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 Tuesday, December 2, 2014 | admin
Apropos of our discussion the other day about the roots of the counterculture and also the subject of advertising propaganda, I was looking through some old images and found some interesting ones.
The first is an Insurance Company ad, above, from 1952. The text is not legible in this smaller-sized image, so I will quote it here:
There are moral alternatives to war. We do have a choice. We can choose plowshares over swords...and thereby diminish the danger of a final and all-destroying war.
Most of the world's people -- nearly two-thirds of the human race -- are hungry. Remove this hunger and we remove most of the explosive possibilities in the world.
We, here in America, have crossed the threshold into the world of plenty. In the past ten years we have had twice as much new food as new people -- and our population has grown at a rate faster than that of India!
This American pattern of plenty gives us a platform from which we, in decency and humility, can help build a true brotherhood of man, living together peacefully in a prosperous world. Now, for the first time, we can help a hungry world feed itself. We will achieve peace only if we carry out this moral responsibility -- wholeheartedly, with the same vigor with which we have waged wars. It is up to us.
If we start now -- in politics, in economics, in social organization -- we can make abundance blossom for all the world.
Let us embark on the crusade toward creating PLENTY -- Pattern for Peace.''
The above is said to be ''From a recent address by Murray D. Lincoln, President of Farm Bureau Insurance Companies.''
I can understand how, in 1952, war-wearied Americans might be eager for some proposal or policy which would guarantee that there would be 'no more wars.' But is it true that poverty and hunger cause all wars, or that 'feeding the world' would guarantee peace? Did World War II happen because of poverty or want? Or World War I?
So, since this ad was printed, we've had more than half a century of trying out these utopian do-gooder policies. I wonder how many billions we've spent on 'foreign aid' or hunger relief efforts via the UN since then? And how much good has it done? Have our efforts and our dollars ended hunger or brought stability and peace?
Look at the picture in the ad. Back in 1952, few Americans would have proposed bringing the world here for us to feed them in our land, but does the picture not seem to imply that we will all cohabit together in America? The White man at the plow looks as though he's the one in harness to do all the hard work.
This picture, with its 'we are the world' motif, reminds me very much of the picture below, which actually appeared 9 years later, on the cover of the April Fool's Day 1961 version of Saturday Evening Post.
Everybody knows Norman Rockwell as the quintessential American heartland painter. He was particularly known for his magazine covers, most notably the Saturday Evening Post covers. We always associate him with rather corny middle American nostalgia, with his images of freckle-faced, red-headed boys and girls, the kind who used to be called 'all-American boys' and girls. (Today, of course, Barack Obama and the exotics who appear in our commercials are held up as truly American.) But when I first saw this illustration, called 'The Golden Rule', by Rockwell, I was rather taken aback, because it seemed so out of step with the work we associate with him. I wondered if it was not painted during the early 70s, when the diversity obsession set in. But no, it was painted in 1961, during an era in which America was still very American. Remember, the 1965 Immigration Act was still four years in the future when that picture was painted.
And of course, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is the Golden Rule, but at some point, the politically correct commandment became do unto The Other at the expense of your own. Open your gates and doors wide to the entire world, no questions asked.
Here we are, 47 years on, and America is starting to look very much like that 'Golden Rule' painting, with those famous 'all-American' Rockwell faces surrounded by people from the four corners of the globe. Was this a prophetic painting? Or a prescriptive one, like the Farm Bureau Insurance Ad?
Was this 'pattern for peace' or a pattern for PC?
In any case, it seems this campaign to change our thinking about ourselves and our role in the world has been going on for a long time; it's only accelerated recently and become more obvious to us.
Labels: Advertising, Globalism, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, One World, Political Correctness
0 comment Sunday, November 30, 2014 | admin
Why I am not a Republican
Jerome Corsi writes about his disaffection from the Republican Party, and about his differences with the Jed Babbin, the new editor of Human Events. Babbin, it seems, chided Corsi for his series of articles outlining the North American Union plan. Babbin derided the idea of the NAU as 'black helicopter conspiracy themes.'
Corsi says:
These Human Events articles were widely popular, in some weeks last year constituting as many as two or three of the 10 most read articles published that week on the Human Events website.
Yet, today, Babbin has even removed my name from the list of columnists published on Human Events and I�ve transitioned to becoming a full-time staff reporter at WND.''
So now Corsi is no longer with Human Events, because he wouldn't toe the line and soft-pedal the NAU story? The apologists for the supposedly non-existent -- or benign -- NAU seem to be very determined to stop discussion on the subject, or, failing that, to whitewash the project. Those who write about it or who take a negative view towards the NAU are likely to be assailed by name-callers on the big GOP webforums. I've blogged about this before; supposedly the White House and/or the RNC have assigned operatives to go on the internet and quash any criticism of the NAU. That seems to be overkill if the project is really a figment of some paranoiac's imagination, or if it is merely a benign trade agreement, as claimed.
So Corsi has been a target, as the most visible and vocal journalist raising questions about the plan.
Corsi laments the fact that the Rockefeller Republicans have assumed control of the party, and Human Events, under Babbin's editorship, will become increasingly a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
I also tried to explain to Babbin my view that right now, the Republican Party is controlled by what used to be called the "Rockefeller Wing."
Like David Rockefeller himself, the Rockefeller Wing involves millionaires and billionaires who run multi-national corporations.
Rockefeller Wing Republicans are already beyond borders in their determination to advance their multinational corporations for unbridled profit, whether or not U.S. sovereignty and the middle class are destroyed in the process.
I have reflected that Howard Phillips was probably right when he urged Ronald Reagan to form his own, new political party.
I�m not sure the moral Christians belong in the same party with the Rockefeller Republicans.
At any rate, George W. Bush in his second term seems determined to destroy the Reagan coalition once and for all.
