for illegal students, Hispanic health programs, special small-business programs, and so on. We are not even talking about the other costs, such as the bankrupt hospitals, overcrowded jails, overloaded courts, crimes by immigrants and the resultant expenses, lives lost via immigrant crime, costs of monitoring possible Moslem terror activities -- I could go on, but we all know. Yet we have to spend even more money to spoon-feed reluctant immigrants the English language? Just take away all the bilingual documents and teachers, take away Univision and Telemundo and all the rest of the bilingual catering, and they might just have to learn English.
But even if they all learn fluent English, that will not be a solution to the problem, which is that we have too many immigrants, too fast, and at too high a cost to our society in cultural terms as well as financial terms. The levels of immigration we have now are unprecedented in American history, I think the same can be said for many Western countries, like Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Something hitherto unknown is being carried out in the West, and nobody, not our politicians or academics or media, none of them know where it it leading us, or what the end result will be. Those of us who are not woolly-minded academics or loopy leftist utopians know that the result will not be a utopia. We do know, based on demographic projections, that we majority Western peoples will be on the outside looking in, dispossessed in our own countries, and with nowhere to go. To believe, as some people are content to say they do, that all the problems will work themselves out, and people will just learn to get along, is highly unrealistic. That kind of faith, at least in human beings, is something I don't have; it's a huge leap in the dark.
The only hope our country has is for a resurgence of real, genuine conservatism, which in true conservative fashion, is willing to take a hard-eyed look at where we are, on the edge of a precipice, and to speak the truth about the situation. From there, we need to try to find a way to step back from the precipice, if we want to preserve our countries as we have known them, and to preserve a way of life which it took our ancestors many generations of toil and blood to achieve. If 'conservatives' are willing to throw all that away, gambling on some bizarre exercise in social engineering on a global scale, then that is proof that they are not conservatives in any real sense at all. Any conservative, falsely so-called, who promotes mass immigration, or unending immigration, is deceived or deceiving us.
At this moment in our history, the primary concern should be preserving our country, our people, our way of life, our heritage. Everything else is a secondary consideration.
Everything.
However, I caught enough of Newt to hear him say that he favors legal immigration, and he believes that most immigrants come here because they want to be Americans, but they need to learn English. So we need to have a program for teaching them English, so that they assimilate.
Just as with John Howard's plea for immigrants to Australia to learn English and assimilate, as far as it goes, that idea is fine, but is it enough? Does speaking English guarantee assimilation? Yes, it is a part of assimilating, but does learning the language in and of itself lead inevitably to assimilating, and is it a proof of assimilation?
Learning English is the bare minimum of what we must expect of would-be immigrants. In fact if they are determined to come to this country, common sense would suggest that they ought to know some English even before they make the trip here. American culture is a worldwide thing these days, (to the chagrin of many people); so those who want to learn English can even learn a fair bit from movies or TV programs. Enterprising immigrants of the past have learned English in that fashion. However, as we know, there are many outwardly-acculturated immigrants and even children of immigrants who are not assimilated. Yesterday I mentioned the Lackawanna Six, the terror plotters who had grown up in an American suburb, but who were conspiring towards some act of terror towards 'fellow' Americans. The 7/7 bombers in the UK are another example of outwardly assimilated Moslems who were so full of hatred towards those whose country had nurtured and educated them that they were willing to kill others, strangers, and even themselves for their twisted ideals. Speaking fluent English, using the latest youth slang, made none of these young people part of the countries they lived in. They were in the country but not of it. The 'we' they identified with was not Britain, or the United States, but the Islamic 'we.' Just as many of our Latino immigrants, and even native-born Hispanics, identify with their Raza, their 'gente', and fly the Mexican flag or the Dominican flag or whatever, pledging their allegiance to their blood kin, not to Americans.
So Gingrich is peddling facile, cheap answers, and in doing so, is furthering the multicultural agenda. If he can lull the easily-pleased among us into thinking that we can solve the difficult problems of mass immigration by his '5-step program', then he is part of the problem. He is promoting, by implication, the idea that we are all really the same, and interchangeable, if only we all learn a common language and participate in a common, lowest common denominator mass culture.
Evidently Newt is one of those who believes that everybody is potentially an American, but the evidence of reality and common sense tells us that not everybody is equally assimilable, and further, that maybe some are not assimilable in any real sense at all. But admitting this is denying the liberal presuppositions of egalitarianism, and the core liberal idea that we all self-create, and that the key is to make immigrants want to be American. We just have to get them to want to re-invent themselves as Americans, and the way to do that is to have a 5-step program, or reach out to them, and so on; just the kind of thing the neoconservatives in the GOP have been pushing.
Why are some immigrants seemingly impervious to assimilation, or Americanization, as it used to be called? The real ideologues among us would deny that such is the case. They will continue to insist that everybody is the same, despite surface differences. But history indicates otherwise. In the past, most of our immigrants came from European cultures, and the process of acculturation and assimilation were relatively easy, although some groups have been much slower to assimilate. We might argue that some groups have resisted assimilation, and this is true to the extent that their cultures were dissimilar to the core Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture. But eventually most European immigrants did assimilate. However with our current predominantly non-Western immigrants, legal and illegal, their cultures are at odds with our own to a considerable extent; their mores, their habits, their ways, are distant from our own. Add to this the fact that most of our immigrants of today come from cultures in which Westerners, especially Americans, are viewed negatively. Americans in particular may be envied by many but they are also greatly resented. Many people in Third World countries view Americans as obscenely rich, and expect handouts from Americans as their due. I learned this first-hand, when my home address was made known in a publication, and I began to receive begging -- and demanding -- letters from strangers in African countries. They assumed that all Americans were fabulously rich and that they need only ask, and receive money or gifts. I suppose the 'Nigerian e-mail scam' had not been thought of yet, but the same phenomenon is at work there. Americans are seen, at best, as rich, gullible, and there for the fleecing. At worst, we are pictured as exploiters, oppressors, usurpers of their territory, in the case of our Latino neighbors. Now what can be expected when we import these attitudes en masse to our country? And can a few English lessons, or even fluency in English hope to counter all of that? In fact, when the immigrants are fluent enough in English to watch American TV and read English-language newspapers, they will simply be exposed to even more anti-American propaganda, as served up by our leftist entertainment media and news media. Our educational system, too, is riddled with disparaging messages about American history and American society.
Assimilation worked, in the past, for several reasons: we were selective about who we admitted to this country. They came from compatible countries, and we limited the numbers. We never admitted immigrants indiscriminately as we are doing now with our de facto open borders. Large numbers of immigrants, and the establishment of immigrant enclaves were never part of the plan.
We were able to assimilate immigrants in part, too, because ours was a confident, assertive culture, and we did not adopt a weak, appeasing attitude to newcomers.
