0 comment Saturday, December 6, 2014 | admin
In a recent post, I discussed the fact that the psychological worldview, as presented by the popular culture and the old media, has become a widely accepted, very influential belief system. It's also insidious in that most people have absorbed many of the core beliefs of this worldview without even being aware of it. Anybody who watches shows like Oprah, or reads any of the best-selling 'self-help' books, or who undergoes therapy or counseling for life problems, has taken in a good deal of the beliefs of the psychological worldview. Anybody who has taken social science courses in the last several decades has also imbibed some of these beliefs.
Many of those who have unconsciously adopted these beliefs also call themselves 'Christians', and may in fact be regular worshippers at a church. The pastor at their church may also preach messages full of the humanistic ideas with which the psychological belief system is saturated. This is particularly true these days, because so many churches are caught up in this 'seeker-sensitive' movement, with its idea that people (nonbelievers, casual 'seekers', spiritual shoppers) must not be made to feel 'bad about themselves.'
Most of the mainline churches today have embraced the messages of 'diversity', egalitarianism, race-denial, and ''social justice''.
Most of these established religious groups promote open borders and one-worldism -- although most people with even a rudimentary education should be familiar with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the idea that a one-world system is not in God's plan.
Those who have not even examined the facts are quick to condemn Christianity for the Babelizing of the Western world, yet how can anyone, with a straight face, presume that the church, any church, exercises that much influence over people, much less over the world's political system? No, all the commonsense evidence points to the fact that the world system is instead setting the tone, leading the way, while the churches follow along. Granted, the churches are wrong in this. They are derelict, having lost their way. They are quite literally the 'salt which has lost its savor', of which Jesus warned, worthy only to be discarded.
And if the churches are guilty of going along with the world political system, they are wrong because they are not being true to themselves, and to the message they are supposed to be preaching.
However, if the political establishment and the ovine followers who make up most of the citizenry are not being misled by the church, who is leading them towards the multicultist Babel?
I've said that most people in our society owe more to the pop psychology cult, and humanism generally, than to Christian teaching. I can just hear someone say: what does psychology have to do with politics or world affairs? It's just about people's individual lives and problems, not about politics or society. Well, think again.
Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.
Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.''
[...]
"As the world's people demand freedom and self-determination, it is urgent that we learn how diverse communities of empowered individuals, with freedom to construct their own stories and identities, might live together in mutual peace. Perhaps it is not a vain hope that is life in such communities might lead to the advance in human consciousness beyond anything we have yet experienced."
[Emphasis mine]
Notice the emphasis on 'social change' ''modifying old institutions and inventing new ones...' -- all the leftist concerns. It could have been written by some leftist politico as well as by a social scientist. They are hand-in-glove.
In my personal experience (and yes, it's anecdotal) most leftists are immersed in psychological jargon and thinking. Very few ''progressives'' are Christians, even liberal Christians. Most, in my experience, are secular and nonbelieving, or else involved in New Age practices. That latter topic in itself is worthy of a whole post, with New Age thinking very focused on the idea of a 'one world' government and a blending of all races into some 'highly evolved' hybrid race. I say this as someone who was once very involved in this kind of thing. I know it from the inside, and I have friends who are still part of that subculture.
Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the bestselling Aquarian Conspiracy, said
There are legions of [Aquarian] conspirators. They are in corporations, universities, and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils, and in the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country."
That is probably more true now than it was when she wrote it, 20-odd years ago.
What has this got to do with the psychological worldview? It intersects with the New Age philosophy. The latter is a blend of a hodgepodge of various Eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, ''Native American'' spirituality/shamanism, etc.) and the Western humanistic tradition of which psychology is a part.
What these systems have in common is the focus on the self, on self-actualization (whatever that means), and they both tend to promote the notion that Western morality, which emphasizes individual responsibility and a defined system of right and wrong, is ''negative'' and backward, un-evolved.
New Age beliefs (although those involved often shun that label) blend seamlessly with the beliefs promoted in psychology, particularlly 'transpersonal psychology'.
There is an emphasis on 'not judging' or not excluding anybody -- except Christians of course, because they are too 'separative' in the words of Alice Bailey, who wrote a number of New Age/occult books which are considered authoritative by many. Anything that separates, as Christianity does, is bad, according to this worldview.
Psychology as it is understood by most people has done more than any other philosophy to popularize the idea of nonjudgmentalism as the greatest virtue. The idea is that we are not to put moral judgments on people, or anything people do -- unless it can be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or species-ist. Then we are free to judge and condemn at will.
Otherwise, moral relativism prevails.
The idea that it's bad to be 'negative' about anything is also a very popular idea which is attributable to psychology and the social sciences. It's also an idea that is part of New Age thinking, which emphasizes 'positive thoughts'. (This system does not account for actual evil, or consider that being negative about some things is the only appropriate response.)
These ideas have wide exposure, especially among women who watch Oprah and other such shows. I allude to Oprah often as being a promoter of this kind of thing. She is a perfect example as she claims to be a Christian, yet publicly says she believes other 'paths' and religions are equally valid and true. She also promotes many New Age authors and their books, one recent example being Eckhart Tolle, a European New Age guru who has apparently taken in some gullible Christians.
I see evidence of the influence of such ideas all around us, especially when I converse with women, or when I read popular magazines or newspapers, or watch TV. It is part of the air we breathe these days. It baffles me to think that some people believe Christianity is so influential as to take the blame (or credit) for anything in our society, good or bad. Christianity is very much marginalized these days, and the thinking I've outlined briefly here is what dominates the 'purpose-driven' churches and the 'seeker-sensitive' churches, which are everywhere.
Christians who read their Bibles know that Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever.' So riddle me this: how is it that old-time Christians did not believe in open borders, miscegenation, one-world government, and 'nonjudgmentalism', while today's ''Christians'' are perfectly comfortable, in too many instances, with all of the above? Christianity has not changed; today's Christians are thoroughly confused and lost, in many cases.
The fault is not in the Bible or in Christianity. The fault is in the insidious worldview, based on humanism, based on the false notion that 'man is the measure of all things', which has captured the Church as well as the rest of our society. And the fault, insofar as it lies with Christians, is that they do not read their Bibles or develop and exercise discernment. They simply take in the world's poisons and don't even realize it.
Some are being led astray by popular authors and 'teachers' who are in turn peddling the trendy ideas of the world, not the truth. These false shepherds are to blame, but so are the gullible 'sheep' who follow them.
We can see the havoc that the influence of psychology has played in our judicial system, where every criminal is portrayed as either ''mentally ill'' or as a victim of society, or a victim of bad parenting. Everybody is a 'victim' these days, especially the worst among us. Many people have lost all concepts of evil these days; the obsession we have with trying to 'understand' and 'reach out' to everybody, even heinous criminals, is a very detrimental trend to our societal well-being.
We see this carry over to our attitudes about things like illegal immigration; the people who consider themselves 'enlightened' are oh-so-careful to try to understand and empathize with illegals, saying things like ''well, I would do the same if I were in their shoes. I don't blame them.'' The drive to 'understand' and explain away all illegal behavior, or just plain bad behavior, has no limits. We have to re-learn to judge and discern, and not simply understand and empathize and tolerate anything.
As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
If it was true in Pope's time, it is even more rife now, this 'pitying and embracing' of bad behavior. We can't be judgmental; who are we to judge? We have to understand and reach out.
If we truly care about rescuing our society, and averting its impending demise, we need to look at the real dangers which beset us and which have rendered us a weak and morally slothful people, a 'nonjudgmental' people who are scared stiff of offending anyone.
And while it's easier to zero in on easy targets, and hard to deal with an amorphous target like a hazy belief system with no visible insitutions to blame, it's also less honest.
Many of those who have unconsciously adopted these beliefs also call themselves 'Christians', and may in fact be regular worshippers at a church. The pastor at their church may also preach messages full of the humanistic ideas with which the psychological belief system is saturated. This is particularly true these days, because so many churches are caught up in this 'seeker-sensitive' movement, with its idea that people (nonbelievers, casual 'seekers', spiritual shoppers) must not be made to feel 'bad about themselves.'
