0 comment Saturday, November 29, 2014 | admin
Yet another in the endless 'Surrender, Dorothy' series from the media. Today a headline trumpets
Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos'
'Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."
Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director and now director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University.
Today's Texas population can be divided into two groups, he said. One is an old and aging Anglo and the other is young and minority. Between 2000 and 2040, the state's public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said.
The state's largest county - Harris - will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades. By 2040, Harris County will have about 516, 000 fewer Anglos than lived in the Houston area in 2000, while the number of Hispanics will increase by 2.5 million during the same period, Murdock said. The projection assumes a net migration rate equal to one-half of 1990-2000.''
There are some depressing comments at the Houston Chronicle blog, the usual melting pot drivel, but the real prize comments come from Free Republic. Some samples of the FReeper wit and wisdom:
''When you have an immigrant group build up enough strength to "go forth and multiply" the best looking chicks are going to go for the guys with the best jobs, and there goes the old ethnic purity.
Even by Harry Truman's time it was common for an American to have half a dozen ethnicities lurking in the ol'woodpile.
Their Anglo-Chokras are struggling to present themselves AND they will! More than one Mexican momma is going to cry herself to sleep seeing that "the blond girl" has her little boy!''
And:
That Blond Girl just might be one of my GrandDaughters.
Blond Hair, Yes.
Blue Eyes, Yes.
1/4 Mestizo
Last name of Galvez.
Point well taken.
Many of the young people today are not so hungup on the whole Race thing.
People need to look past all the superficial stuff and concentrate on the person Values.
19 posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 5:05:58 PM by SwedeBoy2''
So the clueless and the colorblind are heard from.
Next, the inevitable 'we're doomed' posts, always popular everywhere this subject is discussed:
''Looking at population projections for Texas, "It's basically over for Anglos.
It was over years ago for Texas...
In fact, you're likely seeing the last White Governor of Texas...Eventually, the illegals will turn the Alamo into a medical clinic for illegal aliens.
No joke... ''
The first Mr. Clueless-and-colorblind returns to dispense more of his wisdom:
BTW, I'm aware that there's a tribe that used to own bunch of territory running from Kansas down to Waco ~ they eventually lost even their very dimished [sic] reservation during theCivil War.
They've outmarried to the degree that 'blond" is normal ~
BTW, everybody knows how they use the term "Anglo" West of the Mississippi. Still, if I were you and had any "anglo blood" I'd take my dirk and cut a hole in my arm to let it leach out. You just don't want any of that stuff ya' know. Scotts and Sa'ami are best by test!''
And there's more if you are in a masochistic mood.
I think that sadly, the FReepers pretty much represent a cross-section of the Republican voters of this country, and you can see how little ethnoloyalty or even basic knowledge of American history, genetics, culture, or anything else they possess. It was not always so on that Forum.
One side note here: it is disheartening to see how often, even on the 'realist' blogs, men will indicate that they are OK with outmarrying amongst Mexicans, Asians, and so on. And yet women are said to be more likely to outmarry. I don't know how it is possible to be an ethnopatriot and think outmarriage is OK if the women chosen as partners are of certain groups. You either are loyal to your people and your family line, or you are not. There is no kinda-sorta there.
Reading various blogs and forums, I am starting to think the doomsayers may be right -- or maybe it's just that their attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The question becomes, are these people salvageable? Is it realistic to think that we can 'reach out' and pull these people from the demographic conflagration that is America? Or must they be written off as basically ineducable and irredeemable? Ignorance is indeed bliss for some people. So these guys must be very blissful.
Maybe there is one in a thousand, or one in five thousand, that will one day get it. The rest, who do get it but who are total pessimists, will simply resign themselves bitterly to what they see as an inevitable fate.
I think we have to soldier on without some of these people who will never 'get it', because it is a waste of effort and an exercise in futility to think we can 'wake everybody up.' To use an analogy that I've used before, I recall the story that when Paul Revere, Samuel Prescott, and William Dawes rode out on that night in April, 1775, to warn the Middlesex folk that 'the Regulars' were coming, many people were angered at being awakened. Rather than wanting to help spread the alarm, or to prepare to defend themselves and their neighbors, they preferred to sleep on. They'd rather not know what was happening. I've often wondered why.
I suppose it is easier to cynically pronounce that we're powerless and the situation is hopeless, rather than having to roll up one's sleeves and prepare.
Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos'
'Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."
Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director and now director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University.