There was no large-scale support for foreign-language communities in old America; they were expected to learn English, and most of them did so willingly. Few or none of our past immigrants came here with a grudge against America for some perceived past wrong or injustice. Few or none came here with the intent of doing harm to Americans or of subverting American society, or reclaiming it in the name of their native country.
Now, we are recklessly opening the doors to people who may well have a subversive agenda, as at least some of our Hispanic immigrants, or they may even desire to actually kill and destroy, as the 9/11 hijackers did.
Another complicating factor in our policies of admitting mostly third-world, minority immigrants is our current, ongoing racial issues. America, since the 1960s especially, has been embroiled in the mainstreaming of black Americans into our society. As a result, the more extreme black leaders perpetuate racial conflict and a whole industry built on the guilt feelings of the American majority. We are still trying to negotiate our way beyond that impasse, and now, into the middle of an already difficult situation, we import millions of non-white immigrants who are now adding their voices to the chorus of grievances against majority America. We now have preferential policies like 'Affirmative Action', supposedly in the name of making restitution for past discrimination (two wrongs apparently do make a right, according to some), and now the newly-arrived minorities, who have absolutely no claim to having been 'historic victims of discrimination' in America, are now entitled to all the benefits of AA, as well as many other social entitlements based on skin color or ethnicity. Now, thanks to mass third-world immigration, majority Americans have millions of new claimants to special considerations, and eligible for benefits. How will this all play out when the American majority is the new minority? How will the descendants of majority Americans, as an outnumbered minority, still be expected to make amends and restitution to an aggrieved collection of former minorities?
None of those who have concocted this present insane immigration policy has ever addressed any of these questions. Instead they pretend that things can go on just as they are, even when the demographics of this country are absolutely turned on their head, with today's majority reduced to a minority. But considerations like this don't enter the minds of the social engineers. And I consider Newt to be as much a part of the problem as any of the rest of the immigration enthusiasts.
Newt, how many is too many? Does this country have a carrying capacity? Or do we just keep on packing them in until we reach India-style population density? And by the way, Mr. Arch-conservative Newt, what about the economic burden all this immigration creates? Aren't conservatives supposed to be the small government guys, the ones who crunch the numbers and see that we aren't living beyond our means? Where's the fiscal responsibility?
On a much smaller scale, I wonder what the costs of Newt's little 'assimilation program' would be? Our government already spends, big-time, on 'Hispanic outreach', interpreters, counselors, special studies of the Hispanic population and their needs, educational programs, subsidized tuition for illegal students, Hispanic health programs, special small-business programs, and so on. We are not even talking about the other costs, such as the bankrupt hospitals, overcrowded jails, overloaded courts, crimes by immigrants and the resultant expenses, lives lost via immigrant crime, costs of monitoring possible Moslem terror activities -- I could go on, but we all know. Yet we have to spend even more money to spoon-feed reluctant immigrants the English language? Just take away all the bilingual documents and teachers, take away Univision and Telemundo and all the rest of the bilingual catering, and they might just have to learn English.
But even if they all learn fluent English, that will not be a solution to the problem, which is that we have too many immigrants, too fast, and at too high a cost to our society in cultural terms as well as financial terms. The levels of immigration we have now are unprecedented in American history, I think the same can be said for many Western countries, like Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Something hitherto unknown is being carried out in the West, and nobody, not our politicians or academics or media, none of them know where it it leading us, or what the end result will be. Those of us who are not woolly-minded academics or loopy leftist utopians know that the result will not be a utopia. We do know, based on demographic projections, that we majority Western peoples will be on the outside looking in, dispossessed in our own countries, and with nowhere to go. To believe, as some people are content to say they do, that all the problems will work themselves out, and people will just learn to get along, is highly unrealistic. That kind of faith, at least in human beings, is something I don't have; it's a huge leap in the dark.
The only hope our country has is for a resurgence of real, genuine conservatism, which in true conservative fashion, is willing to take a hard-eyed look at where we are, on the edge of a precipice, and to speak the truth about the situation. From there, we need to try to find a way to step back from the precipice, if we want to preserve our countries as we have known them, and to preserve a way of life which it took our ancestors many generations of toil and blood to achieve. If 'conservatives' are willing to throw all that away, gambling on some bizarre exercise in social engineering on a global scale, then that is proof that they are not conservatives in any real sense at all. Any conservative, falsely so-called, who promotes mass immigration, or unending immigration, is deceived or deceiving us.
At this moment in our history, the primary concern should be preserving our country, our people, our way of life, our heritage. Everything else is a secondary consideration.
Everything.
Labels: Assimilation, Conservatives, English Language, Immigration
0 comment Sunday, August 10, 2014 | admin
''It is the Devil's cleverest guile to convince us he doesn't exist.'' - Baudelaire
This quote came to mind when I was reading various online discussions pooh-poohing ''conspiracy theories.'' I put the phrase in scare quotes not because I scoff at the idea of conspiracies, but because it seems that the phrase is abused, being deployed to discredit any unpopular or uncomfortable assertion. Just call some idea or bit of information or theory a 'conspiracy theory' and you have marginalized the person who asserts it and derided the idea or information. Or so you hope. The scoffer generally tries only feebly, if at all, to refute the ideas or beliefs factually or by making good counterarguments; the scoffer is just indulging in ad hominem attacks.
And it does work a certain percentage of the time. It works because there are a great many people who are just not that concerned with truth. Some people are scared by the thought of an actual conspiracy being conducted, especially if the purported conspiracy threatens their safety, security, or prosperity. The instinctual response is to hide the head in the sand, and deny the truth of your opponent's words. "It can't be true! How could they hide something like that? We'd all know about it if that were true!"
Then follows the typical response: "you're crazy! You're paranoid. Where'd you hear that? Some right-wing extremist blog? Where's your tinfoil hat? Do you hear voices too?"
There are others who are the know-it-all type, who are sure of all the information they think they know, and who have a ready answer for anything. They like to feel in control, and they seem to hate the idea that there might be many unknowns, or mysteries, or outright conspiracies that might threaten them.
Then there are those (and they may be the majority) who scoff because they are fearful of being ridiculed by somebody else as a 'tinfoil-hat' wearer, a conspiracy kook, an extremist. Oftentimes people of this follower-like nature listen avidly to the popular pundits who jeer at 'birthers' or 'truthers' or 'fearmongers.'
The follower types often have to have one of their favorite personalities or pundits validate some belief or rumor before they will pick up on it. But it takes the seal of approval of some revered authority figure before they will follow along with an idea or belief.
I followed a link somewhere to a blog where the blogger made a blanket statement that 'conspiracy theories' are nonsense, and that he outright rejected anything implying a conspiracy. There is no dearth of people, right or left, shouting down the 'birthers' or eligibility skeptics.
But how can anybody reject the idea of a conspiracy out of hand?