Most of the mainline churches today have embraced the messages of 'diversity', egalitarianism, race-denial, and ''social justice''.
Most of these established religious groups promote open borders and one-worldism -- although most people with even a rudimentary education should be familiar with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the idea that a one-world system is not in God's plan.
Those who have not even examined the facts are quick to condemn Christianity for the Babelizing of the Western world, yet how can anyone, with a straight face, presume that the church, any church, exercises that much influence over people, much less over the world's political system? No, all the commonsense evidence points to the fact that the world system is instead setting the tone, leading the way, while the churches follow along. Granted, the churches are wrong in this. They are derelict, having lost their way. They are quite literally the 'salt which has lost its savor', of which Jesus warned, worthy only to be discarded.
And if the churches are guilty of going along with the world political system, they are wrong because they are not being true to themselves, and to the message they are supposed to be preaching.
However, if the political establishment and the ovine followers who make up most of the citizenry are not being misled by the church, who is leading them towards the multicultist Babel?
I've said that most people in our society owe more to the pop psychology cult, and humanism generally, than to Christian teaching. I can just hear someone say: what does psychology have to do with politics or world affairs? It's just about people's individual lives and problems, not about politics or society. Well, think again.
Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.
Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.''
[...]
"As the world's people demand freedom and self-determination, it is urgent that we learn how diverse communities of empowered individuals, with freedom to construct their own stories and identities, might live together in mutual peace. Perhaps it is not a vain hope that is life in such communities might lead to the advance in human consciousness beyond anything we have yet experienced."
[Emphasis mine]
Notice the emphasis on 'social change' ''modifying old institutions and inventing new ones...' -- all the leftist concerns. It could have been written by some leftist politico as well as by a social scientist. They are hand-in-glove.
In my personal experience (and yes, it's anecdotal) most leftists are immersed in psychological jargon and thinking. Very few ''progressives'' are Christians, even liberal Christians. Most, in my experience, are secular and nonbelieving, or else involved in New Age practices. That latter topic in itself is worthy of a whole post, with New Age thinking very focused on the idea of a 'one world' government and a blending of all races into some 'highly evolved' hybrid race. I say this as someone who was once very involved in this kind of thing. I know it from the inside, and I have friends who are still part of that subculture.
Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the bestselling Aquarian Conspiracy, said
There are legions of [Aquarian] conspirators. They are in corporations, universities, and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils, and in the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country."
That is probably more true now than it was when she wrote it, 20-odd years ago.
What has this got to do with the psychological worldview? It intersects with the New Age philosophy. The latter is a blend of a hodgepodge of various Eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, ''Native American'' spirituality/shamanism, etc.) and the Western humanistic tradition of which psychology is a part.
What these systems have in common is the focus on the self, on self-actualization (whatever that means), and they both tend to promote the notion that Western morality, which emphasizes individual responsibility and a defined system of right and wrong, is ''negative'' and backward, un-evolved.
New Age beliefs (although those involved often shun that label) blend seamlessly with the beliefs promoted in psychology, particularlly 'transpersonal psychology'.
There is an emphasis on 'not judging' or not excluding anybody -- except Christians of course, because they are too 'separative' in the words of Alice Bailey, who wrote a number of New Age/occult books which are considered authoritative by many. Anything that separates, as Christianity does, is bad, according to this worldview.
Psychology as it is understood by most people has done more than any other philosophy to popularize the idea of nonjudgmentalism as the greatest virtue. The idea is that we are not to put moral judgments on people, or anything people do -- unless it can be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or species-ist. Then we are free to judge and condemn at will.
Otherwise, moral relativism prevails.
The idea that it's bad to be 'negative' about anything is also a very popular idea which is attributable to psychology and the social sciences. It's also an idea that is part of New Age thinking, which emphasizes 'positive thoughts'. (This system does not account for actual evil, or consider that being negative about some things is the only appropriate response.)
These ideas have wide exposure, especially among women who watch Oprah and other such shows. I allude to Oprah often as being a promoter of this kind of thing. She is a perfect example as she claims to be a Christian, yet publicly says she believes other 'paths' and religions are equally valid and true. She also promotes many New Age authors and their books, one recent example being Eckhart Tolle, a European New Age guru who has apparently taken in some gullible Christians.
I see evidence of the influence of such ideas all around us, especially when I converse with women, or when I read popular magazines or newspapers, or watch TV. It is part of the air we breathe these days. It baffles me to think that some people believe Christianity is so influential as to take the blame (or credit) for anything in our society, good or bad. Christianity is very much marginalized these days, and the thinking I've outlined briefly here is what dominates the 'purpose-driven' churches and the 'seeker-sensitive' churches, which are everywhere.
Christians who read their Bibles know that Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever.' So riddle me this: how is it that old-time Christians did not believe in open borders, miscegenation, one-world government, and 'nonjudgmentalism', while today's ''Christians'' are perfectly comfortable, in too many instances, with all of the above? Christianity has not changed; today's Christians are thoroughly confused and lost, in many cases.
The fault is not in the Bible or in Christianity. The fault is in the insidious worldview, based on humanism, based on the false notion that 'man is the measure of all things', which has captured the Church as well as the rest of our society. And the fault, insofar as it lies with Christians, is that they do not read their Bibles or develop and exercise discernment. They simply take in the world's poisons and don't even realize it.
Some are being led astray by popular authors and 'teachers' who are in turn peddling the trendy ideas of the world, not the truth. These false shepherds are to blame, but so are the gullible 'sheep' who follow them.
We can see the havoc that the influence of psychology has played in our judicial system, where every criminal is portrayed as either ''mentally ill'' or as a victim of society, or a victim of bad parenting. Everybody is a 'victim' these days, especially the worst among us. Many people have lost all concepts of evil these days; the obsession we have with trying to 'understand' and 'reach out' to everybody, even heinous criminals, is a very detrimental trend to our societal well-being.
We see this carry over to our attitudes about things like illegal immigration; the people who consider themselves 'enlightened' are oh-so-careful to try to understand and empathize with illegals, saying things like ''well, I would do the same if I were in their shoes. I don't blame them.'' The drive to 'understand' and explain away all illegal behavior, or just plain bad behavior, has no limits. We have to re-learn to judge and discern, and not simply understand and empathize and tolerate anything.
As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
If it was true in Pope's time, it is even more rife now, this 'pitying and embracing' of bad behavior. We can't be judgmental; who are we to judge? We have to understand and reach out.
If we truly care about rescuing our society, and averting its impending demise, we need to look at the real dangers which beset us and which have rendered us a weak and morally slothful people, a 'nonjudgmental' people who are scared stiff of offending anyone.
And while it's easier to zero in on easy targets, and hard to deal with an amorphous target like a hazy belief system with no visible insitutions to blame, it's also less honest.
Labels: Christianity, Death Of The West, Globalism, Liberalism, Moral Agnosticism, Moral Relativism, One World, Politics, Pop Psychology, Societal Decay, Therapeutic Society, Transnationalism
0 comment Saturday, November 22, 2014 | admin
Or so says the writer of this piece.
As I sit here writing, a conservative victory in the midterm elections looms. But I find no reason to be optimistic. The midterm elections will solve nothing. The plain fact is that conservatives have lost the battle for America. The country that many of us were born in has ceased to exist. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Nothing can or will change until we come to terms with the grim reality of moral degeneration. And I have no hope that this can happen, save by some terrible trial.''
Is it true?
If so, is our mortal wound self-inflicted?
And if we think we are finished, and that we've done it to ourselves, I guess we should all close up shop and go amuse ourselves while we are waiting for the end.
The writer of the article has expressed some interesting views, and has had a somewhat controversial career, but ironically, he warns about the greatest danger to human civilization:
He maintains that "the greatest danger to human civilization today is not environmental degradation, but a return to the ancient plague of pessimism."
I agree with that, certainly. Say not the struggle nought availeth.
As I sit here writing, a conservative victory in the midterm elections looms. But I find no reason to be optimistic. The midterm elections will solve nothing. The plain fact is that conservatives have lost the battle for America. The country that many of us were born in has ceased to exist. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Nothing can or will change until we come to terms with the grim reality of moral degeneration. And I have no hope that this can happen, save by some terrible trial.''