Today's Texas population can be divided into two groups, he said. One is an old and aging Anglo and the other is young and minority. Between 2000 and 2040, the state's public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said.
The state's largest county - Harris - will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades. By 2040, Harris County will have about 516, 000 fewer Anglos than lived in the Houston area in 2000, while the number of Hispanics will increase by 2.5 million during the same period, Murdock said. The projection assumes a net migration rate equal to one-half of 1990-2000.''
There are some depressing comments at the Houston Chronicle blog, the usual melting pot drivel, but the real prize comments come from Free Republic. Some samples of the FReeper wit and wisdom:
''When you have an immigrant group build up enough strength to "go forth and multiply" the best looking chicks are going to go for the guys with the best jobs, and there goes the old ethnic purity.
Even by Harry Truman's time it was common for an American to have half a dozen ethnicities lurking in the ol'woodpile.
Their Anglo-Chokras are struggling to present themselves AND they will! More than one Mexican momma is going to cry herself to sleep seeing that "the blond girl" has her little boy!''
And:
That Blond Girl just might be one of my GrandDaughters.
Blond Hair, Yes.
Blue Eyes, Yes.
1/4 Mestizo
Last name of Galvez.
Point well taken.
Many of the young people today are not so hungup on the whole Race thing.
People need to look past all the superficial stuff and concentrate on the person Values.
19 posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 5:05:58 PM by SwedeBoy2''
So the clueless and the colorblind are heard from.
Next, the inevitable 'we're doomed' posts, always popular everywhere this subject is discussed:
''Looking at population projections for Texas, "It's basically over for Anglos.
It was over years ago for Texas...
In fact, you're likely seeing the last White Governor of Texas...Eventually, the illegals will turn the Alamo into a medical clinic for illegal aliens.
No joke... ''
The first Mr. Clueless-and-colorblind returns to dispense more of his wisdom:
BTW, I'm aware that there's a tribe that used to own bunch of territory running from Kansas down to Waco ~ they eventually lost even their very dimished [sic] reservation during theCivil War.
They've outmarried to the degree that 'blond" is normal ~
BTW, everybody knows how they use the term "Anglo" West of the Mississippi. Still, if I were you and had any "anglo blood" I'd take my dirk and cut a hole in my arm to let it leach out. You just don't want any of that stuff ya' know. Scotts and Sa'ami are best by test!''
And there's more if you are in a masochistic mood.
I think that sadly, the FReepers pretty much represent a cross-section of the Republican voters of this country, and you can see how little ethnoloyalty or even basic knowledge of American history, genetics, culture, or anything else they possess. It was not always so on that Forum.
One side note here: it is disheartening to see how often, even on the 'realist' blogs, men will indicate that they are OK with outmarrying amongst Mexicans, Asians, and so on. And yet women are said to be more likely to outmarry. I don't know how it is possible to be an ethnopatriot and think outmarriage is OK if the women chosen as partners are of certain groups. You either are loyal to your people and your family line, or you are not. There is no kinda-sorta there.
Reading various blogs and forums, I am starting to think the doomsayers may be right -- or maybe it's just that their attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The question becomes, are these people salvageable? Is it realistic to think that we can 'reach out' and pull these people from the demographic conflagration that is America? Or must they be written off as basically ineducable and irredeemable? Ignorance is indeed bliss for some people. So these guys must be very blissful.
Maybe there is one in a thousand, or one in five thousand, that will one day get it. The rest, who do get it but who are total pessimists, will simply resign themselves bitterly to what they see as an inevitable fate.
I think we have to soldier on without some of these people who will never 'get it', because it is a waste of effort and an exercise in futility to think we can 'wake everybody up.' To use an analogy that I've used before, I recall the story that when Paul Revere, Samuel Prescott, and William Dawes rode out on that night in April, 1775, to warn the Middlesex folk that 'the Regulars' were coming, many people were angered at being awakened. Rather than wanting to help spread the alarm, or to prepare to defend themselves and their neighbors, they preferred to sleep on. They'd rather not know what was happening. I've often wondered why.
I suppose it is easier to cynically pronounce that we're powerless and the situation is hopeless, rather than having to roll up one's sleeves and prepare.
Labels: Demographic Warfare, Ethnoloyalty, Mass Immigration, Outmarriage, Race Replacement
0 comment Friday, October 17, 2014 | admin
This odd story has been discussed in a couple of blog posts at Steve Sailer's blog and has provided fodder for a lot of jokes among the commentariat.