All we have to do is look back through history, and history is rife with chronicles of various conspiracies. How many kings or emperors or popes, for example, were targets of conspiracies against them? How many countries invaded or conquered via conspiracies, often involving a fifth column inside the target country?
If we look back to Rome, there was the Catiline conspiracy, as well as the conspiracy against Julius Caesar. There are more recent examples aplenty, and I won't list them, but obviously there are conspiracies. To argue that such things don't happen in the real world is absurd, considering documented examples down through the centuries.
It may be true that in our age, people are more prone to suspect conspiracies when something shocking happens, something we did not expect. For example, Princess Diana's death, or even Elvis's death. While it may seem outlandish to speculate on whether 9/11 was 'an inside job' as some say, or that it was at least known to be in the planning stages and allowed to happen, the suspicion is understandable, given the circumstances surrounding Pearl Harbor, with the government apparently having cracked the Japanese codes. It's alleged, and believed by quite a few people, that the attack was allowed to happen so as to be a casus belli, a pretext for entering the War. Many Americans had noninterventionist or so-called 'isolationist' sentiments, and were reluctant to go to war.
And I think I can safely say that most ethnonationalists in the Western world, in the historically White countries, believe that there is a broad plan, not acknowledged fully by the 'elites', to create a globalist one-world system where everyone is compelled to blend with everybody else, and the minority White race thereby blended out of existence.
The scoffers and followers say this is conspiracy-mongering, especially if the belief involves a Jewish influence at the heart of the plans. In that case, the idea is not only 'crazy', so they say, but 'anti-Semitic' as well, and therefore taboo.
Now the eligibility skeptics are being branded with the 'racist' label as well as the 'kook' or paranoid label. This is obviously meant to discredit and smear the 'birthers'.
But the debate, if you can call some of the shouting matches a 'debate', is taking some very strange turns. It seems as if the anti-birthers are saying that it is all a trap, that the birth certificate just released is a deliberately blatant forgery meant to lure the right into a trap, and to make the right look crazy. So their idea is that the issue must not be talked about; just be quiet about it and concentrate on ''the real issues'', whatever those are.
Whichever way you look at that, it seems to me that this approach is in fact letting the left control us; we are reacting to their propaganda, rather than trying to uncover the facts.
There seem to be many 'conservatives' today who are paralyzed by what their enemies say or think about them. The same people who are running from the eligibility issue are those who are always trying to prove they are not 'racists'. They are dancing to the left's tune on cue, and they don't realize that.
Do they really believe that conspiracies don't happen, and that things are just what they seem, always? I doubt it; I think they are just whistling in the dark, like the people who don't believe that a devil exists. To oppose evil, we first have to acknowledge its existence. Closing our eyes doesn't make the evil disappear.
This quote came to mind when I was reading various online discussions pooh-poohing ''conspiracy theories.'' I put the phrase in scare quotes not because I scoff at the idea of conspiracies, but because it seems that the phrase is abused, being deployed to discredit any unpopular or uncomfortable assertion. Just call some idea or bit of information or theory a 'conspiracy theory' and you have marginalized the person who asserts it and derided the idea or information. Or so you hope. The scoffer generally tries only feebly, if at all, to refute the ideas or beliefs factually or by making good counterarguments; the scoffer is just indulging in ad hominem attacks.
And it does work a certain percentage of the time. It works because there are a great many people who are just not that concerned with truth. Some people are scared by the thought of an actual conspiracy being conducted, especially if the purported conspiracy threatens their safety, security, or prosperity. The instinctual response is to hide the head in the sand, and deny the truth of your opponent's words. "It can't be true! How could they hide something like that? We'd all know about it if that were true!"
Then follows the typical response: "you're crazy! You're paranoid. Where'd you hear that? Some right-wing extremist blog? Where's your tinfoil hat? Do you hear voices too?"
There are others who are the know-it-all type, who are sure of all the information they think they know, and who have a ready answer for anything. They like to feel in control, and they seem to hate the idea that there might be many unknowns, or mysteries, or outright conspiracies that might threaten them.
Then there are those (and they may be the majority) who scoff because they are fearful of being ridiculed by somebody else as a 'tinfoil-hat' wearer, a conspiracy kook, an extremist. Oftentimes people of this follower-like nature listen avidly to the popular pundits who jeer at 'birthers' or 'truthers' or 'fearmongers.'
The follower types often have to have one of their favorite personalities or pundits validate some belief or rumor before they will pick up on it. But it takes the seal of approval of some revered authority figure before they will follow along with an idea or belief.
I followed a link somewhere to a blog where the blogger made a blanket statement that 'conspiracy theories' are nonsense, and that he outright rejected anything implying a conspiracy. There is no dearth of people, right or left, shouting down the 'birthers' or eligibility skeptics.
But how can anybody reject the idea of a conspiracy out of hand?
All we have to do is look back through history, and history is rife with chronicles of various conspiracies. How many kings or emperors or popes, for example, were targets of conspiracies against them? How many countries invaded or conquered via conspiracies, often involving a fifth column inside the target country?
If we look back to Rome, there was the Catiline conspiracy, as well as the conspiracy against Julius Caesar. There are more recent examples aplenty, and I won't list them, but obviously there are conspiracies. To argue that such things don't happen in the real world is absurd, considering documented examples down through the centuries.
It may be true that in our age, people are more prone to suspect conspiracies when something shocking happens, something we did not expect. For example, Princess Diana's death, or even Elvis's death. While it may seem outlandish to speculate on whether 9/11 was 'an inside job' as some say, or that it was at least known to be in the planning stages and allowed to happen, the suspicion is understandable, given the circumstances surrounding Pearl Harbor, with the government apparently having cracked the Japanese codes. It's alleged, and believed by quite a few people, that the attack was allowed to happen so as to be a casus belli, a pretext for entering the War. Many Americans had noninterventionist or so-called 'isolationist' sentiments, and were reluctant to go to war.
And I think I can safely say that most ethnonationalists in the Western world, in the historically White countries, believe that there is a broad plan, not acknowledged fully by the 'elites', to create a globalist one-world system where everyone is compelled to blend with everybody else, and the minority White race thereby blended out of existence.
The scoffers and followers say this is conspiracy-mongering, especially if the belief involves a Jewish influence at the heart of the plans. In that case, the idea is not only 'crazy', so they say, but 'anti-Semitic' as well, and therefore taboo.
Now the eligibility skeptics are being branded with the 'racist' label as well as the 'kook' or paranoid label. This is obviously meant to discredit and smear the 'birthers'.
But the debate, if you can call some of the shouting matches a 'debate', is taking some very strange turns. It seems as if the anti-birthers are saying that it is all a trap, that the birth certificate just released is a deliberately blatant forgery meant to lure the right into a trap, and to make the right look crazy. So their idea is that the issue must not be talked about; just be quiet about it and concentrate on ''the real issues'', whatever those are.