Is it true?
If so, is our mortal wound self-inflicted?
And if we think we are finished, and that we've done it to ourselves, I guess we should all close up shop and go amuse ourselves while we are waiting for the end.
The writer of the article has expressed some interesting views, and has had a somewhat controversial career, but ironically, he warns about the greatest danger to human civilization:
He maintains that "the greatest danger to human civilization today is not environmental degradation, but a return to the ancient plague of pessimism."
I agree with that, certainly. Say not the struggle nought availeth.
Labels: American Decline, Death Of The West, Leftism, Societal Decay, Vanishing America
0 comment Monday, November 3, 2014 | admin
This was posted over at Western Voices World News.
I agree with the WVWN folks that the man in the video is brave and that he conducts himself very well, considering. All the same, it is a vexing thing to watch and to listen to. I don't know what TV program this is, but it seems to be on a par with 'Jerry Springer' (same type of audience and atmosphere) and the female hosting it is obnoxious and flagrantly biased -- which is usual for TV here and in the UK. The fact, though, that this one lone Englishman is having to stand his ground against an audience stacked with hooting and jeering ''Britons'' from various corners of the Third World hardly constitutes any kind of fair discussion. The few Whites in the audience (if indeed they were White) were acting as outraged by what the man said as the minorities were, with all their gesticulating, pointing (bad manners; hasn't anyone told them that?) and eye-rolling.
In fact, they actually made some of his points for him, but the brainwashed ex-Whites in the audience and their ''new Briton'' companions won't be able to see that.
However, I give the English guy enormous credit for speaking his mind amongst a hostile mob, and seeming to do so very calmly.
For the rest, shame on them. They don't know, or probably care, how badly they came off in that clip.
I agree with the WVWN folks that the man in the video is brave and that he conducts himself very well, considering. All the same, it is a vexing thing to watch and to listen to. I don't know what TV program this is, but it seems to be on a par with 'Jerry Springer' (same type of audience and atmosphere) and the female hosting it is obnoxious and flagrantly biased -- which is usual for TV here and in the UK. The fact, though, that this one lone Englishman is having to stand his ground against an audience stacked with hooting and jeering ''Britons'' from various corners of the Third World hardly constitutes any kind of fair discussion. The few Whites in the audience (if indeed they were White) were acting as outraged by what the man said as the minorities were, with all their gesticulating, pointing (bad manners; hasn't anyone told them that?) and eye-rolling.
In fact, they actually made some of his points for him, but the brainwashed ex-Whites in the audience and their ''new Briton'' companions won't be able to see that.
However, I give the English guy enormous credit for speaking his mind amongst a hostile mob, and seeming to do so very calmly.
For the rest, shame on them. They don't know, or probably care, how badly they came off in that clip.
Labels: Death Of The West, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Race Renegades, Racial Division, United Kingdom
0 comment Sunday, November 2, 2014 | admin
The story of the British ship HMS Bounty and the infamous mutiny, which has been told in books and in several Hollywood movies, is one that has for some reason fascinated me over the years. I haven't read the book on which the movies were based, but I've seen three versions of the film: the one with Errol Flynn, then the Clark Gable version, and the Marlon Brando version. There was a more recent film with Mel Gibson I believe, but I ignore more modern movies.
In my college anthropology class, we spent some time studying about the Bounty, mainly in the context of the 'Founder effect' as seen in the Pitcairn Islanders, who were the descendants of the Bounty mutineers and the Polynesian men and women who went with them to Pitcairn.
I suppose the story was fascinating to me in that I found it hard to envision how a group of English sailors could simply blend with a group of South Sea Islanders. The two peoples and their ways of life seemed so profoundly different, to me.
What could motivate them to do such a thing?
Here, The Narrator, who blogs at Signals From the Brink, writes a very interesting essay on the HMS Bounty, the mutiny, and the resulting Pitcairn Island society. He makes a novel analogy between the Mutiny and the present Western crisis.
There are various ways of describing and understanding the unfortunate turn many in Western Civilization have taken over the past century. Comparing events to "revolutions" and the course of specific nations to the Titanic striking the iceberg are common (engaged in by this writer as well). But every now and then a new perspective may help better see the possible causations as well as the potential remedies/outcomes to our plight.
"History repeats itself" we are told and sure enough that seems to most often be the case. More than that, specific historical incidents seem to foreshadow events on a greater scale and era.
Such an event is the Mutiny On The Bounty. (I should state that I�m no expert on the subject and that my casual interest in it was sparked by viewing the 1984 film �The Bounty�.)
That mutiny, wherein a group of men from a civilized Western nation, having temporarily grown accustomed to a leisurely life of hedonistic nihilism on a tropic Island, rebel against their commander when faced with returning to a orderly and disciplined, (Western) way of life, has a general theme which can be applied to our current situation.''
It's a fascinating piece. He makes a case that the mutineers acted of their own accord to rebel against the Western (and I would add, Christian) society into which they were born, and to start a new life of 'noble savagery' with their newfound Polynesian companions. As history has shown, the paradise went awry fairly early, as such efforts always do, especially when 'diversity' and culture clashes are built-in.
An overview of the Pitcairn Island history is here, at this Seventh Day Adventist website. The Adventists brought their faith to the mutineers' descendants, and though the article notes that there are only small numbers of Adventists there now, they don't even hint at the troubled nature of the society on Pitcairn, which is dealt with here in a Vanity Fair article. It seems that the Christian veneer of the Islanders was rather skin-deep, and the sexual mores of the people seemed to follow the kind of anything-goes approach to sexuality so admiringly cited by anthropologists like Margaret Mead, who wrote of the casual attitude to sex in the South Seas. From the VF article:
Headlines around the world had focused on the criminal case: Pitcairn�s cloud of vice. But a more dramatic story lay buried in the thousands of pages piled high on a table partly shielding the Privy Council lords from the commoners facing them.
For most of its history, Pitcairn lived with a secret sex culture that defined island life. Adultery was not just routine but pervasive, as was the sexual fondling of infants and socially approved sex games among young children. Incest and prostitution were not unknown. The criminal charges stemmed from a longtime island practice of "breaking in" girls as young as 10.
The legal case had dragged on for eight years and threatened the island�s survival. Sharp divisions existed over Mother England�s fairness in forcing the weight of English law onto a tiny population as isolated and lost in time as Pitcairn�s. Colleen McCullough, the Australian author of The Thorn Birds and wife of a well-known Pitcairn descendant, harshly criticized the British for prosecuting what even the Foreign Office grudgingly conceded was a "cultural trait." She said, "It�s Polynesian to break your girls in at 12."
Typical liberalism: "who are we to judge other cultures? If pedophilia is 'their culture,' who are we to judge? So say the multicultists.
This National Geographic article also deals with these scandals, and the 'cultural differences' rationalization.
As The Narrator says in his essay,
This hedonistic utopia was, ironically, founded by people of low character and no qualms about disloyalty and lack of honor or restraint. It�s not difficult to imagine how well that worked out.
Bligh addressed the temptations to which they had yielded in his published account of the mutiny in 1790, writing:
"It will very naturally be asked, what could be the reason for such a revolt? in answer to which, I can only conjecture that the mutineers had assured themselves of a more happy life among the Otaheiteans, than they could possibly have in England; which, joined to some female connections, have most probably been the principal cause of the whole transaction.
The women at Otaheite are handsome, mild and chearful in their manners and conversation, possessed of great sensibility, and have sufficient delicacy to make them admired and beloved. The chiefs were so much attached to our people, that they rather encouraged their stay among them than otherwise, and even made them promises of large possessions. Under these, and many other attendant circumstances, equally desirable, it is now perhaps not so much to be wondered at, though scarcely possible to have been foreseen, that a set of sailors, most of them void of connections, should be led away; especially when, in addition to such powerful inducements, they imagined it in their power to fix themselves in the midst of plenty, on the finest island in the world, where they need not labour, and where the allurements of dissipation are beyond any thing that can be conceived."
It would appear that the combination of their isolation from civilization and perhaps the character of the founders of this 'utopia', they inevitably degenerated.