It is laughable on one level, but the picture it paints, of a certain type of White liberal/leftist, is depressing.
Lots of pro-White bloggers and writers have written at length about Whites' misplaced altruism and inverted empathy for aliens at the expense of our own, and this story is a rather exaggerated example.
The hoaxster, a 40-year-old man who posed as a young lesbian living in Syria, offers the typical leftist defense of his deception:
"While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground," he writes.''
Ah, the ''truthiness'' defense. The details may not have been true, but they COULD have represented a truth.
A few people, in commenting on MacMaster's bizarre hoax, have remarked how the whole victimhood storyline is something that plays well among the multiculturalist set, the people who perpetually idealize the sainted 'Others', especially if they are of the LGBT persuasion. Then there is the glamorizing of this 'Arab Spring' storyline, with the oppressed Arabs as noble fighters for Freedom.
But actually, another group of avid fans of this kind of storyline is the neocon/counterjihad group. One of the things that led to my disillusionment with the counterjihadists several years back is that American counterjihad types seemed to be excessively focused on Europe and the Middle East, rather than on our country. I always wondered why their main concern was for these far-off places, while this country, our country, is being invaded and colonized, and our whole system seems to be crumbling. And it is not all due to Islam.
I certainly care about Europe; I follow the news from that part of the world, and I wish our European cousins well, but Europeans are ultimately the ones in whose hands Europe's future rests, and America must be defended by Americans. Nobody out there in the wider world will come to our aid, or lie awake nights fretting over us and our future. It's up to us, and it's up to the Europeans to defend their interests.
Still, many Americans seem to feel more comfortable (verbally) fighting Islam, especially on the European front, rather than tackling our home-centered problems like mass immigration, urban violence, and the degrading of our culture. I think partly this is because it is acceptable to oppose Islam, especially among those on the Republican right. However, I've noticed that for these people, their political incorrectness does not extend to criticizing other minority groups; only Islam is fair game.
Other minority groups are higher on the PC totem pole, and must not be spoken ill of. Moslems, however, enjoy less protection from criticism, at least among Republicans.
Leftists will criticize Islam if it conflicts with their pro-gay belief system. Feminists on the left are less willing to take a stand against Moslem mistreatment of women, though feminists on the right will criticize Islam on their misogyny, as well as their 'homophobia.'
I've long noticed that the counterjihad right tends to exalt and fawn over Moslem feminists (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and, for example, Irshad Manji, Glenn Beck's favorite lipstick lesbian.
And the shock stories about 'honor killings' or stoning of women in some Islamic country are always popular, with the underlying message being that we have to come to the aid of these poor victims of Islam. We should make their struggle our own. The fact is, though, this is not our responsibility. We have our own people to look out for, and yet somehow it seems to be the preference of many White Americans to weep over people on the other side of the world, and the more 'other' the better.
It is laughable on one level, but the picture it paints, of a certain type of White liberal/leftist, is depressing.
Lots of pro-White bloggers and writers have written at length about Whites' misplaced altruism and inverted empathy for aliens at the expense of our own, and this story is a rather exaggerated example.
The hoaxster, a 40-year-old man who posed as a young lesbian living in Syria, offers the typical leftist defense of his deception:
"While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground," he writes.''
Ah, the ''truthiness'' defense. The details may not have been true, but they COULD have represented a truth.
A few people, in commenting on MacMaster's bizarre hoax, have remarked how the whole victimhood storyline is something that plays well among the multiculturalist set, the people who perpetually idealize the sainted 'Others', especially if they are of the LGBT persuasion. Then there is the glamorizing of this 'Arab Spring' storyline, with the oppressed Arabs as noble fighters for Freedom.
But actually, another group of avid fans of this kind of storyline is the neocon/counterjihad group. One of the things that led to my disillusionment with the counterjihadists several years back is that American counterjihad types seemed to be excessively focused on Europe and the Middle East, rather than on our country. I always wondered why their main concern was for these far-off places, while this country, our country, is being invaded and colonized, and our whole system seems to be crumbling. And it is not all due to Islam.
I certainly care about Europe; I follow the news from that part of the world, and I wish our European cousins well, but Europeans are ultimately the ones in whose hands Europe's future rests, and America must be defended by Americans. Nobody out there in the wider world will come to our aid, or lie awake nights fretting over us and our future. It's up to us, and it's up to the Europeans to defend their interests.