Whichever way you look at that, it seems to me that this approach is in fact letting the left control us; we are reacting to their propaganda, rather than trying to uncover the facts.
There seem to be many 'conservatives' today who are paralyzed by what their enemies say or think about them. The same people who are running from the eligibility issue are those who are always trying to prove they are not 'racists'. They are dancing to the left's tune on cue, and they don't realize that.
Do they really believe that conspiracies don't happen, and that things are just what they seem, always? I doubt it; I think they are just whistling in the dark, like the people who don't believe that a devil exists. To oppose evil, we first have to acknowledge its existence. Closing our eyes doesn't make the evil disappear.
Labels: Conservatives, Conspiracy Theories, History, Partisan Politics
0 comment Sunday, August 3, 2014 | admin
Yesterday's brief entry, about the different categories of people who call themselves 'conservative', did not address a large group of conservatives (or ''conservatives'') frequently mentioned on this blog: the 'colorblind conservatives.'
As I read the usual blogs and forums I check every day, I notice that among the mainstream Republican ones, the 'colorblind conservatives' are out in full force. It seems that they are quite irate about the Gates brouhaha, and about the president's biased reaction to it. Hell hath no fury like a colorblind conservative scorned. The overwhelming impression I get from these people is that they are angry. They are angry that despite their publicly professed ''colorblindness'' and their willingness to ''put race behind" them, and their willingness to show remorse for the evils done by their ancestors, their feelings are not reciprocated nor even acknowledged by the objects of their affection.
Some of these pieces I have read are fawning, expressing their admiration for various black athletes or performers, or perhaps some virtuous black co-worker or colleague. The message seems to be: we like you, we love you, why don't you love us back?
Some Republicans are almost angry about the escalating racial quarrels in this country, but their anger is directed only at the 'race-hustlers' or the 'liberals' who are keeping the racial conflict alive. As if it would go away, as if all the differences would disappear, if not fanned into flames by the race-hucksters or Democrats.
This is rather reminiscent of a relationship gone bad, in which one person still holds onto a misguided and unrequited affection for the other party, who in turn wants only to exact some kind of payback, or to keep the dysfunctional and abusive relationship alive for self-centered reasons.
I almost feel sorry for these 'colorblind' conservative types; they continue to cling to what is essentially a liberal mindset, based on leftist distortions of history.
Ever since I used to post frequently on a mainstream Republican forum, I've noticed that the most angry and vituperative people, in regards to political incorrectness, are the Republicans. I learned some years ago that if you violate the PC norms among the ''colorblind', they will excoriate you in a way that makes liberals look mild.
I mean specifically those Republicans who have bought the liberal, politically correct viewpoint on race. If they are not out-and-out race deniers, who believe 'we're all the same under the skin', they are people who think that race differences, insofar as they exist, are mostly superficial. They rationalize the undeniable conflicts that exist between races as being ginned up by liberals or minority opportunists. Remove the liberals and the race-hustlers, and we would all live in harmony, and all blacks would think and behave like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, or Tiger Woods.
In other words, they are in a practical sense race-deniers, since they don't seem to believe that racial differences of any importance exist; they accept the liberal idea that we are all pretty much blank slates, and that 'culture' makes all the difference. Given the right education and societal influences, there would be complete harmony and racial amity, they think.
This group of people, I'm afraid, are keeping us stuck with the unacceptable status quo between the races. They are largely responsible in that they represent a fairly big group of people, a voting bloc, who find their political home in the officially 'colorblind' new GOP, embodied in Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. And despite their power, they seem content to keep things as they are, rather than rock the boat, and think forbidden thoughts.
Without the delusions of these people, perhaps we could break this stalemate that exists. As it is, it seems we are destined to go round and round, with the perpetual misguided hope of 'moving beyond race'. And the idea that we can move beyond race by catering to and flattering and favoring minorities is essentially self-contradictory, but yet it seems as if that is what they are resigned to doing.
In that respect, they are very much cut from the same cloth as outright liberals, because they are people who will doggedly keep repeating the same failed action in hopes that ''this time, it will work!" It fazes them not at all that it has not worked in the past; we just have to try harder, longer, more fervently, and it will work.
It never seems to occur to them that for minorities, it would be unprofitable to 'move beyond race.' Why would they want to 'move beyond race' when harping on race and racial guilt has worked like a charm for them? It has made them the center of attention in this country (and now in other Western countries too, by example) and it has made billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars flow to their ''communities.'' It has put them in the privileged position of being above criticism; the captive majority can only speak fawningly and deferentially about them in public; doing anything less has dire consequences, such as job loss, career destruction, loss of money and social status, and public humiliation. Being able to inflict consequences like that on someone just by saying the word is real power.
These colorblind ''conservatives'' are a hindrance, to put it charitably. There are a few glimmerings of hope that some of them are beginning to open their eyes; the FReepers, for example, are getting a little more politically incorrect these days, but there is still some of the fawning over ''favorite minorities'' that is so common.
I shake my head at this servile behavior among a lot of our people; some will defend it as being just generous and magnanimous behavior that comes from our heritage. I can only see it as either guilt-driven, or as an example of peer pressure; nobody wants to be the one to violate the consensus and say the forbidden truths.
I think there has to be a great deal more re-educating of our people, and a deprogramming in order for them to come to their senses. Maybe it will take a few more ''teachable moments'' like this present one in order for the scales to fall from some eyes. Maybe not; maybe ''worse is better'' is simply wishful thinking. However, I would certainly like it to be true.
As I read the usual blogs and forums I check every day, I notice that among the mainstream Republican ones, the 'colorblind conservatives' are out in full force. It seems that they are quite irate about the Gates brouhaha, and about the president's biased reaction to it. Hell hath no fury like a colorblind conservative scorned. The overwhelming impression I get from these people is that they are angry. They are angry that despite their publicly professed ''colorblindness'' and their willingness to ''put race behind" them, and their willingness to show remorse for the evils done by their ancestors, their feelings are not reciprocated nor even acknowledged by the objects of their affection.
Some of these pieces I have read are fawning, expressing their admiration for various black athletes or performers, or perhaps some virtuous black co-worker or colleague. The message seems to be: we like you, we love you, why don't you love us back?
Some Republicans are almost angry about the escalating racial quarrels in this country, but their anger is directed only at the 'race-hustlers' or the 'liberals' who are keeping the racial conflict alive. As if it would go away, as if all the differences would disappear, if not fanned into flames by the race-hucksters or Democrats.
This is rather reminiscent of a relationship gone bad, in which one person still holds onto a misguided and unrequited affection for the other party, who in turn wants only to exact some kind of payback, or to keep the dysfunctional and abusive relationship alive for self-centered reasons.
I almost feel sorry for these 'colorblind' conservative types; they continue to cling to what is essentially a liberal mindset, based on leftist distortions of history.