An interesting side bit of trivia is the linguistic degeneration. The descendants developed a kind of bastardized English or pidgin dialect:
...an amalgam of 18th-century English and Polynesian that the old-timers still use among themselves. This pidgin language was developed as a way for the English sailors and the Tahitians to communicate, and it features some words I could discern, such as musket (gun), and others I couldn't, such as tin-tola (girlfriend) and wettles (food). Brenda helped translate.
Len: "Nava bin doun Gudgeon fer long time." Brenda: "No one has been down to Gudgeons in a long time."
Len: "Mebe gut sum good side fer clime Down Rope." Brenda: "Maybe there's some good climbing at Down Rope."
Could this be the kind of change we will see in our English language? Will our descendants, if they speak English at all, speak this kind of dumbed-down pidgin dialect?
The Narrator's point is that the mutineers chose their fate; they knowingly decided to abandon their people.
There is no doubt that those outside groups who would wish us harm today have encouraged and cheered on that percentage of us who seek to mutiny against Western Civilization in favor of a multicultural hell. But the fact is it takes a willing participant to be led. And sadly there are not only all-to-willing followers amongst the disloyal, but leaders as well.
In the end we must be careful in our duty of defending the honor or our people, not to deify them or absolve them from the treachery that many of them so willfully engage in.
To be clear, this is not an advocacy of abandoning the resolve to expose the activities of those who might wish us ill, but rather a call for a little more focus on the inward development of the qualities that are needed for the difficult task of preserving and nurturing our people and their civilization back to a safe harbor. We need to once again champion the virtues which established our great societies but which have, of late, fallen out of favor. And part of those virtues was the belief that every man is to, ultimately, be held accountable for his own actions regardless of circumstance or whatever outside influences might have swayed his behavior or actions.
It is indeed a question of character. Some men have poor character and give heed to whatever impulse happens to strike them, while others remain true and honorable no matter how enticing the deceptive voice whispering in their ear is.
There has been a mutiny on the HMS West, and those who remained true to their own have been set adrift. But we must keep hope, for upon reflection of past events we can see the inevitable fate of each group based upon the path they have chosen.''
One or two of the commenters think The Narrator's analogy is not truly apt, because we in the West have not instigated a mutiny; instead we are having it imposed by outsiders against us, or being manipulated into embracing a destruction of our way of life and our people. I suppose there's truth in that, but still, I think the Narrator's point is worth considering, too. But are we to be the mutineers, refusing to follow a derelict captain and a corrupt and oppressive system, or are we the mutiny-resisters? Are our 'leaders' the mutineers against the legitimate order, setting a course to their own misconceived multicult utopia, with unwilling passengers on board?
I've often wondered, myself, why our society and our era has been so vulnerable to these manipulations. Every generation has its malcontents and traitors and those who want to tear down the existing order. In a healthy age and a strong society, those people are ignored and given no legitimacy; people in general are not led astray by them. Why is our age and why are our people suddenly such easy prey?
We've discussed all kinds of factors: the media and its enormous power, the prosperity of our time which makes us soft and hedonistic, the loss of our Faith, and of course the influence of subversive outsiders whose interests conflict with ours. Ultimately, though, are we all just pawns, or do we have the ability to discern, to reject the manipulation, and to choose for ourselves?
And if we still maintain that this situation was forced on us, by guile and manipulation or by force, then does this amount to a plea of helplessness and an abdication of responsibility? Or are we still strong enough in ourselves to assert our own will and act in our own interests?
In my college anthropology class, we spent some time studying about the Bounty, mainly in the context of the 'Founder effect' as seen in the Pitcairn Islanders, who were the descendants of the Bounty mutineers and the Polynesian men and women who went with them to Pitcairn.
I suppose the story was fascinating to me in that I found it hard to envision how a group of English sailors could simply blend with a group of South Sea Islanders. The two peoples and their ways of life seemed so profoundly different, to me.
What could motivate them to do such a thing?
Here, The Narrator, who blogs at Signals From the Brink, writes a very interesting essay on the HMS Bounty, the mutiny, and the resulting Pitcairn Island society. He makes a novel analogy between the Mutiny and the present Western crisis.
There are various ways of describing and understanding the unfortunate turn many in Western Civilization have taken over the past century. Comparing events to "revolutions" and the course of specific nations to the Titanic striking the iceberg are common (engaged in by this writer as well). But every now and then a new perspective may help better see the possible causations as well as the potential remedies/outcomes to our plight.
"History repeats itself" we are told and sure enough that seems to most often be the case. More than that, specific historical incidents seem to foreshadow events on a greater scale and era.
Such an event is the Mutiny On The Bounty. (I should state that I�m no expert on the subject and that my casual interest in it was sparked by viewing the 1984 film �The Bounty�.)
That mutiny, wherein a group of men from a civilized Western nation, having temporarily grown accustomed to a leisurely life of hedonistic nihilism on a tropic Island, rebel against their commander when faced with returning to a orderly and disciplined, (Western) way of life, has a general theme which can be applied to our current situation.''
It's a fascinating piece. He makes a case that the mutineers acted of their own accord to rebel against the Western (and I would add, Christian) society into which they were born, and to start a new life of 'noble savagery' with their newfound Polynesian companions. As history has shown, the paradise went awry fairly early, as such efforts always do, especially when 'diversity' and culture clashes are built-in.
An overview of the Pitcairn Island history is here, at this Seventh Day Adventist website. The Adventists brought their faith to the mutineers' descendants, and though the article notes that there are only small numbers of Adventists there now, they don't even hint at the troubled nature of the society on Pitcairn, which is dealt with here in a Vanity Fair article. It seems that the Christian veneer of the Islanders was rather skin-deep, and the sexual mores of the people seemed to follow the kind of anything-goes approach to sexuality so admiringly cited by anthropologists like Margaret Mead, who wrote of the casual attitude to sex in the South Seas. From the VF article:
Headlines around the world had focused on the criminal case: Pitcairn�s cloud of vice. But a more dramatic story lay buried in the thousands of pages piled high on a table partly shielding the Privy Council lords from the commoners facing them.
For most of its history, Pitcairn lived with a secret sex culture that defined island life. Adultery was not just routine but pervasive, as was the sexual fondling of infants and socially approved sex games among young children. Incest and prostitution were not unknown. The criminal charges stemmed from a longtime island practice of "breaking in" girls as young as 10.
The legal case had dragged on for eight years and threatened the island�s survival. Sharp divisions existed over Mother England�s fairness in forcing the weight of English law onto a tiny population as isolated and lost in time as Pitcairn�s. Colleen McCullough, the Australian author of The Thorn Birds and wife of a well-known Pitcairn descendant, harshly criticized the British for prosecuting what even the Foreign Office grudgingly conceded was a "cultural trait." She said, "It�s Polynesian to break your girls in at 12."
Typical liberalism: "who are we to judge other cultures? If pedophilia is 'their culture,' who are we to judge? So say the multicultists.
This National Geographic article also deals with these scandals, and the 'cultural differences' rationalization.
As The Narrator says in his essay,
This hedonistic utopia was, ironically, founded by people of low character and no qualms about disloyalty and lack of honor or restraint. It�s not difficult to imagine how well that worked out.
Bligh addressed the temptations to which they had yielded in his published account of the mutiny in 1790, writing:
"It will very naturally be asked, what could be the reason for such a revolt? in answer to which, I can only conjecture that the mutineers had assured themselves of a more happy life among the Otaheiteans, than they could possibly have in England; which, joined to some female connections, have most probably been the principal cause of the whole transaction.
The women at Otaheite are handsome, mild and chearful in their manners and conversation, possessed of great sensibility, and have sufficient delicacy to make them admired and beloved. The chiefs were so much attached to our people, that they rather encouraged their stay among them than otherwise, and even made them promises of large possessions. Under these, and many other attendant circumstances, equally desirable, it is now perhaps not so much to be wondered at, though scarcely possible to have been foreseen, that a set of sailors, most of them void of connections, should be led away; especially when, in addition to such powerful inducements, they imagined it in their power to fix themselves in the midst of plenty, on the finest island in the world, where they need not labour, and where the allurements of dissipation are beyond any thing that can be conceived."