Still, many Americans seem to feel more comfortable (verbally) fighting Islam, especially on the European front, rather than tackling our home-centered problems like mass immigration, urban violence, and the degrading of our culture. I think partly this is because it is acceptable to oppose Islam, especially among those on the Republican right. However, I've noticed that for these people, their political incorrectness does not extend to criticizing other minority groups; only Islam is fair game.
Other minority groups are higher on the PC totem pole, and must not be spoken ill of. Moslems, however, enjoy less protection from criticism, at least among Republicans.
Leftists will criticize Islam if it conflicts with their pro-gay belief system. Feminists on the left are less willing to take a stand against Moslem mistreatment of women, though feminists on the right will criticize Islam on their misogyny, as well as their 'homophobia.'
I've long noticed that the counterjihad right tends to exalt and fawn over Moslem feminists (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and, for example, Irshad Manji, Glenn Beck's favorite lipstick lesbian.
And the shock stories about 'honor killings' or stoning of women in some Islamic country are always popular, with the underlying message being that we have to come to the aid of these poor victims of Islam. We should make their struggle our own. The fact is, though, this is not our responsibility. We have our own people to look out for, and yet somehow it seems to be the preference of many White Americans to weep over people on the other side of the world, and the more 'other' the better.
Labels: Ethnocentrism, Ethnoloyalty, Islam, Non-Interventionism, Xenophilia
0 comment Tuesday, September 23, 2014 | admin
...is indifference.
It appears that the rumors about the identity of the beating victim were true. Apparently the victim was a transsexual. However I still stand by my original skeptical stance about the rumor; it's still sound practice to take almost anything rumored on the Internet with a huge helping of salt.
It is interesting how many on our side are ready and eager to believe something they saw on the Internet as credible, when in most cases we all decry the dishonesty and corruption of the 'mainstream' media sources. It seems the need to believe something sometimes overrides that skepticism, and for some reason it seems to be welcome news for many conservatives and some 'realists' that the victim was 'just' a transsexual. That makes it just fine, apparently. But I maintain what I said at the beginning: the behavior was unconscionable and should be intolerable in a civilized country. There's no excusing it, and regardless of who was attacked in that fashion, it's evil.
I do notice that the incident is still not being picked up by the major media outlets; celebrity news and other trivia takes precedence. And it would seem, if political correctness were a coherent and reasonable worldview, that they would cover this story widely, just as they cover most incidents of 'gay-bashing'. But again, race protects the perpetrators. If the attackers had been White, the incident would have been discussed everywhere, as a way of sermonizing against the intolerance of White Americans.
But because of the hierarchy of PC victimhood, the attackers will escape the vilification and they will not be made examples of.
Like a lot of Americans, I've been a victim of crime on two occasions, and the perpetrators were not White. In one incident, had my wallet stolen from my purse (which was slung over my shoulder), and this, with a baby in my arms. The thieves were two black guys, and several people witnessed it -- including a White man, who did nothing to stop it. In retrospect, I wonder why he did nothing while watching it. This was in broad daylight, in a downtown business district; it was not in the 'inner city' where we were outnumbered. But he said nothing. He might have spoken up, but I think that he was afraid to say anything. Others who saw it probably had the 'none of my business, don't want to get involved' attitude that prevails in most places today.
Many times I've witnessed Whites being intimidated or harassed or threatened in public -- and I've been the recipient of that kind of unwanted attention myself, for no reason whatsoever. But it seems that most people turn a blind eye, and pretend not to see or hear anything. There's no kin loyalty, there's no altruism towards our own. I truly think most Americans feel that they are not any more connected to their genetic kin than they are to random nonwhites. They seem to feel no common bond with their own.
The reactions to the Baltimore incident seem to indicate that, too. Remarkably few of the comments online from professed 'race realists' or WNs express and unequivocal feeling of kinship. When the rumor about the transsexual status was introduced, then there were a lot of harsh comments about how beating such a person was fine with them, or that it needed doing. Others claimed the victim was nonwhite -- which appears not to be true at all. But anything to distance themselves. I don't understand that.
It's dawned slowly on me that loyalty is what is lacking. It's all well and good to acknowledge racial differences -- or 'HBD' to use the nonthreatening euphemism -- that's obvious to all but the most brainwashed, after all. But it's quite another to feel a kinship, a connection, and above all, a bond of loyalty to our own. We should feel this way towards our close relatives and extended families, but I meet an incredible number of people, especially up North, who seem not to know or care to know any relatives beyond their immediate nuclear family. I grew up in a family where cousins were cousins, even fairly distant ones. We knew we were kin, and we had a sense of belonging. I don't see this as much in our day. It should be something that spreads outward to our larger 'extended family' which is our ethny or our race. But it seems not to be so these days.