Ever since I used to post frequently on a mainstream Republican forum, I've noticed that the most angry and vituperative people, in regards to political incorrectness, are the Republicans. I learned some years ago that if you violate the PC norms among the ''colorblind', they will excoriate you in a way that makes liberals look mild.
I mean specifically those Republicans who have bought the liberal, politically correct viewpoint on race. If they are not out-and-out race deniers, who believe 'we're all the same under the skin', they are people who think that race differences, insofar as they exist, are mostly superficial. They rationalize the undeniable conflicts that exist between races as being ginned up by liberals or minority opportunists. Remove the liberals and the race-hustlers, and we would all live in harmony, and all blacks would think and behave like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, or Tiger Woods.
In other words, they are in a practical sense race-deniers, since they don't seem to believe that racial differences of any importance exist; they accept the liberal idea that we are all pretty much blank slates, and that 'culture' makes all the difference. Given the right education and societal influences, there would be complete harmony and racial amity, they think.
This group of people, I'm afraid, are keeping us stuck with the unacceptable status quo between the races. They are largely responsible in that they represent a fairly big group of people, a voting bloc, who find their political home in the officially 'colorblind' new GOP, embodied in Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. And despite their power, they seem content to keep things as they are, rather than rock the boat, and think forbidden thoughts.
Without the delusions of these people, perhaps we could break this stalemate that exists. As it is, it seems we are destined to go round and round, with the perpetual misguided hope of 'moving beyond race'. And the idea that we can move beyond race by catering to and flattering and favoring minorities is essentially self-contradictory, but yet it seems as if that is what they are resigned to doing.
In that respect, they are very much cut from the same cloth as outright liberals, because they are people who will doggedly keep repeating the same failed action in hopes that ''this time, it will work!" It fazes them not at all that it has not worked in the past; we just have to try harder, longer, more fervently, and it will work.
It never seems to occur to them that for minorities, it would be unprofitable to 'move beyond race.' Why would they want to 'move beyond race' when harping on race and racial guilt has worked like a charm for them? It has made them the center of attention in this country (and now in other Western countries too, by example) and it has made billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars flow to their ''communities.'' It has put them in the privileged position of being above criticism; the captive majority can only speak fawningly and deferentially about them in public; doing anything less has dire consequences, such as job loss, career destruction, loss of money and social status, and public humiliation. Being able to inflict consequences like that on someone just by saying the word is real power.
These colorblind ''conservatives'' are a hindrance, to put it charitably. There are a few glimmerings of hope that some of them are beginning to open their eyes; the FReepers, for example, are getting a little more politically incorrect these days, but there is still some of the fawning over ''favorite minorities'' that is so common.
I shake my head at this servile behavior among a lot of our people; some will defend it as being just generous and magnanimous behavior that comes from our heritage. I can only see it as either guilt-driven, or as an example of peer pressure; nobody wants to be the one to violate the consensus and say the forbidden truths.
I think there has to be a great deal more re-educating of our people, and a deprogramming in order for them to come to their senses. Maybe it will take a few more ''teachable moments'' like this present one in order for the scales to fall from some eyes. Maybe not; maybe ''worse is better'' is simply wishful thinking. However, I would certainly like it to be true.
Labels: Conservatives, Divisiveness, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race Denial, Race Renegades
0 comment Friday, July 4, 2014 | admin
The theme of the "house divided" has been a recurring one on this blog, and as a result of a conversation today, it's been brought home to me once again.
It seems I was talking to a relative, and the subject of the economic crisis came up. Actually I brought it up. After we discussed today's events on Wall Street -- about which neither of us are experts -- I merely said it seems that all those "in charge" have lost their minds. Little did I think that would be an opening for this relative of mine to unload on me, and start shouting "I hate that -- that woman! McCain has lost his mind. I can't stand that woman, that Sarah Palin!" This was said with an explosive vehemence that really caught me off guard, because the conversation to this point had been fairly low-key.
The anger and contempt in her voice shocked and annoyed me, I confess. I have been reading wall-to-wall bashing of Sarah Palin on many blogs and forums, both left and (especially) right, and I am worn out with it.
At any rate, I merely asked this relative: "what is it exactly that you hate so much about her?" She merely said "Everything! Everything." I said: give me some rational reasons.
She struggled and finally said ''she has no experience. She's stupid. She HAS FIVE KIDS!" I calmly said, "my mother had five kids." She said, "Well, I mean Palin wants to be leader of the free world, and she ought to be at home with those kids." This, mind you, from a feminist who taught her own daughters to shun marriage and family commitments.
And besides, as I pointed out, it's McCain who is running for President, not Palin.
But she answered 'McCain is old. He may not last long, then SHE'LL be President.''
I told her that she should be more afraid of Obama being elected than Palin. By this time hysteria was creeping into her voice, and she said, ''well, I'm not! I'm not!"
I simply don't understand the intense anger this relative of mine displayed, and even less do I understand why many ''conservatives'' show the same kind of anger and disgust towards Sarah Palin.
So now I have this relative with whom I have had a falling-out (she hung up on me, after some harsh words) and I begin to see how it was back in the days leading up to the War Between the States, during which it is always said that it was, in some households, brother against brother. It seems to me that the rhetoric is ratcheting up and feelings are running inexplicably high. It seems that for some people politics is thicker than blood, and it seems we in this country, as a national family, are becoming about as polarized as this angry relative and I. And if we think that our liberal counterparts are already, by their choice, no longer part of our national family, it seems that the ''conservative'' family is about to break apart, too, as people are willing to fight and separate rather than give up their particular viewpoints.
And maybe it's a good thing in the long run, this sifting. Sometimes any unity is illusory, and rifts -- or schisms -- like this one merely show the split that already exists, below the surface. When the dust clears we will see who is who and who is where.
I don't know how to mend this spat with my relative; we don't live in the same town and we don't see each other often, so for now I am letting it lie. I am not quick to apologize when I do not feel in the wrong, but if we are to reconcile, I know it will take an apology on my part, along with a large helping of humble pie, before I will be 'forgiven.' Still, since this relative of mine has such irreconcilably different views of life and of values and of what the future should be, I see little common ground between us, which is sad. I believe that family ties are just about the most important bonds we have in this life, and I don't take things like this lightly. I am a loyal person.
Along the same lines, I have a good friend since college days that is a political and religious liberal, and that fact has strained our friendship. It has certainly put a damper on our spontaneity in speaking our minds to each other. And yet if we cannot speak freely and honestly among friends, much less family, there is not much of a bond there. We can't have much of a relationship if we are afraid to speak our minds and to be open about what we believe and what we value.
It seems when people are so at odds about the important matters, any relationship between them can only be of the most superficial nature in order to avoid open clashes, and that is surely not what family relationships and friendships are supposed to be.