It would appear that the combination of their isolation from civilization and perhaps the character of the founders of this 'utopia', they inevitably degenerated.
An interesting side bit of trivia is the linguistic degeneration. The descendants developed a kind of bastardized English or pidgin dialect:
...an amalgam of 18th-century English and Polynesian that the old-timers still use among themselves. This pidgin language was developed as a way for the English sailors and the Tahitians to communicate, and it features some words I could discern, such as musket (gun), and others I couldn't, such as tin-tola (girlfriend) and wettles (food). Brenda helped translate.
Len: "Nava bin doun Gudgeon fer long time." Brenda: "No one has been down to Gudgeons in a long time."
Len: "Mebe gut sum good side fer clime Down Rope." Brenda: "Maybe there's some good climbing at Down Rope."
Could this be the kind of change we will see in our English language? Will our descendants, if they speak English at all, speak this kind of dumbed-down pidgin dialect?
The Narrator's point is that the mutineers chose their fate; they knowingly decided to abandon their people.
There is no doubt that those outside groups who would wish us harm today have encouraged and cheered on that percentage of us who seek to mutiny against Western Civilization in favor of a multicultural hell. But the fact is it takes a willing participant to be led. And sadly there are not only all-to-willing followers amongst the disloyal, but leaders as well.
In the end we must be careful in our duty of defending the honor or our people, not to deify them or absolve them from the treachery that many of them so willfully engage in.
To be clear, this is not an advocacy of abandoning the resolve to expose the activities of those who might wish us ill, but rather a call for a little more focus on the inward development of the qualities that are needed for the difficult task of preserving and nurturing our people and their civilization back to a safe harbor. We need to once again champion the virtues which established our great societies but which have, of late, fallen out of favor. And part of those virtues was the belief that every man is to, ultimately, be held accountable for his own actions regardless of circumstance or whatever outside influences might have swayed his behavior or actions.
It is indeed a question of character. Some men have poor character and give heed to whatever impulse happens to strike them, while others remain true and honorable no matter how enticing the deceptive voice whispering in their ear is.
There has been a mutiny on the HMS West, and those who remained true to their own have been set adrift. But we must keep hope, for upon reflection of past events we can see the inevitable fate of each group based upon the path they have chosen.''
One or two of the commenters think The Narrator's analogy is not truly apt, because we in the West have not instigated a mutiny; instead we are having it imposed by outsiders against us, or being manipulated into embracing a destruction of our way of life and our people. I suppose there's truth in that, but still, I think the Narrator's point is worth considering, too. But are we to be the mutineers, refusing to follow a derelict captain and a corrupt and oppressive system, or are we the mutiny-resisters? Are our 'leaders' the mutineers against the legitimate order, setting a course to their own misconceived multicult utopia, with unwilling passengers on board?
I've often wondered, myself, why our society and our era has been so vulnerable to these manipulations. Every generation has its malcontents and traitors and those who want to tear down the existing order. In a healthy age and a strong society, those people are ignored and given no legitimacy; people in general are not led astray by them. Why is our age and why are our people suddenly such easy prey?
We've discussed all kinds of factors: the media and its enormous power, the prosperity of our time which makes us soft and hedonistic, the loss of our Faith, and of course the influence of subversive outsiders whose interests conflict with ours. Ultimately, though, are we all just pawns, or do we have the ability to discern, to reject the manipulation, and to choose for ourselves?
And if we still maintain that this situation was forced on us, by guile and manipulation or by force, then does this amount to a plea of helplessness and an abdication of responsibility? Or are we still strong enough in ourselves to assert our own will and act in our own interests?
Labels: Death Of The West, History, Libertinism, Moral Relativism, Multiculturalism, Utopianism, Western Decline
0 comment Sunday, October 19, 2014 | admin
In my previous post, the issue of a Catholic Bishop's liberal position on illegal immigration was raised. Unhappily, there are many Protestant clergy and lay people who share the post-modern liberal interpretation of Christian doctrine.
The problem is such that it is becoming increasingly hard for the faithful Christian to answer the ever-louder voices of the critics on the right who say that Christianity is to blame, solely or in part, for the fall of the West and the threatened loss of our country.
AmRen in particular, among racial-realist websites and forums, has its insistent critics and enemies of Christianity, a couple of whom regularly post quite disparaging comments about Christianity and Christians. I can only assume that their viewpoints are agreeable to the moderators of AmRen if not also to the site owner. It's a fact that many comments in general do not get past the moderators, so those which do see the light of day are apparently agreeable to the mods and/or to the site owner.
I know some will say this is just even-handedness. It's not. Islam has its critics on AmRen, but none as insistent as the regular anti-Christian voices. Judaism is not considered fair game for criticism on AmRen, presumably because this is a group which is being courted and whose support is apparently valued more than that of Christians. This makes little tactical sense, because Christians make up a much larger demographic.
For whatever reason, Christians are now on the defensive on the right as well as on the left, and Christianity's detractors are stubbornly unwilling to listen to any defense of Christianity.
It's noteworthy, and heartening, that a British clergyman, Reverend Robert West of the British National Party, has spoken out on the issues of immigration, race, and repatriation in light of Christian belief.
Whilst the BNP is a secular and not a religious party, its views generally agree with the Bible�s own teaching that we are to live as nations, in our nations, and not to submit to a "resurrection" of the Babel thesis of one undifferentiated mass under some form of, probably dictatorial and very unstable, world governance.''
To the credit of AmRen, the issue of Christianity's culpability for the decline of the West was debated there some dozen years ago, and this piece by H.A. Scott Trask was posted there later, although I do wonder if something similar would be posted today. (Incidentally, thanks to Dr. D for calling Trask's piece to my attention once again.)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
by H. A. Scott Trask
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one�s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children�s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.'
[...]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.''
Trask goes on to refute the frequently-cited interpretation of Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
I will let you read the entire essay for yourselves. It's a very thorough job of answering the liberalized postmodern Christians who have no problem with breaking with two millennia of Christian belief to embrace the 'one-world' agenda. I often repeat this, and it doesn't seem to pierce through the indoctrination, but how do such Christians reconcile their radical departure from what their parents and grandparents and so on, as far back as you can go, believed? Our Christian parents and our forefathers did not believe there were no nations or races; they did not believe we were to drop all barriers and tear down borders and fences and become one undifferentiated mass of humanity, as today's PC pharisees have decreed we must do.
If we believe that the traditional understanding of nations, as laid out in the Bible and by centuries of custom and tradition were not only mistaken but sinful and immoral, where does that put our ancestors, who held such 'immoral' beliefs and lived by such 'hateful' customs? If today's politically correct believers are right, most of our forefathers will not enter the kingdom of heaven, having not known the 'truth' according to today's wisdom, and having lived what today's generation would call 'racist' and xenophobic lives.
As for me, I am not prepared to condemn our forefathers in that way, while assuming that today's confused Christians are the standard by which to judge.
I suppose there is little chance of exonerating Christianity from the accusations made by some nationalists and realists; I have always had the feeling that they have rejected Christianity already, and are simply looking for further reasons to denigrate the faith and to vilify Christians. So I don't think that anything will change their condemnation of Christianity.
If they are intellectually honest, they would surely at least try to explain why, as I often ask, Europe and the West generally were at their zenith when Christianity still reigned, and when it was a strong and muscular faith. And why, conversely, did the West become effete and passive and self-doubting as the Christian faith waned, and Christianity became stripped of its original power?
These questions are often touched on in various essays of Cambria Will Not Yield, such as this one.
If the ''Christianity did it'' theory of the West's demise were true, should not the West have fallen centuries ago when Christianity was at its peak of power, when the majority of people in the West truly lived their lives according to Christianity's precepts? Why did the fall of the West come only as Christianity became enfeebled and had strayed from its original truths, and when only a small number of faithful believers remain? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet I have never heard any of the anti-Christian critics explain why this paradox exists, if their theory is true.
I don't hold any hope of dissuading the 'Christianity did it'' sect from their beliefs. I would, however, hope that some Christians who think it is sinful and evil to close our borders, or to want to preserve our nation and our people, will rethink that position based on what Trask has to say, or better yet, what their Bible has to say, minus the politicized interpretations of our day.