Kin loyalty means that we feel a sense of responsibility and a certain protectiveness towards one another and a caring for the well-being of the larger group. I don't think it's as easy to expand that kind of bond outward to humanity as a whole, as the multicultists are trying to force us to do, or even to extend it to our 'civic' family, our fellow Americans with whom we have no blood connection, nor even a cultural connection.
If we don't have this kind of bond or loyalty, a sense that we are all in this together, then we don't have what it takes to preserve ourselves and our posterity, and survive in a world in which we are the targets. It's fine to be a 'realist' or an HBDer or a nationalist, but the vital ingredient is loyalty. Are we loyalists, or are we just disssenters or dabblers? What we are for is more of a motivator than what we are against.
It appears that the rumors about the identity of the beating victim were true. Apparently the victim was a transsexual. However I still stand by my original skeptical stance about the rumor; it's still sound practice to take almost anything rumored on the Internet with a huge helping of salt.
It is interesting how many on our side are ready and eager to believe something they saw on the Internet as credible, when in most cases we all decry the dishonesty and corruption of the 'mainstream' media sources. It seems the need to believe something sometimes overrides that skepticism, and for some reason it seems to be welcome news for many conservatives and some 'realists' that the victim was 'just' a transsexual. That makes it just fine, apparently. But I maintain what I said at the beginning: the behavior was unconscionable and should be intolerable in a civilized country. There's no excusing it, and regardless of who was attacked in that fashion, it's evil.
I do notice that the incident is still not being picked up by the major media outlets; celebrity news and other trivia takes precedence. And it would seem, if political correctness were a coherent and reasonable worldview, that they would cover this story widely, just as they cover most incidents of 'gay-bashing'. But again, race protects the perpetrators. If the attackers had been White, the incident would have been discussed everywhere, as a way of sermonizing against the intolerance of White Americans.
But because of the hierarchy of PC victimhood, the attackers will escape the vilification and they will not be made examples of.
Like a lot of Americans, I've been a victim of crime on two occasions, and the perpetrators were not White. In one incident, had my wallet stolen from my purse (which was slung over my shoulder), and this, with a baby in my arms. The thieves were two black guys, and several people witnessed it -- including a White man, who did nothing to stop it. In retrospect, I wonder why he did nothing while watching it. This was in broad daylight, in a downtown business district; it was not in the 'inner city' where we were outnumbered. But he said nothing. He might have spoken up, but I think that he was afraid to say anything. Others who saw it probably had the 'none of my business, don't want to get involved' attitude that prevails in most places today.
Many times I've witnessed Whites being intimidated or harassed or threatened in public -- and I've been the recipient of that kind of unwanted attention myself, for no reason whatsoever. But it seems that most people turn a blind eye, and pretend not to see or hear anything. There's no kin loyalty, there's no altruism towards our own. I truly think most Americans feel that they are not any more connected to their genetic kin than they are to random nonwhites. They seem to feel no common bond with their own.
The reactions to the Baltimore incident seem to indicate that, too. Remarkably few of the comments online from professed 'race realists' or WNs express and unequivocal feeling of kinship. When the rumor about the transsexual status was introduced, then there were a lot of harsh comments about how beating such a person was fine with them, or that it needed doing. Others claimed the victim was nonwhite -- which appears not to be true at all. But anything to distance themselves. I don't understand that.
It's dawned slowly on me that loyalty is what is lacking. It's all well and good to acknowledge racial differences -- or 'HBD' to use the nonthreatening euphemism -- that's obvious to all but the most brainwashed, after all. But it's quite another to feel a kinship, a connection, and above all, a bond of loyalty to our own. We should feel this way towards our close relatives and extended families, but I meet an incredible number of people, especially up North, who seem not to know or care to know any relatives beyond their immediate nuclear family. I grew up in a family where cousins were cousins, even fairly distant ones. We knew we were kin, and we had a sense of belonging. I don't see this as much in our day. It should be something that spreads outward to our larger 'extended family' which is our ethny or our race. But it seems not to be so these days.