My impulse today, and maybe this will pass, is to shun all things political until this horrible election cycle from Hell is over, and then we shall see what we shall see.
I would love to think that my relative will learn from her mistakes, and see that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for majority America, but do you know, I don't think anything will cause her to have a change of heart, or say ''you were right; I was wrong. Now I see." No, liberals don't do that. No matter how bad things become, there will be a way to blame it on the Republicans or the 'racists' or whoever else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't see now will likely never see. Worse is better? No, people find a way to explain away the 'worse' and to blame it on the wrong people, 90 percent of the time.
I have no faith in the possibility of mass awakenings on either side of the aisle, in the event Obama is elected.
And I'm having to work hard at mustering up some faith in my brethren right at this moment, and without that faith, as I said, we stand in danger of becoming embittered or alienated from each other.
I don't even know if I would call myself a ''conservative'' since there are so many varieties of belief and opinion under that label now. I am opposed to what is called liberalism or socialism or leftism, and that is about all I seem to have in common with those who are called 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists.' And I don't know if being anti-liberal or anti-leftist or anti-multiculturalist is enough to bring us all together, if we disagree on so many basic themes. There has to be more agreement among us if this house is to be kept standing.
It seems I was talking to a relative, and the subject of the economic crisis came up. Actually I brought it up. After we discussed today's events on Wall Street -- about which neither of us are experts -- I merely said it seems that all those "in charge" have lost their minds. Little did I think that would be an opening for this relative of mine to unload on me, and start shouting "I hate that -- that woman! McCain has lost his mind. I can't stand that woman, that Sarah Palin!" This was said with an explosive vehemence that really caught me off guard, because the conversation to this point had been fairly low-key.
The anger and contempt in her voice shocked and annoyed me, I confess. I have been reading wall-to-wall bashing of Sarah Palin on many blogs and forums, both left and (especially) right, and I am worn out with it.
At any rate, I merely asked this relative: "what is it exactly that you hate so much about her?" She merely said "Everything! Everything." I said: give me some rational reasons.
She struggled and finally said ''she has no experience. She's stupid. She HAS FIVE KIDS!" I calmly said, "my mother had five kids." She said, "Well, I mean Palin wants to be leader of the free world, and she ought to be at home with those kids." This, mind you, from a feminist who taught her own daughters to shun marriage and family commitments.
And besides, as I pointed out, it's McCain who is running for President, not Palin.
But she answered 'McCain is old. He may not last long, then SHE'LL be President.''
I told her that she should be more afraid of Obama being elected than Palin. By this time hysteria was creeping into her voice, and she said, ''well, I'm not! I'm not!"
I simply don't understand the intense anger this relative of mine displayed, and even less do I understand why many ''conservatives'' show the same kind of anger and disgust towards Sarah Palin.
So now I have this relative with whom I have had a falling-out (she hung up on me, after some harsh words) and I begin to see how it was back in the days leading up to the War Between the States, during which it is always said that it was, in some households, brother against brother. It seems to me that the rhetoric is ratcheting up and feelings are running inexplicably high. It seems that for some people politics is thicker than blood, and it seems we in this country, as a national family, are becoming about as polarized as this angry relative and I. And if we think that our liberal counterparts are already, by their choice, no longer part of our national family, it seems that the ''conservative'' family is about to break apart, too, as people are willing to fight and separate rather than give up their particular viewpoints.
And maybe it's a good thing in the long run, this sifting. Sometimes any unity is illusory, and rifts -- or schisms -- like this one merely show the split that already exists, below the surface. When the dust clears we will see who is who and who is where.
I don't know how to mend this spat with my relative; we don't live in the same town and we don't see each other often, so for now I am letting it lie. I am not quick to apologize when I do not feel in the wrong, but if we are to reconcile, I know it will take an apology on my part, along with a large helping of humble pie, before I will be 'forgiven.' Still, since this relative of mine has such irreconcilably different views of life and of values and of what the future should be, I see little common ground between us, which is sad. I believe that family ties are just about the most important bonds we have in this life, and I don't take things like this lightly. I am a loyal person.
Along the same lines, I have a good friend since college days that is a political and religious liberal, and that fact has strained our friendship. It has certainly put a damper on our spontaneity in speaking our minds to each other. And yet if we cannot speak freely and honestly among friends, much less family, there is not much of a bond there. We can't have much of a relationship if we are afraid to speak our minds and to be open about what we believe and what we value.
It seems when people are so at odds about the important matters, any relationship between them can only be of the most superficial nature in order to avoid open clashes, and that is surely not what family relationships and friendships are supposed to be.
My impulse today, and maybe this will pass, is to shun all things political until this horrible election cycle from Hell is over, and then we shall see what we shall see.
I would love to think that my relative will learn from her mistakes, and see that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for majority America, but do you know, I don't think anything will cause her to have a change of heart, or say ''you were right; I was wrong. Now I see." No, liberals don't do that. No matter how bad things become, there will be a way to blame it on the Republicans or the 'racists' or whoever else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't see now will likely never see. Worse is better? No, people find a way to explain away the 'worse' and to blame it on the wrong people, 90 percent of the time.
I have no faith in the possibility of mass awakenings on either side of the aisle, in the event Obama is elected.
And I'm having to work hard at mustering up some faith in my brethren right at this moment, and without that faith, as I said, we stand in danger of becoming embittered or alienated from each other.
I don't even know if I would call myself a ''conservative'' since there are so many varieties of belief and opinion under that label now. I am opposed to what is called liberalism or socialism or leftism, and that is about all I seem to have in common with those who are called 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists.' And I don't know if being anti-liberal or anti-leftist or anti-multiculturalist is enough to bring us all together, if we disagree on so many basic themes. There has to be more agreement among us if this house is to be kept standing.
Labels: Conservatives, Disunity, Divisiveness, Liberals, Partisanship, Party Politics
0 comment Saturday, June 21, 2014 | admin
Peter Wilson at American Thinker tells us about an exhibit, now at the Boston Museum of Science, called "RACE -- Are we so different?"
You know what the answer is, at least as given by the people who designed this exhibit to program schoolchildren and other gullible people. Wilson says
''Even a sympathetic reviewer in the Boston Globe admits that "there's a wearying didacticism to the show," and it's no surprise that the didactic lessons about race are all slanted toward the left.''
He cites a Boston Globe writer who is "surprisingly critical":
One can support affirmative action, for example, and still wonder about the presence of a display called "Affirmative action: undoing inequality.'' That's not science or even sociology; that's politics. Right or wrong, some people think affirmative action furthers inequality. Another display is called "White -- the color of money.'' It shows stacks of dollar bills whose height corresponds to the relative wealth of whites, Asians, blacks, Latinos, and "others'' in US society. A section on discrimination and real estate has two street signs, "Privilege Place'' and "Racism Road.'' It's like an MSNBC production of "Sesame Street.'' Tendentiousness is no less tendentious for being in a good cause.''The exhibit seems to be just what you'd expect. And it may be coming to your town, so beware of your children being press-ganged into attending this exhibit, if you have children in public school.