The problem is such that it is becoming increasingly hard for the faithful Christian to answer the ever-louder voices of the critics on the right who say that Christianity is to blame, solely or in part, for the fall of the West and the threatened loss of our country.
AmRen in particular, among racial-realist websites and forums, has its insistent critics and enemies of Christianity, a couple of whom regularly post quite disparaging comments about Christianity and Christians. I can only assume that their viewpoints are agreeable to the moderators of AmRen if not also to the site owner. It's a fact that many comments in general do not get past the moderators, so those which do see the light of day are apparently agreeable to the mods and/or to the site owner.
I know some will say this is just even-handedness. It's not. Islam has its critics on AmRen, but none as insistent as the regular anti-Christian voices. Judaism is not considered fair game for criticism on AmRen, presumably because this is a group which is being courted and whose support is apparently valued more than that of Christians. This makes little tactical sense, because Christians make up a much larger demographic.
For whatever reason, Christians are now on the defensive on the right as well as on the left, and Christianity's detractors are stubbornly unwilling to listen to any defense of Christianity.
It's noteworthy, and heartening, that a British clergyman, Reverend Robert West of the British National Party, has spoken out on the issues of immigration, race, and repatriation in light of Christian belief.
Whilst the BNP is a secular and not a religious party, its views generally agree with the Bible�s own teaching that we are to live as nations, in our nations, and not to submit to a "resurrection" of the Babel thesis of one undifferentiated mass under some form of, probably dictatorial and very unstable, world governance.''
To the credit of AmRen, the issue of Christianity's culpability for the decline of the West was debated there some dozen years ago, and this piece by H.A. Scott Trask was posted there later, although I do wonder if something similar would be posted today. (Incidentally, thanks to Dr. D for calling Trask's piece to my attention once again.)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
by H. A. Scott Trask
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one�s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children�s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.'
[...]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.''
Trask goes on to refute the frequently-cited interpretation of Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
I will let you read the entire essay for yourselves. It's a very thorough job of answering the liberalized postmodern Christians who have no problem with breaking with two millennia of Christian belief to embrace the 'one-world' agenda. I often repeat this, and it doesn't seem to pierce through the indoctrination, but how do such Christians reconcile their radical departure from what their parents and grandparents and so on, as far back as you can go, believed? Our Christian parents and our forefathers did not believe there were no nations or races; they did not believe we were to drop all barriers and tear down borders and fences and become one undifferentiated mass of humanity, as today's PC pharisees have decreed we must do.
If we believe that the traditional understanding of nations, as laid out in the Bible and by centuries of custom and tradition were not only mistaken but sinful and immoral, where does that put our ancestors, who held such 'immoral' beliefs and lived by such 'hateful' customs? If today's politically correct believers are right, most of our forefathers will not enter the kingdom of heaven, having not known the 'truth' according to today's wisdom, and having lived what today's generation would call 'racist' and xenophobic lives.
As for me, I am not prepared to condemn our forefathers in that way, while assuming that today's confused Christians are the standard by which to judge.
I suppose there is little chance of exonerating Christianity from the accusations made by some nationalists and realists; I have always had the feeling that they have rejected Christianity already, and are simply looking for further reasons to denigrate the faith and to vilify Christians. So I don't think that anything will change their condemnation of Christianity.
If they are intellectually honest, they would surely at least try to explain why, as I often ask, Europe and the West generally were at their zenith when Christianity still reigned, and when it was a strong and muscular faith. And why, conversely, did the West become effete and passive and self-doubting as the Christian faith waned, and Christianity became stripped of its original power?
These questions are often touched on in various essays of Cambria Will Not Yield, such as this one.
If the ''Christianity did it'' theory of the West's demise were true, should not the West have fallen centuries ago when Christianity was at its peak of power, when the majority of people in the West truly lived their lives according to Christianity's precepts? Why did the fall of the West come only as Christianity became enfeebled and had strayed from its original truths, and when only a small number of faithful believers remain? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet I have never heard any of the anti-Christian critics explain why this paradox exists, if their theory is true.
I don't hold any hope of dissuading the 'Christianity did it'' sect from their beliefs. I would, however, hope that some Christians who think it is sinful and evil to close our borders, or to want to preserve our nation and our people, will rethink that position based on what Trask has to say, or better yet, what their Bible has to say, minus the politicized interpretations of our day.
Labels: Babel, Bible, Christendom, Death Of The West, Ethnonationalism, Liberal Christianity, Nationality, Nations, Political Correctness, Western Decline
0 comment Sunday, September 7, 2014 | admin
For once, an encouraging story out of the UK. The people of one town are defending their own community as their leftist, PC authorities fail to do so.
In a landmark action to stop the blight that has hit so many communities, residents of a housing estate that now occupies the former RAF Locking have barricaded themselves into the 100-acre site and mounted a 24-hour guard. Every car coming in or out of the estate near Weston-super-Mare was checked.
Anyone lingering outside the perimeter fence was stopped and politely questioned. At random intervals, the unlikely figure of an elderly man in a high-visibility jacket patrolled the grounds in a four-wheel-drive vehicle, checking for breaches of security.
To anyone who has never experienced a traveller invasion, all this may seem a little over the top.
But last weekend, after 15 or 20 caravans were evicted from a nearby field, some of the 'gipsies� drove around the Locking site and took photographs.
One of them let it be known they had targeted the privately-owned estate and intended to set up camp on some of the open, grassy landscape where children play and people walk their dogs. He reportedly warned residents not to resist, adding: 'We�ve got guns.�''
As in this country and all Western countries, seemingly, the authorities side with the 'Others' and privilege them over the citizenry, refusing to carry out their primary duty to protect the townspeople. The 'Others', in this case Roma gypsies, have learned to work the system and claim their 'human rights' to camp where they please:
The local council � which has a legal duty anyway to provide formal sites for travellers � said it could not intervene at this stage.
That left only one option � people power. And so, the estate�s residents banded together to man the barricades and put RAF Locking back on active service again.''
A recent news story related how the Roma gypsies were given priority in health care services in the UK.
At least half of all Gypsies and Travellers in Britain are Romany in origin and are officially placed above indigenous British people in a range of National Health Services, according to an official guideline.
The shocking anti-British document emerged in the wake of anti-Gypsy violence in Belfast following months of criminal activity by the Romanian Gypsy community which drove local people to the breaking point.
The NHS Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy and Traveller Communities document, a copy of which can be downloaded by clicking here, states that many of these "Roma Communities" are recent arrivals, and "possibly comprise half of all Gypsies and Travellers" in England.
According to the NHS, there are up to 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain in total, which means that there are possibly 150,000 Romany Gypsies living here.''
It seems the UN Refugee Agency has been meddling on behalf of the Roma who are considered a homeless people. And as a 'victim group' par excellence, they are now among the privileged groups whose 'rights' are placed above those of the rightful people of the host countries where they decide to settle. The UN's 'Human Rights' policies ensure this. One more reason why the UN is an organization that is disastrous for the people of Western countries.
With a biased and complicit media, who consistently write sob stories about the ''plight'' of these ''persecuted'' ones, nobody seems to take much notice of the rights of the people who are unwilling hosts to the gypsies.
The biased, leftist media are full of propaganda intended to provoke sympathy for the gypsies, and to vilify the peoples of Europe for objecting to the presence of gypsies in their midst.
There is considerable confusion about the origin of the Roma, perhaps caused by their name, 'Roma', and the traditional designation of them in Britain as 'Romany gypsies', when in fact they are not from Romania or Romany, but believed to have originated in the Indian subcontinent. Still, many of the news stories have them described as 'Romanian' or in some cases, as 'Albanian', if that is the country from which they arrive in the UK.
Why does their presence often precipitate conflict or trouble? The typical media story would have you believe it is 'prejudice' and 'racism' and (as always) 'hate'. However, if you juxtapose two or more unrelated and very disparate groups of people in the same space, there will be conflict -- especially when the 'outsider' group is prone to antisocial acts as a way of life.
Inevitably, the bleeding-heart champions of the downtrodden always deny that there is any basis in the popular stereotypes of gypsies as dishonest and troublesome. To believe this, however, requires dismissing generations of people in just about every Western country who report having had trouble as a result of an influx of Roma.
