0 comment Monday, November 3, 2014 | admin
(Click to view larger image)The newspaper clipping above was originally posted at the blog USA Death Watch, back in 2008.
I hope blogger AndyK does not mind my re-posting the image here. But the article, from 1995, is very interesting to read. I read it when it was first posted on USA Death Watch, and it seems relevant now in a lot of ways, including the fact that it mentions Jared Taylor.
It's interesting to note how subjects like those discussed in the article are now verboten in the so-called mainstream media. Can any of you imagine a piece like this appearing in most newspapers now? Could Jared Taylor be mentioned without disparaging phrases such as 'far right' or 'hate group' or some such hysteria?
1995 seems like a long time ago. Granted, it was 16 years ago but it seems more like 160 years in terms of how much things have changed.
There are some very good pieces over at AndyK's blog, although it appears that he has not been updating his blog for some time. It would be a shame if he has discontinued blogging altogether; I hope he hasn't, but at least there are some interesting things in his archives. This piece is about the futuristic fiction story by William S. Lind, which was mentioned in the article linked above. It is set in a 'Utopian 2050'. Of course the future is actually dystopian, as is the case with any leftist 'utopia.' But it is fascinating to see how closely Lind's projections fit the reality of the 21st century, at least so far. He was off the mark on a couple of things, but uncannily accurate on others.
Labels: Future, Multiculturalism, Speculative Fiction
0 comment Wednesday, September 10, 2014 | admin
I have to take a break from some of the controversial subjects of the last few days, so how about a repeat of a corny joke you have probably all heard, in some form:
The Saudi Ambassador to the UN has just finished giving a speech, and walks out into the lobby where he meets his American counterpart. They shake hands and as they walk the Saudi says, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America."
The American says "Well your Excellency, anything I can do to help you I will do."
The Saudi whispers "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there are Russians and Blacks and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."
The American laughs and leans over and says, "That's because it takes place in the future."
This is all by way of an intro to the Star Trek weekend they have been having at NRO, of all places.
James Lileks has one of the better entries, of those I've read, at least, called A Conservative Trek.
I confess to having been a Star Trek fan -- that is, of the original series, not the later counterfeits of the same name. Like James Lileks, however, I was never a 'Trekkie' or even a 'Trekker' as some of the really serious fans insisted on calling themselves. I never went to a Star Trek convention or any sci-fi 'con' although I knew people who did.
In recent years, though, since I've returned to my conservative roots, to the traditional values under which we were all brought up back when, Trek has lost whatever luster it had in my eyes, mainly because I have become uncomfortably aware of the agenda being pushed in many of the Trek episodes. Nowadays, we see a leftist/multiculturalist agenda being pushed relentlessly in all our entertainment, but back in the late 60s, that trend was just beginning. Back then, there was entertainment that was actually not propaganda, but mere silly diversion and fun. But much of Star Trek, seen through the eyes of an awakened conservative, seems clumsily preachy, embarrassingly so. The 'one world' agenda: back when I was a teen, when this series first appeared, I thought, as most idealistic youngsters would, 'oh, wow, cool, we will all be one world where everybody gets along and works together!' As an adult, I see the folly of that, the impracticability.
And then the feminist agenda: women in space, as the equals of men! Or sort of equals; the original pilot episode had a female second-in-command, played by a dark-haired Majel Barrett; she was rather no-nonsense, not at all the miniskirted cutie like most of the female crew members in the later series.
And Star Trek was an early advocate of 'multiculturalism' or at least pluralism; one of each was represented in the crew. Of course the later spinoff series were much farther gone down that road: not only multiple nationalities of earthlings, but aliens galore. That's real multiracialism; why be 'species-ist'?
But as Lileks says in his entertaining piece,
Nevertheless, the best Trek was conservative: it was rooted in the unchanging nature of man, be they hooting hominids on the plains of Earth throwing rocks at prey, or civilized spacefarers Money, power, lust, war: These were the constants, and Star Trek knew they�d follow us to infinity and beyond. At best we could find enlightened, savvy ways to avoid the pointless fights. But some people only understand a photon torpedo up the dorsal vent port, and we�d best be prepared to deal with them. The Federation, after all, had something called General Order 24, which called for the total destruction of a planet�s surface if the civilization was considered a threat to the Federation. As Vader might have said: Impressive.''