The depressing part of this piece is the content of the comments following, ostensibly from conservatives. I suppose if I had to sum up the tenor of most of the comments, the theme that runs through it, implicitly, is that ''I'm willing to be colorblind so why won't these liberals and minorities play the game along with me?'' That's actually a very common refrain among many Whites these days. They don't seem to disagree about the 'race is a social contract' fraud, and they don't want to return to the pre-politically correct terms of debate. No, they just want everybody to play by the rules of the 'colorblind game', as if it could all work if only we all pretended together.
This attitude informs what we see happening with the Republican Party, the Herman Cain fan club among the Tea Partiers, and MLK's cult on the right.
You know what the answer is, at least as given by the people who designed this exhibit to program schoolchildren and other gullible people. Wilson says
''Even a sympathetic reviewer in the Boston Globe admits that "there's a wearying didacticism to the show," and it's no surprise that the didactic lessons about race are all slanted toward the left.''
He cites a Boston Globe writer who is "surprisingly critical":
One can support affirmative action, for example, and still wonder about the presence of a display called "Affirmative action: undoing inequality.'' That's not science or even sociology; that's politics. Right or wrong, some people think affirmative action furthers inequality. Another display is called "White -- the color of money.'' It shows stacks of dollar bills whose height corresponds to the relative wealth of whites, Asians, blacks, Latinos, and "others'' in US society. A section on discrimination and real estate has two street signs, "Privilege Place'' and "Racism Road.'' It's like an MSNBC production of "Sesame Street.'' Tendentiousness is no less tendentious for being in a good cause.''The exhibit seems to be just what you'd expect. And it may be coming to your town, so beware of your children being press-ganged into attending this exhibit, if you have children in public school.
The depressing part of this piece is the content of the comments following, ostensibly from conservatives. I suppose if I had to sum up the tenor of most of the comments, the theme that runs through it, implicitly, is that ''I'm willing to be colorblind so why won't these liberals and minorities play the game along with me?'' That's actually a very common refrain among many Whites these days. They don't seem to disagree about the 'race is a social contract' fraud, and they don't want to return to the pre-politically correct terms of debate. No, they just want everybody to play by the rules of the 'colorblind game', as if it could all work if only we all pretended together.
This attitude informs what we see happening with the Republican Party, the Herman Cain fan club among the Tea Partiers, and MLK's cult on the right.
Labels: Conservatives, Cultural Marxism, Indoctrination, Political Correctness, Race Denial
0 comment Friday, May 2, 2014 | admin
Apparently, conservatives are losing, or have lost, to liberals in the blogosphere.
A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.
We must not let that go unanswered.''
Obviously this is not a new thing; the left has always had an army of zealots with apparently nothing to do but roam around the Internet and swarm right-wing blogs and forums. Even before the blogosphere was a factor, they were always on conservative forums, derailing discussions and provoking flame wars. Simply by disrupting and diverting the energies of the honest participants there, they managed to win a victory of sorts in most cases, without even having to post any substantial arguments or coherent refutations.
But according to the article the current administration is sending out new armies of fanatics to destroy the discussion at various conservative forums and blogs.
Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its "idealism" in a most cynical fashion.
The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever.
Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art , that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory.''
From what I've observed, their intents and their tactics are childish, seeking mostly to cause chaos or anger wherever they go, and to fire off as many insults as they can before being banned.
The writer of the article deplores the fact that the right does not respond effectively, and does not try to engage leftists on their turf. The fact is, as most of us know, any sort of non-liberal view is not welcome on the left-wing blogs and forums, and will quickly get you banned, but not without your being insulted and pilloried by everybody on the board.
Personally I've never been inclined to participate in that kind of rolling in the mud with liberals and lefties, and that lack of willingness to participate in slanging-matches with lefties seems to be what the writer is lamenting. I don't know what he suggests should be done; I don't believe that the real hard-core lefties and liberals are potential converts, and I've seen that they are not amenable to reason or open to any opposing points of view. However the people who are less doctrinaire, the people of more flexible political leanings might be reasoned with, and it would seem they might be found on the forums or blogs where people gather to discuss other-than-political topics.
I've also thought (and said) that YouTube, being infested with many fanatical lefties who post inflammatory comments on all kinds of videos, is a place where people of more illiberal views ought to register and post more, so as to balance out the left-wing juveniles of all ages who leave their illiterate diatribes all over YouTube. Of course YouTube is politically correct, so the lefties will have free rein there while right-wingers and pro-Whites will be tolerated far, far less, but there is a real need for other points ot view to be heard, even if the comments get deleted sooner or later. I see very few posts which are not liberal to left on YouTube.
As for the problem of trolls on this blog, I've had them, and the left-wing types can be extremely nasty. While some believe that 'free speech' means that trolls should not be banned and their comments not deleted, I disagree. A blog is under the control of the owner, as is a forum, and comments are there at his or her sufferance. Yes, everybody has a right to a point of view but none of us have a right to post our points of view just anywhere we choose. We all know that newspapers, which are supposed represent 'freedom of the press' do not allow controversial or non-PC comments to stand, in many cases, and not every letter to the editor will be published. Those which are published are often edited. So there is no ironclad rule that a blog has to allow any comment by anyone in the name of 'free speech.'
The liberal and leftist trolls are almost always nasty and uncivil, with sarcasm and vitriol being their only language.
Sadly though, I've been more frequently attacked by those on the 'right' than by lefties. The lefties usually call me the predictable names they call even the mildest Republican: "racist" or "bigot" or "hater."
My enemies on the right, however, have attacked me for being 'an extremist', and on the other hand, have called me a PC hypocrite, a 'Jewdeoxtian', a 'rapture bunny' a 'redneck', a 'hillbilly' a "patriotard' (because of the fact that 'American' is part of my blog name) and other such typically liberal slurs. It seems I am too right-wing for some, yet not right-wing enough for others.
I've been criticized by some on the right who objected to the people I link to, and found me guilty by association of whatever the supposed sin of a given blogroll partner. Fine; I stand by those I link to, though that does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything they may say, nor do they necessarily endorse everything I say.
I've been attacked on the basis of my ancestry and had my "mental health" questioned in a very personal and nasty way -- from people on the right.
I've been told I am a 'political purist' while others say I am not enough of a purist because I don't take a position on their favorite issue.
I've had commenters leave in a huff because I let non-PC comments stand, usually criticisms of Jews. I was told that if I did not delete said comments and ban the commenter, the complainer would be forced to leave my blog and not return here anymore. Upshot: I let the comments stand, and lost several regulars. My principle is that there are no sacred cows; I won't put a group above scrutiny or criticism. On the other side, others have accused me of 'cowardice' for not personally addressing the 'Jewish question.' So there's no winning, and no pleasing everybody. I can't be all things to all people.