Kin loyalty means that we feel a sense of responsibility and a certain protectiveness towards one another and a caring for the well-being of the larger group. I don't think it's as easy to expand that kind of bond outward to humanity as a whole, as the multicultists are trying to force us to do, or even to extend it to our 'civic' family, our fellow Americans with whom we have no blood connection, nor even a cultural connection.
If we don't have this kind of bond or loyalty, a sense that we are all in this together, then we don't have what it takes to preserve ourselves and our posterity, and survive in a world in which we are the targets. It's fine to be a 'realist' or an HBDer or a nationalist, but the vital ingredient is loyalty. Are we loyalists, or are we just disssenters or dabblers? What we are for is more of a motivator than what we are against.
Labels: Ethnocentrism, Ethnoloyalty, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness
0 comment Tuesday, August 5, 2014 | admin
One of the vexing politically correct habits, which I've alluded to before is the knee-jerk, all-purpose response of ''they're not all like that.'' Our people seem to have had this ingrained into them, indelibly etched into their brains, judging by how often they employ this meme.
The ''They'' who are ''not all like that'' in this context means minorities, mainly nonwhites and non-Christians. It seems to be the way that liberals both Republican and Democrat, talk themselves into clinging to their 'colorblindness' and 'tolerance.' It is the ready answer when confronted with news stories involving interracial crime (black on white, to cite the most common) or misdeeds by other non-White or non-Christian people. The latter may be Moslems or they may be Jews; the colorblind Republican rigidly holds to the idea that all bad behavior, all aggression, passive or active, against us by such people, is the exception. They are not all like that! If you cite some outrage perpetrated by one of any of the favored victim groups, the colorblind conservatives will cite some exemplary person of that same group. The one person in a hundred or in a thousand is to be the 'real' example of their group, not the majority.
Events like the recent rash of violence at various McDonald's franchises simply calls forth references to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain or Allen West, or name your 'favorite' minority exemplar.
The prize-winner in this category was some poster on Free Republic who said, in discussing the McDonald's beating in Baltimore "I would die fighting for Allen West, Herman Cain, Walter Williams, or any of our black conservatives.'' Ponder the significance of that kind of thing coming from a White. How many White people today would defend their own folk in that fashion? That kind of devotion should belong only to God or to one's nearest and dearest, but yet we have people saying that about these public figures, who have somehow achieved demigod status among some conservatives.
This really does border on idolatry, as Cambria Will Not Yield alludes to on his blog frequently.
How does it happen that this kind of zeal on behalf of Others is so ingrained in many people today? The quick answer is 'programming, or indoctrination', but as we've asked here before, how did it come to be that our people were so susceptible to this kind of upside-down thinking?
It's no good answering ''Christianity programmed them'', considering that the rise of this kind of adulation of Others grew only as Christianity declined. Christianity, throughout most of its existence, was free of such deluded servility. The old-time Christian believed in bringing the gospel to far-off nations but most had realistic attitudes about the people in those countries. There was no looking up to them as sages or saviors, as with today's twisted multicult image of Third Worlders. Today's fawning attitudes owe more to Rousseau and his idea of the 'noble savage', the savage as innocent, unspoiled child, than to anything in Christianity. The left and their religious arm, the 'new agers', revere something called 'crazy wisdom' which they believe resides only in pure third-worlders or alien peoples and religions.
So now we have this mass of people whose knee-jerk impulse is to defend Others rather than their own flesh and bone.
And these people maintain their absurd ideas by telling themselves that all these violent crimes are anomalies, random acts, the work of only a few bad apples. The 'real' representatives of any given group are the few who conform to our standards.
This is true whether the group being discussed is blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews or whoever.
A few years ago when I posted links to articles about problems with Somalis refugees in Maine, I got an irate and condemnatory comment from some goody-two-shoes in Maine who claimed that Somalis are wonderful hard-working people who get along famously with their White neighbors.
So first comes the race card, or the victim card, followed closely by ''they're not all like that.'' Sometimes the next cliche on the list is that 'Whites commit lots of crimes too.''
I truly do see this attitude and defense mechanism as an impediment to facing reality. As long as our people can continue to take refuge in these facile cliches, these platitudes, I see little hope of honesty and clear-thinking.
And it seems that conservatives in particular cling fiercely to these notions, often lashing out at anybody who tries to dispute the facts with them.
Perhaps decades of maleducation has left many people unable to spot faulty logic or fallacious thinking. It should be obvious to anybody who can think that there are undeniable patterns, patterns which are unfailing predictors of how groups of people will generally behave. They truly think that if they can find one exception somewhere, the many 'bad apples' are therefore insignificant. We can disregard them, because they are not representative; the few are the real 'typical' members of that group, or so they maintain.