I have to say I've noticed that, too; a number of the Trek episodes had very conservative messages. I guess society hadn't attained to the present level of liberal 'enlightenment.' In a number of episodes, Kirk argued for the necessity of aggression and force in fighting evil. Another episode with a perhaps inadvertently conservative message was 'The Enemy Within', in which Kirk, split into two 'selves' via a transporter malfunction, had to fight his evil self, while his 'good' self proved ineffectual to do so. It was acknowledged that the aggressive, violent side had to be integrated with the good, though weak side in order for him to be an effective leader. Our society needs that lesson right now.
Lileks also mentions episodes like 'Errand of Mercy' in which Kirk tries to rally the seemingly passive people of a planet against the marauding Klingons, but the people have 'evolved beyond' aggression and in fact evolved beyond those troublesome physical bodies. That sounds like a liberal fantasy.
And then Lileks mentions the episode 'City on the Edge of Forever', written by Harlan Ellison, in which Kirk has to let his sweetie die so she won't found a pacifist movement. When I was young, I thought his letting her walk out in front of a car was tragic and wrong, but now I'm less sure.
The multicultural agenda of the original Trek used to bother me as I became conservative, but now that I think about it, it actually gives us cause for hope. Here's why: if today's multiculturalists are successful, there would not be any separate races or nationalities in the 23rd century. We would, if their plans succeed, be all one homogeneous group of people: no Russians, no Americans, no Scotsmen, no Swahili-speaking Africans, no Irishmen. Just Earthlings. But since all these people exist in the Star Trek future -- minus the Arabs -- maybe we and our cultures will forestall this Tower of Babel disaster that is being engineered.
And if the Arabs aren't a part of The Federation, maybe that's a sign that separationism will have succeeded.
We can hope. That's the message of Star Trek.
The Saudi Ambassador to the UN has just finished giving a speech, and walks out into the lobby where he meets his American counterpart. They shake hands and as they walk the Saudi says, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America."
The American says "Well your Excellency, anything I can do to help you I will do."
The Saudi whispers "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there are Russians and Blacks and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."
The American laughs and leans over and says, "That's because it takes place in the future."
This is all by way of an intro to the Star Trek weekend they have been having at NRO, of all places.
James Lileks has one of the better entries, of those I've read, at least, called A Conservative Trek.
I confess to having been a Star Trek fan -- that is, of the original series, not the later counterfeits of the same name. Like James Lileks, however, I was never a 'Trekkie' or even a 'Trekker' as some of the really serious fans insisted on calling themselves. I never went to a Star Trek convention or any sci-fi 'con' although I knew people who did.
In recent years, though, since I've returned to my conservative roots, to the traditional values under which we were all brought up back when, Trek has lost whatever luster it had in my eyes, mainly because I have become uncomfortably aware of the agenda being pushed in many of the Trek episodes. Nowadays, we see a leftist/multiculturalist agenda being pushed relentlessly in all our entertainment, but back in the late 60s, that trend was just beginning. Back then, there was entertainment that was actually not propaganda, but mere silly diversion and fun. But much of Star Trek, seen through the eyes of an awakened conservative, seems clumsily preachy, embarrassingly so. The 'one world' agenda: back when I was a teen, when this series first appeared, I thought, as most idealistic youngsters would, 'oh, wow, cool, we will all be one world where everybody gets along and works together!' As an adult, I see the folly of that, the impracticability.
And then the feminist agenda: women in space, as the equals of men! Or sort of equals; the original pilot episode had a female second-in-command, played by a dark-haired Majel Barrett; she was rather no-nonsense, not at all the miniskirted cutie like most of the female crew members in the later series.
And Star Trek was an early advocate of 'multiculturalism' or at least pluralism; one of each was represented in the crew. Of course the later spinoff series were much farther gone down that road: not only multiple nationalities of earthlings, but aliens galore. That's real multiracialism; why be 'species-ist'?
But as Lileks says in his entertaining piece,
Nevertheless, the best Trek was conservative: it was rooted in the unchanging nature of man, be they hooting hominids on the plains of Earth throwing rocks at prey, or civilized spacefarers Money, power, lust, war: These were the constants, and Star Trek knew they�d follow us to infinity and beyond. At best we could find enlightened, savvy ways to avoid the pointless fights. But some people only understand a photon torpedo up the dorsal vent port, and we�d best be prepared to deal with them. The Federation, after all, had something called General Order 24, which called for the total destruction of a planet�s surface if the civilization was considered a threat to the Federation. As Vader might have said: Impressive.''