And I've noticed I'm not alone in this; I've seen other right-wing bloggers experiencing similar problems, and my conclusion is that there is a disturbing amount of infighting on the right, a lot of 'eating our own'. All the while, the left never lets up on us, and our country is slipping away, and we are all fighting amongst ourselves.
Personally it particularly grieves me when a fellow Christian wants to quarrel publicly with me; as Christians, we are not supposed to do that. I would prefer someone PM me if they have an issue, and to do so civilly as Christian brethren should. I think it's bad for all Christians when we fall out amongst ourselves in public.
Sometimes it crosses my mind that many of these attacks from the 'right' may in fact be lefties posing as right-wing in order to sow discord and bad feeling within the ranks of the right. On the other hand, realistically, conservatives and race-realists tend to be rather fractious and stubborn people by nature, I think, and it's predictable that we would disagree at times.
Maybe part of the reason why we do so little to defend against the rabid left is that we are too busy picking and pecking at each other.
As I've said before, we have to learn to put aside any differences we have and make common cause; this is not a time in which we can afford to fall out amongst ourselves. Whatever differences we on the realist right have, we can defer those and put them aside in favor of saving what is left to be saved.
A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.
We must not let that go unanswered.''
Obviously this is not a new thing; the left has always had an army of zealots with apparently nothing to do but roam around the Internet and swarm right-wing blogs and forums. Even before the blogosphere was a factor, they were always on conservative forums, derailing discussions and provoking flame wars. Simply by disrupting and diverting the energies of the honest participants there, they managed to win a victory of sorts in most cases, without even having to post any substantial arguments or coherent refutations.
But according to the article the current administration is sending out new armies of fanatics to destroy the discussion at various conservative forums and blogs.
Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its "idealism" in a most cynical fashion.
The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever.
Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art , that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory.''
From what I've observed, their intents and their tactics are childish, seeking mostly to cause chaos or anger wherever they go, and to fire off as many insults as they can before being banned.
The writer of the article deplores the fact that the right does not respond effectively, and does not try to engage leftists on their turf. The fact is, as most of us know, any sort of non-liberal view is not welcome on the left-wing blogs and forums, and will quickly get you banned, but not without your being insulted and pilloried by everybody on the board.
Personally I've never been inclined to participate in that kind of rolling in the mud with liberals and lefties, and that lack of willingness to participate in slanging-matches with lefties seems to be what the writer is lamenting. I don't know what he suggests should be done; I don't believe that the real hard-core lefties and liberals are potential converts, and I've seen that they are not amenable to reason or open to any opposing points of view. However the people who are less doctrinaire, the people of more flexible political leanings might be reasoned with, and it would seem they might be found on the forums or blogs where people gather to discuss other-than-political topics.
I've also thought (and said) that YouTube, being infested with many fanatical lefties who post inflammatory comments on all kinds of videos, is a place where people of more illiberal views ought to register and post more, so as to balance out the left-wing juveniles of all ages who leave their illiterate diatribes all over YouTube. Of course YouTube is politically correct, so the lefties will have free rein there while right-wingers and pro-Whites will be tolerated far, far less, but there is a real need for other points ot view to be heard, even if the comments get deleted sooner or later. I see very few posts which are not liberal to left on YouTube.
As for the problem of trolls on this blog, I've had them, and the left-wing types can be extremely nasty. While some believe that 'free speech' means that trolls should not be banned and their comments not deleted, I disagree. A blog is under the control of the owner, as is a forum, and comments are there at his or her sufferance. Yes, everybody has a right to a point of view but none of us have a right to post our points of view just anywhere we choose. We all know that newspapers, which are supposed represent 'freedom of the press' do not allow controversial or non-PC comments to stand, in many cases, and not every letter to the editor will be published. Those which are published are often edited. So there is no ironclad rule that a blog has to allow any comment by anyone in the name of 'free speech.'
The liberal and leftist trolls are almost always nasty and uncivil, with sarcasm and vitriol being their only language.
Sadly though, I've been more frequently attacked by those on the 'right' than by lefties. The lefties usually call me the predictable names they call even the mildest Republican: "racist" or "bigot" or "hater."
My enemies on the right, however, have attacked me for being 'an extremist', and on the other hand, have called me a PC hypocrite, a 'Jewdeoxtian', a 'rapture bunny' a 'redneck', a 'hillbilly' a "patriotard' (because of the fact that 'American' is part of my blog name) and other such typically liberal slurs. It seems I am too right-wing for some, yet not right-wing enough for others.
I've been criticized by some on the right who objected to the people I link to, and found me guilty by association of whatever the supposed sin of a given blogroll partner. Fine; I stand by those I link to, though that does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything they may say, nor do they necessarily endorse everything I say.
I've been attacked on the basis of my ancestry and had my "mental health" questioned in a very personal and nasty way -- from people on the right.
I've been told I am a 'political purist' while others say I am not enough of a purist because I don't take a position on their favorite issue.
I've had commenters leave in a huff because I let non-PC comments stand, usually criticisms of Jews. I was told that if I did not delete said comments and ban the commenter, the complainer would be forced to leave my blog and not return here anymore. Upshot: I let the comments stand, and lost several regulars. My principle is that there are no sacred cows; I won't put a group above scrutiny or criticism. On the other side, others have accused me of 'cowardice' for not personally addressing the 'Jewish question.' So there's no winning, and no pleasing everybody. I can't be all things to all people.
And I've noticed I'm not alone in this; I've seen other right-wing bloggers experiencing similar problems, and my conclusion is that there is a disturbing amount of infighting on the right, a lot of 'eating our own'. All the while, the left never lets up on us, and our country is slipping away, and we are all fighting amongst ourselves.
Personally it particularly grieves me when a fellow Christian wants to quarrel publicly with me; as Christians, we are not supposed to do that. I would prefer someone PM me if they have an issue, and to do so civilly as Christian brethren should. I think it's bad for all Christians when we fall out amongst ourselves in public.
Sometimes it crosses my mind that many of these attacks from the 'right' may in fact be lefties posing as right-wing in order to sow discord and bad feeling within the ranks of the right. On the other hand, realistically, conservatives and race-realists tend to be rather fractious and stubborn people by nature, I think, and it's predictable that we would disagree at times.
Maybe part of the reason why we do so little to defend against the rabid left is that we are too busy picking and pecking at each other.
As I've said before, we have to learn to put aside any differences we have and make common cause; this is not a time in which we can afford to fall out amongst ourselves. Whatever differences we on the realist right have, we can defer those and put them aside in favor of saving what is left to be saved.
Labels: Blogosphere, Conservatives, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Leftism, Liberal Intolerance