For instance, in talking with people I have cited the correlation between 'diversity' in a city or town and crime, or social deterioration and pathology. I can show people statistic after statistic as evidence of the link between demographics and the 'liveability' of a given place. Detroit is probably the prime example of this, but then you are met with these absurd explanations such as the articles about the 'Ruins of Detroit' being examples of Democrat misrule! For many 'conservatives', minority dysfunction or bad behavior is due to 'liberals keeping them ignorant and dependent.' In other words, if only they would read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, or listen to Allen West, blacks might all be successful businessmen and high-achieving, law-abiding citizens.
But the mere existence of Williams or Sowell or Cain is incontrovertible proof that ''they're not all like that'' -- they are all in fact potential Herman Cains, and Hispanics are all potential Marco Rubios.
I cited my personal experiences in my previous post, with being a crime victim, and since those things happened, I've had a great variety of unpleasant interactions with random 'Others' who behaved aggressively towards me or mine. However, I'm sorry to say it was years before the cumulative weight of all those bad experiences, and of hearing or seeing the bad experiences of others, led me to see how preposterous our racial cliches are, how out of touch with reality, how false.
It seems it often takes much hard experience to wake people up -- yet some people persist in their stubborn delusions. Why? It must have some payoff for them; it makes them ''feel good about themselves'' to know that whatever they are they are not 'racist'. For most Americans, sad to say, that is the single most defining proof of virtue or character, to be 'colorblind' or 'tolerant.' Some people will even give up their lives rather than relinquish their illusions.
A variant on this 'they're not all like that' meme is the 'favorite minority'. I see this a lot among HBDers, who, even in using the acronym, 'NAM', indicate that Asians are given an exemption from criticism; they are the good immigrants who will benefit our country by bringing us their high IQs and 'successful'' wealth-creating ways. The Non-Asians are the group who are the lesser -- though many of the HBDers seem enamored of Hispanics, especially the 'hot' Hispanic women or Filipinas. At AmRen, many regulars seem to have their favorite minorities, including even the Sikhs, who have been involved in violence according to recent news stories.
In a way I think even people who are 'race realists' or even WNs believe in the proposition nation business; they are willing to accept others, however alien, if they think that these people accept American laws or 'contribute to society' or don't commit too many crimes.
How do we persuade people who refuse to recognize patterns and accept reality?
Or again, is it even necessary to win them over? Do we need the majority on board with us, or do we just need to neutralize this nonsense and hope they will stop working against their own folk?
The ''They'' who are ''not all like that'' in this context means minorities, mainly nonwhites and non-Christians. It seems to be the way that liberals both Republican and Democrat, talk themselves into clinging to their 'colorblindness' and 'tolerance.' It is the ready answer when confronted with news stories involving interracial crime (black on white, to cite the most common) or misdeeds by other non-White or non-Christian people. The latter may be Moslems or they may be Jews; the colorblind Republican rigidly holds to the idea that all bad behavior, all aggression, passive or active, against us by such people, is the exception. They are not all like that! If you cite some outrage perpetrated by one of any of the favored victim groups, the colorblind conservatives will cite some exemplary person of that same group. The one person in a hundred or in a thousand is to be the 'real' example of their group, not the majority.
Events like the recent rash of violence at various McDonald's franchises simply calls forth references to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain or Allen West, or name your 'favorite' minority exemplar.
The prize-winner in this category was some poster on Free Republic who said, in discussing the McDonald's beating in Baltimore "I would die fighting for Allen West, Herman Cain, Walter Williams, or any of our black conservatives.'' Ponder the significance of that kind of thing coming from a White. How many White people today would defend their own folk in that fashion? That kind of devotion should belong only to God or to one's nearest and dearest, but yet we have people saying that about these public figures, who have somehow achieved demigod status among some conservatives.
This really does border on idolatry, as Cambria Will Not Yield alludes to on his blog frequently.
How does it happen that this kind of zeal on behalf of Others is so ingrained in many people today? The quick answer is 'programming, or indoctrination', but as we've asked here before, how did it come to be that our people were so susceptible to this kind of upside-down thinking?