In the UK these people are euphemistically called 'travelers' in some cases. In Ireland there are also native Irish 'travelers' who live a similarly itinerant lifestyle, though they are not related by blood to the gypsies. Roma or gypsies are an identifiable people, with a distinct appearance, while Irish travelers (some of whom immigrated to America and settled in the Southeast) look Irish.
I've had some experience with Roma gypsies in various parts of the U.S., specifically in urban areas, and in general it seems they choose to live outside our society and to obtain their living by some kind of confidence game or other pursuits such as car 'dealing' or fortune-telling.
I understand that some gypsies send their children to schools now, though in the past, they did not educate their children, and the adults were generally illiterate. In several instances, I was pressed into service to read or explain some written material for Roma women who could not read or write. Still, somehow they manage to handle money despite being illiterate. Perhaps there is more of an effort to integrate them now, though I think they are an unassimilable people.
In a way, they illustrate the problems of multiculturalism and lax immigration policies. They seem to be a disruptive presence wherever they go, and yet political correctness places them off limits for criticism. They can do no wrong, officially, because they are a persecuted group, and the fact that just about every country has found them to be a problem is blamed on widespread 'racism'. The politically correct must convince themselves that the gypsies are always victims, and never catalysts or causes for the conflict that follows wherever they go. It must take some mental contortions to believe that. Common sense would indicate that the fact that they have been chased out of so many countries tells us something about their character. It stretches credulity to believe that they have been so universally unwelcome, through no fault of their own. If someone is, say, fired from every job they've had, or evicted from everyplace they've lived, would you believe all their employers and landlords were 'prejudiced' or that the 'victim' may in fact have been the cause of his own misfortunes?
And before somebody says it: yes, there are always exceptions to every rule -- but the exceptions are just that. That exceptions exist does not invalidate the rule, or disprove it.
There may be some well-behaved, law-abiding Roma people here and there, but if so they are renegades who've cut ties with their people.
Political correctness has decreed that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional group of people, or a culture that is at its core antisocial. But the fact is that some cultures and peoples are just that. I wish it were not so, but experience and history seem to indicate that it is so, and denying it does not change the reality.
Every community, every town, every country, has a right to determine who they wish to come to live among them. The influx of a group of disruptive and hostile, antisocial people is something every sane community wishes to avoid. When a community, or a country, refuses to enforce any kind of standards as to who enters and who stays in their home, that community is inflicting a potentially fatal wound to itself, as chaos will ensue sooner or later.
We are seeing that in this country, and throughout the West.
Maybe what will be necessary is for people to control things at the local level, absent any kind of state or federal willingness to enforce laws and standards to protect the integrity and safety of a community.
I wish these brave people in England the best in standing up for their right to live peacefully and unmolested in their own land.
In a landmark action to stop the blight that has hit so many communities, residents of a housing estate that now occupies the former RAF Locking have barricaded themselves into the 100-acre site and mounted a 24-hour guard. Every car coming in or out of the estate near Weston-super-Mare was checked.
Anyone lingering outside the perimeter fence was stopped and politely questioned. At random intervals, the unlikely figure of an elderly man in a high-visibility jacket patrolled the grounds in a four-wheel-drive vehicle, checking for breaches of security.
To anyone who has never experienced a traveller invasion, all this may seem a little over the top.
But last weekend, after 15 or 20 caravans were evicted from a nearby field, some of the 'gipsies� drove around the Locking site and took photographs.
One of them let it be known they had targeted the privately-owned estate and intended to set up camp on some of the open, grassy landscape where children play and people walk their dogs. He reportedly warned residents not to resist, adding: 'We�ve got guns.�''
As in this country and all Western countries, seemingly, the authorities side with the 'Others' and privilege them over the citizenry, refusing to carry out their primary duty to protect the townspeople. The 'Others', in this case Roma gypsies, have learned to work the system and claim their 'human rights' to camp where they please:
The local council � which has a legal duty anyway to provide formal sites for travellers � said it could not intervene at this stage.
That left only one option � people power. And so, the estate�s residents banded together to man the barricades and put RAF Locking back on active service again.''
A recent news story related how the Roma gypsies were given priority in health care services in the UK.
At least half of all Gypsies and Travellers in Britain are Romany in origin and are officially placed above indigenous British people in a range of National Health Services, according to an official guideline.
The shocking anti-British document emerged in the wake of anti-Gypsy violence in Belfast following months of criminal activity by the Romanian Gypsy community which drove local people to the breaking point.
The NHS Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy and Traveller Communities document, a copy of which can be downloaded by clicking here, states that many of these "Roma Communities" are recent arrivals, and "possibly comprise half of all Gypsies and Travellers" in England.
According to the NHS, there are up to 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain in total, which means that there are possibly 150,000 Romany Gypsies living here.''
It seems the UN Refugee Agency has been meddling on behalf of the Roma who are considered a homeless people. And as a 'victim group' par excellence, they are now among the privileged groups whose 'rights' are placed above those of the rightful people of the host countries where they decide to settle. The UN's 'Human Rights' policies ensure this. One more reason why the UN is an organization that is disastrous for the people of Western countries.
With a biased and complicit media, who consistently write sob stories about the ''plight'' of these ''persecuted'' ones, nobody seems to take much notice of the rights of the people who are unwilling hosts to the gypsies.
The biased, leftist media are full of propaganda intended to provoke sympathy for the gypsies, and to vilify the peoples of Europe for objecting to the presence of gypsies in their midst.
There is considerable confusion about the origin of the Roma, perhaps caused by their name, 'Roma', and the traditional designation of them in Britain as 'Romany gypsies', when in fact they are not from Romania or Romany, but believed to have originated in the Indian subcontinent. Still, many of the news stories have them described as 'Romanian' or in some cases, as 'Albanian', if that is the country from which they arrive in the UK.
Why does their presence often precipitate conflict or trouble? The typical media story would have you believe it is 'prejudice' and 'racism' and (as always) 'hate'. However, if you juxtapose two or more unrelated and very disparate groups of people in the same space, there will be conflict -- especially when the 'outsider' group is prone to antisocial acts as a way of life.
Inevitably, the bleeding-heart champions of the downtrodden always deny that there is any basis in the popular stereotypes of gypsies as dishonest and troublesome. To believe this, however, requires dismissing generations of people in just about every Western country who report having had trouble as a result of an influx of Roma.
In the UK these people are euphemistically called 'travelers' in some cases. In Ireland there are also native Irish 'travelers' who live a similarly itinerant lifestyle, though they are not related by blood to the gypsies. Roma or gypsies are an identifiable people, with a distinct appearance, while Irish travelers (some of whom immigrated to America and settled in the Southeast) look Irish.
I've had some experience with Roma gypsies in various parts of the U.S., specifically in urban areas, and in general it seems they choose to live outside our society and to obtain their living by some kind of confidence game or other pursuits such as car 'dealing' or fortune-telling.
I understand that some gypsies send their children to schools now, though in the past, they did not educate their children, and the adults were generally illiterate. In several instances, I was pressed into service to read or explain some written material for Roma women who could not read or write. Still, somehow they manage to handle money despite being illiterate. Perhaps there is more of an effort to integrate them now, though I think they are an unassimilable people.
In a way, they illustrate the problems of multiculturalism and lax immigration policies. They seem to be a disruptive presence wherever they go, and yet political correctness places them off limits for criticism. They can do no wrong, officially, because they are a persecuted group, and the fact that just about every country has found them to be a problem is blamed on widespread 'racism'. The politically correct must convince themselves that the gypsies are always victims, and never catalysts or causes for the conflict that follows wherever they go. It must take some mental contortions to believe that. Common sense would indicate that the fact that they have been chased out of so many countries tells us something about their character. It stretches credulity to believe that they have been so universally unwelcome, through no fault of their own. If someone is, say, fired from every job they've had, or evicted from everyplace they've lived, would you believe all their employers and landlords were 'prejudiced' or that the 'victim' may in fact have been the cause of his own misfortunes?
And before somebody says it: yes, there are always exceptions to every rule -- but the exceptions are just that. That exceptions exist does not invalidate the rule, or disprove it.