I have to say I've noticed that, too; a number of the Trek episodes had very conservative messages. I guess society hadn't attained to the present level of liberal 'enlightenment.' In a number of episodes, Kirk argued for the necessity of aggression and force in fighting evil. Another episode with a perhaps inadvertently conservative message was 'The Enemy Within', in which Kirk, split into two 'selves' via a transporter malfunction, had to fight his evil self, while his 'good' self proved ineffectual to do so. It was acknowledged that the aggressive, violent side had to be integrated with the good, though weak side in order for him to be an effective leader. Our society needs that lesson right now.
Lileks also mentions episodes like 'Errand of Mercy' in which Kirk tries to rally the seemingly passive people of a planet against the marauding Klingons, but the people have 'evolved beyond' aggression and in fact evolved beyond those troublesome physical bodies. That sounds like a liberal fantasy.
And then Lileks mentions the episode 'City on the Edge of Forever', written by Harlan Ellison, in which Kirk has to let his sweetie die so she won't found a pacifist movement. When I was young, I thought his letting her walk out in front of a car was tragic and wrong, but now I'm less sure.
The multicultural agenda of the original Trek used to bother me as I became conservative, but now that I think about it, it actually gives us cause for hope. Here's why: if today's multiculturalists are successful, there would not be any separate races or nationalities in the 23rd century. We would, if their plans succeed, be all one homogeneous group of people: no Russians, no Americans, no Scotsmen, no Swahili-speaking Africans, no Irishmen. Just Earthlings. But since all these people exist in the Star Trek future -- minus the Arabs -- maybe we and our cultures will forestall this Tower of Babel disaster that is being engineered.
And if the Arabs aren't a part of The Federation, maybe that's a sign that separationism will have succeeded.
We can hope. That's the message of Star Trek.
Labels: Future, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Popular Culture, Separationism
0 comment Wednesday, June 25, 2014 | admin
Blogger AndyK has another interesting post, relating to the theme on which he has been posting: the possible future breakup of the U.S.A. He presents a story by William S. Lind which was published back in 1995. It's a piece of what I suppose would be speculative fiction about a possible future for the U.S., based on current trends. It's called Militant Musings -- Looking back from the year 2050.
It tells of a breakup of the USA into several smaller countries, with a restoration of traditional conservative values, and is rather graphic at times. It's long but worth the time to read.''
It is worth reading; it's fascinating to see how well the writer foresaw some of the present trends, even from the vantage point of 1995. Anyway I recommend going over to AndyK's blog and reading it. It really is a fairly quick read.
Here's a little excerpt:
You see, some time around the middle of the 18th century we men of the West struck Faust�s bargain with the Devil. We could do anything, say anything, think anything with one exception: Verweile doch, du bist so schoen (Stay, you are so beautiful). We could not rest; we could not get it right and then keep it that way. Always we must have novelty � that was the bargain.
It�s funny how clearly the American century is marked: 1865 to 1965. The first Civil War made us one nation. After 1965 and another war, we disunited � deconstructed � with equal speed into blacks, whites, Hispanics, womyn, gays, victims, oppressors, left-handed albinos, you name it. In three decades we covered the distance that had taken Rome three centuries. As recently as the early 1960s � God, it�s hard to believe � America was still the greatest nation on earth, the most powerful, the most productive, the freest, a place of safe homes, dutiful children in good schools, strong families and a hot lunch for orphans. By the 1990s the place had the stench of a Third World country. The cities were ravaged by punks, beggars and bums. Laws applied only to the law-abiding. Schools had become daytime holding pens for illiterate young savages. Television brought the decadence of Weimar Berlin into every home.
Didn�t anyone realize that when the culture goes it takes everything else with it? Of course, some people knew. But going back to a culture that worked, to traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, meant breaking the Faustian bargain.
Read the entire thing at the link. I like how the story offers some rays of hope. Things may seem to be falling apart, but who knows whether something better might ultimately come of it?
It tells of a breakup of the USA into several smaller countries, with a restoration of traditional conservative values, and is rather graphic at times. It's long but worth the time to read.''
It is worth reading; it's fascinating to see how well the writer foresaw some of the present trends, even from the vantage point of 1995. Anyway I recommend going over to AndyK's blog and reading it. It really is a fairly quick read.