It's no good answering ''Christianity programmed them'', considering that the rise of this kind of adulation of Others grew only as Christianity declined. Christianity, throughout most of its existence, was free of such deluded servility. The old-time Christian believed in bringing the gospel to far-off nations but most had realistic attitudes about the people in those countries. There was no looking up to them as sages or saviors, as with today's twisted multicult image of Third Worlders. Today's fawning attitudes owe more to Rousseau and his idea of the 'noble savage', the savage as innocent, unspoiled child, than to anything in Christianity. The left and their religious arm, the 'new agers', revere something called 'crazy wisdom' which they believe resides only in pure third-worlders or alien peoples and religions.
So now we have this mass of people whose knee-jerk impulse is to defend Others rather than their own flesh and bone.
And these people maintain their absurd ideas by telling themselves that all these violent crimes are anomalies, random acts, the work of only a few bad apples. The 'real' representatives of any given group are the few who conform to our standards.
This is true whether the group being discussed is blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews or whoever.
A few years ago when I posted links to articles about problems with Somalis refugees in Maine, I got an irate and condemnatory comment from some goody-two-shoes in Maine who claimed that Somalis are wonderful hard-working people who get along famously with their White neighbors.
So first comes the race card, or the victim card, followed closely by ''they're not all like that.'' Sometimes the next cliche on the list is that 'Whites commit lots of crimes too.''
I truly do see this attitude and defense mechanism as an impediment to facing reality. As long as our people can continue to take refuge in these facile cliches, these platitudes, I see little hope of honesty and clear-thinking.
And it seems that conservatives in particular cling fiercely to these notions, often lashing out at anybody who tries to dispute the facts with them.
Perhaps decades of maleducation has left many people unable to spot faulty logic or fallacious thinking. It should be obvious to anybody who can think that there are undeniable patterns, patterns which are unfailing predictors of how groups of people will generally behave. They truly think that if they can find one exception somewhere, the many 'bad apples' are therefore insignificant. We can disregard them, because they are not representative; the few are the real 'typical' members of that group, or so they maintain.
For instance, in talking with people I have cited the correlation between 'diversity' in a city or town and crime, or social deterioration and pathology. I can show people statistic after statistic as evidence of the link between demographics and the 'liveability' of a given place. Detroit is probably the prime example of this, but then you are met with these absurd explanations such as the articles about the 'Ruins of Detroit' being examples of Democrat misrule! For many 'conservatives', minority dysfunction or bad behavior is due to 'liberals keeping them ignorant and dependent.' In other words, if only they would read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, or listen to Allen West, blacks might all be successful businessmen and high-achieving, law-abiding citizens.
But the mere existence of Williams or Sowell or Cain is incontrovertible proof that ''they're not all like that'' -- they are all in fact potential Herman Cains, and Hispanics are all potential Marco Rubios.
I cited my personal experiences in my previous post, with being a crime victim, and since those things happened, I've had a great variety of unpleasant interactions with random 'Others' who behaved aggressively towards me or mine. However, I'm sorry to say it was years before the cumulative weight of all those bad experiences, and of hearing or seeing the bad experiences of others, led me to see how preposterous our racial cliches are, how out of touch with reality, how false.
It seems it often takes much hard experience to wake people up -- yet some people persist in their stubborn delusions. Why? It must have some payoff for them; it makes them ''feel good about themselves'' to know that whatever they are they are not 'racist'. For most Americans, sad to say, that is the single most defining proof of virtue or character, to be 'colorblind' or 'tolerant.' Some people will even give up their lives rather than relinquish their illusions.
A variant on this 'they're not all like that' meme is the 'favorite minority'. I see this a lot among HBDers, who, even in using the acronym, 'NAM', indicate that Asians are given an exemption from criticism; they are the good immigrants who will benefit our country by bringing us their high IQs and 'successful'' wealth-creating ways. The Non-Asians are the group who are the lesser -- though many of the HBDers seem enamored of Hispanics, especially the 'hot' Hispanic women or Filipinas. At AmRen, many regulars seem to have their favorite minorities, including even the Sikhs, who have been involved in violence according to recent news stories.
In a way I think even people who are 'race realists' or even WNs believe in the proposition nation business; they are willing to accept others, however alien, if they think that these people accept American laws or 'contribute to society' or don't commit too many crimes.
How do we persuade people who refuse to recognize patterns and accept reality?
Or again, is it even necessary to win them over? Do we need the majority on board with us, or do we just need to neutralize this nonsense and hope they will stop working against their own folk?
Labels: Colorblind Conservatives, Ethnoloyalty, Indoctrination, Political Correctness