There may be some well-behaved, law-abiding Roma people here and there, but if so they are renegades who've cut ties with their people.
Political correctness has decreed that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional group of people, or a culture that is at its core antisocial. But the fact is that some cultures and peoples are just that. I wish it were not so, but experience and history seem to indicate that it is so, and denying it does not change the reality.
Every community, every town, every country, has a right to determine who they wish to come to live among them. The influx of a group of disruptive and hostile, antisocial people is something every sane community wishes to avoid. When a community, or a country, refuses to enforce any kind of standards as to who enters and who stays in their home, that community is inflicting a potentially fatal wound to itself, as chaos will ensue sooner or later.
We are seeing that in this country, and throughout the West.
Maybe what will be necessary is for people to control things at the local level, absent any kind of state or federal willingness to enforce laws and standards to protect the integrity and safety of a community.
I wish these brave people in England the best in standing up for their right to live peacefully and unmolested in their own land.
Labels: Death Of The West, Globalism, Leftism, Localism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession, Refugee Industry, United Kingdom, United Nations
0 comment Tuesday, June 24, 2014 | admin
I recently read this excerpt from a Kenneth Minogue book, The Servile Mind. I have yet to get hold of the book, but I hope to read it soon. Meantime Minogue's words seem to apply very much to our society, and to the West overall. I hope to comment on the excerpt later.
What is on my mind now, in connection with what Minogue wrote, is this upcoming, much-hyped and much-vilified 'rally' in Washington, D.C., featuring Glenn Beck and his PC "revival" show, or whatever it is. Somebody (and I would like to credit that person, but I can't recall where I read it) described Beck as a weeping TV evangelist of the political right, or words along those lines. I think he is just as much a huckster as the show-biz 'ministers', playing on people's emotions and on their gullibility.
Beck seems to be shilling for a new religion, sort of a Politically Correct cult where MLK and the Founding Fathers are co-venerated.
I was checking the posts on Free Republic as I often do, to 'take the temperature' of the Republican faithful, and they are eager for this rally to take place. When I read that forum these days, I truly do wonder about the future of this country because I keep hoping for any sign that the mainstream ''right'' will wake up, and sometimes it seems as if they are doing that. Some of the politically incorrect comments there make me think that the critically ill patient is showing signs of recovery, but then they lapse back into the febrile babblings, the obsession with 'racism' on the left, and with sniffing out racism among their fellow FReepers.
I've thought a lot about what is wrong with our people, and that's really the theme of this blog, since 2006 when I first began. I've spent a lot of time discussing the symptoms and their possible etiology, and I've looked for that magic bullet, a remedy for this sickness-unto-death that seems to be gripping the entire West. I keep taking the patient's vital signs, and sometimes he rallies a bit, but goes on languishing.
I've written about Beck and his counterparts on the Republican side: media personalities like Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, et al. Politicians are part of the problem, too, but I think the root problem of all this may be something that is more and more common in the character of Americans and other Westerners: the tendency to be followers. That is at the heart of Minogue's piece, which I hope to blog about later in more detail. But the thing is, Americans in particular have become too besotted of individual personalities, whether it be Beck, Rush, Sarah Palin, or their favorite politico. Some people from Arkansas are fiercely defensive of their guy, Mike Huckabee. Some fawn over Bobby Jindal because they see in him some kind of hope. Herman Cain is a recent darling with the FReeper crowd. Lately there has been a furor over Ann Coulter's remarks about conservatives who oppose homosexual 'marriage', with many of Ann's devotees fiercely defending her.
If someone criticizes one of these 'personalities', his or her followers will react as if their own mother or beloved spouse were being attacked, or perhaps, more aptly, as if their faith and their God were being blasphemed. If only we could defend our kin and our people as aggressively as some defend their favorite personality.
I don't know if there are more of these blind loyalist individuals around these days; I have generally thought that our society has declined in the character of the people since our colonial and founding generations. I still think that to some degree, but perhaps there have always been these people who are 'respecters of persons', in the Biblical sense, people who will fix their loyalty and devotions on some individual with charisma or with glib answers and a good spiel. Beck seems to be the most successful of these types at the moment.
I don't know what will happen at this rally tomorrow, which has been so much 'cussed and discussed'. I do hope that he will not continue to lead 'conservatives' down the rabbit hole of political correctness as he seems to be doing.
Americans talk a great game about individualism and independence, but I am afraid I see far too many people willing to be led up the garden path by some snake-oil salesman. I don't know where all our discernment has gone, or if there is any regaining it.
Perhaps it is natural for people to follow leaders, but woe be to us, as we have no leaders of character and courage to stand up today, it seems.
As the old saying goes, in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. How else can we explain the grasping at straws that causes people to follow these media shills and charlatans?
What is on my mind now, in connection with what Minogue wrote, is this upcoming, much-hyped and much-vilified 'rally' in Washington, D.C., featuring Glenn Beck and his PC "revival" show, or whatever it is. Somebody (and I would like to credit that person, but I can't recall where I read it) described Beck as a weeping TV evangelist of the political right, or words along those lines. I think he is just as much a huckster as the show-biz 'ministers', playing on people's emotions and on their gullibility.
Beck seems to be shilling for a new religion, sort of a Politically Correct cult where MLK and the Founding Fathers are co-venerated.
I was checking the posts on Free Republic as I often do, to 'take the temperature' of the Republican faithful, and they are eager for this rally to take place. When I read that forum these days, I truly do wonder about the future of this country because I keep hoping for any sign that the mainstream ''right'' will wake up, and sometimes it seems as if they are doing that. Some of the politically incorrect comments there make me think that the critically ill patient is showing signs of recovery, but then they lapse back into the febrile babblings, the obsession with 'racism' on the left, and with sniffing out racism among their fellow FReepers.
I've thought a lot about what is wrong with our people, and that's really the theme of this blog, since 2006 when I first began. I've spent a lot of time discussing the symptoms and their possible etiology, and I've looked for that magic bullet, a remedy for this sickness-unto-death that seems to be gripping the entire West. I keep taking the patient's vital signs, and sometimes he rallies a bit, but goes on languishing.
I've written about Beck and his counterparts on the Republican side: media personalities like Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, et al. Politicians are part of the problem, too, but I think the root problem of all this may be something that is more and more common in the character of Americans and other Westerners: the tendency to be followers. That is at the heart of Minogue's piece, which I hope to blog about later in more detail. But the thing is, Americans in particular have become too besotted of individual personalities, whether it be Beck, Rush, Sarah Palin, or their favorite politico. Some people from Arkansas are fiercely defensive of their guy, Mike Huckabee. Some fawn over Bobby Jindal because they see in him some kind of hope. Herman Cain is a recent darling with the FReeper crowd. Lately there has been a furor over Ann Coulter's remarks about conservatives who oppose homosexual 'marriage', with many of Ann's devotees fiercely defending her.
If someone criticizes one of these 'personalities', his or her followers will react as if their own mother or beloved spouse were being attacked, or perhaps, more aptly, as if their faith and their God were being blasphemed. If only we could defend our kin and our people as aggressively as some defend their favorite personality.
I don't know if there are more of these blind loyalist individuals around these days; I have generally thought that our society has declined in the character of the people since our colonial and founding generations. I still think that to some degree, but perhaps there have always been these people who are 'respecters of persons', in the Biblical sense, people who will fix their loyalty and devotions on some individual with charisma or with glib answers and a good spiel. Beck seems to be the most successful of these types at the moment.
I don't know what will happen at this rally tomorrow, which has been so much 'cussed and discussed'. I do hope that he will not continue to lead 'conservatives' down the rabbit hole of political correctness as he seems to be doing.
Americans talk a great game about individualism and independence, but I am afraid I see far too many people willing to be led up the garden path by some snake-oil salesman. I don't know where all our discernment has gone, or if there is any regaining it.
Perhaps it is natural for people to follow leaders, but woe be to us, as we have no leaders of character and courage to stand up today, it seems.
As the old saying goes, in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. How else can we explain the grasping at straws that causes people to follow these media shills and charlatans?
Labels: Conservatism, Controlled Media, Death Of The West, Propaganda