Here's a little excerpt:
You see, some time around the middle of the 18th century we men of the West struck Faust�s bargain with the Devil. We could do anything, say anything, think anything with one exception: Verweile doch, du bist so schoen (Stay, you are so beautiful). We could not rest; we could not get it right and then keep it that way. Always we must have novelty � that was the bargain.
It�s funny how clearly the American century is marked: 1865 to 1965. The first Civil War made us one nation. After 1965 and another war, we disunited � deconstructed � with equal speed into blacks, whites, Hispanics, womyn, gays, victims, oppressors, left-handed albinos, you name it. In three decades we covered the distance that had taken Rome three centuries. As recently as the early 1960s � God, it�s hard to believe � America was still the greatest nation on earth, the most powerful, the most productive, the freest, a place of safe homes, dutiful children in good schools, strong families and a hot lunch for orphans. By the 1990s the place had the stench of a Third World country. The cities were ravaged by punks, beggars and bums. Laws applied only to the law-abiding. Schools had become daytime holding pens for illiterate young savages. Television brought the decadence of Weimar Berlin into every home.
Didn�t anyone realize that when the culture goes it takes everything else with it? Of course, some people knew. But going back to a culture that worked, to traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, meant breaking the Faustian bargain.
Read the entire thing at the link. I like how the story offers some rays of hope. Things may seem to be falling apart, but who knows whether something better might ultimately come of it?
Labels: Future, Secession, Social Divisions, Societal Decay, Speculative Fiction
0 comment Thursday, June 12, 2014 | admin
The picture is from the blog Paleo-Future. It's from a 1982 book by Neil Ardley, 'Fact or Fantasy, (World of Tomorrow)', and it depicts the 'domed city of the future,' which will be necessitated by the coming 'savage cold,' so the author told us.
The Paleo-Future blog has an interesting theme; it's about the future as seen by people in the past. It's amusing and sometimes fascinating to see how past eras foresaw the future, and it's enlightening and comforting sometimes to see just how wrong the prognosticators were.
I blogged about this phenomenon in an oblique way a while back, in a post about the apparent loss of American optimism. Many of the posts at the Paleo-Future blog hark back to the 1950s, an era which I recall as having been especially focused on the future. There was an optimism which now seems naive, in retrospect, but at the time it seemed a healthy attitude, which somehow believed that the future would be better than the present, and that technology would lead to endless improvement in the physical world and in the human condition. Of course from our present perspective, we see that our optimism may have been wishful thinking in many cases, and our faith in technology to remake the world and human nature was often misplaced. But it is interesting to see pictures from old books and newspapers, with glowing forecasts about the far-off future, the 21st century. All of us who were alive in the 50s and 60s remember the popular science fiction of that era, which always pictured a 21st century world in which everybody had a personal helicopter or other such aircraft, a la the Jetsons, and of course there would be domed cities which were climate-controlled, and we would take our meals in pill form.
Paleo-Future is full of pictures of such imagined future utopias, so it's a fun read.
The post from which the picture above is taken is called The Coming Ice Age, which reminds us that back in 1982, there was still a common belief among prognosticators that we were heading into a 'new Ice Age.' As I recall, this popular idea started in the late 60s and persisted throughout the 70s, and judging by the book which Matt quotes from, it persisted into the 80s. I wonder at what point the experts decided we were not cooling down, but headed for a world inferno based on global warming, or 'the Greenhouse Effect', as it used to be called?
If Matt at Paleo-Future is still blogging a decade or two from now, I suppose by then it will be evident whether the 'global warming' hysteria has been proven correct, or whether the future generations will look at the global warming fears with amusement, much as we chuckle over the 'new Ice Age' predictions from today's vantage point.
Reading Paleo-Future is a corrective for the belief that the 'experts' can see into a crystal ball and foretell the future. Much of what passes for solid forecasting is educated guesswork, and is not infallible. It would be wise to remember that fact. The fears of a coming 'ice age' were apparently based on a cooling trend during the late 60s and early 70s, which some scientists took as indicative of long-term trends. It's a temptation that is easy to succumb to, not only in climatological matters, but in other areas of life too. We can't see or know all the influences at work in any given situation, and what we see as a near-certainty at one point may prove nowhere near the truth in the long term.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars, as the poet Clough said.
Labels: Future, Global Warming, History, Science