[...]
We would be better off without a Republican Party if having a Republican Party means we continue compromising U.S. sovereignty under this false banner of one-sided trade agreements that have nothing to do with legitimate "free trade."
If Human Events under Babbin�s editorial direction is to become an apologists� forum for Republican Party true believers, so be it. ''
Corsi mentions the fall-back argument used by Babbin and the others that failing to support the GOP will guarantee a Hillary presidency. That empty argument is all they have, and they think that it will suffice to scare many conservatives into voting GOP, even if it means voting for a globalist, CFR candidate -- which, as Corsi mentions, all of the so-called top tier candidates are.
I am positive that the GOP leadership and their true believer followers are thrilled that Hillary is the likely nominee, because the threat of Hillary in the White House is the only 'argument' they have to convince conservatives to vote for whichever of the pathetic 'top tier' candidates is opposing her.
Sorry, GOP, but I agree with Corsi and with Richard Viguerie that this is not enough. A vote for any of the preferred GOP candidates is a vote for more globalism and a vote against real conservative policies. If that is all the Republican Party is able, or willing, to offer us, then the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness.
A political party is only a means to an end, not an end in itself, and if the GOP no longer stands for conservative ideas and traditional America, then it needs to go, and make way for a real conservative party.
Jerome Corsi writes about his disaffection from the Republican Party, and about his differences with the Jed Babbin, the new editor of Human Events. Babbin, it seems, chided Corsi for his series of articles outlining the North American Union plan. Babbin derided the idea of the NAU as 'black helicopter conspiracy themes.'
Corsi says:
These Human Events articles were widely popular, in some weeks last year constituting as many as two or three of the 10 most read articles published that week on the Human Events website.
Yet, today, Babbin has even removed my name from the list of columnists published on Human Events and I�ve transitioned to becoming a full-time staff reporter at WND.''
So now Corsi is no longer with Human Events, because he wouldn't toe the line and soft-pedal the NAU story? The apologists for the supposedly non-existent -- or benign -- NAU seem to be very determined to stop discussion on the subject, or, failing that, to whitewash the project. Those who write about it or who take a negative view towards the NAU are likely to be assailed by name-callers on the big GOP webforums. I've blogged about this before; supposedly the White House and/or the RNC have assigned operatives to go on the internet and quash any criticism of the NAU. That seems to be overkill if the project is really a figment of some paranoiac's imagination, or if it is merely a benign trade agreement, as claimed.
So Corsi has been a target, as the most visible and vocal journalist raising questions about the plan.
Corsi laments the fact that the Rockefeller Republicans have assumed control of the party, and Human Events, under Babbin's editorship, will become increasingly a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
I also tried to explain to Babbin my view that right now, the Republican Party is controlled by what used to be called the "Rockefeller Wing."
Like David Rockefeller himself, the Rockefeller Wing involves millionaires and billionaires who run multi-national corporations.
Rockefeller Wing Republicans are already beyond borders in their determination to advance their multinational corporations for unbridled profit, whether or not U.S. sovereignty and the middle class are destroyed in the process.
I have reflected that Howard Phillips was probably right when he urged Ronald Reagan to form his own, new political party.
I�m not sure the moral Christians belong in the same party with the Rockefeller Republicans.
At any rate, George W. Bush in his second term seems determined to destroy the Reagan coalition once and for all.
[...]
We would be better off without a Republican Party if having a Republican Party means we continue compromising U.S. sovereignty under this false banner of one-sided trade agreements that have nothing to do with legitimate "free trade."
If Human Events under Babbin�s editorial direction is to become an apologists� forum for Republican Party true believers, so be it. ''
Corsi mentions the fall-back argument used by Babbin and the others that failing to support the GOP will guarantee a Hillary presidency. That empty argument is all they have, and they think that it will suffice to scare many conservatives into voting GOP, even if it means voting for a globalist, CFR candidate -- which, as Corsi mentions, all of the so-called top tier candidates are.
I am positive that the GOP leadership and their true believer followers are thrilled that Hillary is the likely nominee, because the threat of Hillary in the White House is the only 'argument' they have to convince conservatives to vote for whichever of the pathetic 'top tier' candidates is opposing her.
Sorry, GOP, but I agree with Corsi and with Richard Viguerie that this is not enough. A vote for any of the preferred GOP candidates is a vote for more globalism and a vote against real conservative policies. If that is all the Republican Party is able, or willing, to offer us, then the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness.
A political party is only a means to an end, not an end in itself, and if the GOP no longer stands for conservative ideas and traditional America, then it needs to go, and make way for a real conservative party.
Labels: Globalism, Gop, Nau, Party Politics, Presidential Candidates, Spp, Third Party
0 comment Saturday, November 29, 2014 | admin
Arlen Williams warns about transnationalists in 'conservative' clothing, as exemplified by Grover Norquist.
The problem is that Norquist is just one of a number of 'conservatives' who is part the globalist/transnationalist web of influence. Another one is Newt Gingrich, as I am sure most of my readers are aware, just as with Norquist.
The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think. Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude? I mean does that kind of attitude lead to outmarriage or does the marriage lead the American spouse in that direction?
The Bush family would seem to be another example, with the Mexican marital ties.
I would think that conservatism, as it used to be understood, would incline people to loyalty towards their own people and country, and intermarriage with someone from a disparate people and religion would indicate a lack of loyalty, or would then diminish loyalty to one's own roots, causing conflicted allegiances.
Williams' article accurately describes the transnational scheme and strategy.
''Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)''
In all of the propaganda that had led directly or indirectly toward the transnational goals, the idea of loyalty to one's own country and people becomes lost and devalued. That needs to be recovered if we are to have any hope of prevailing.
The problem is that Norquist is just one of a number of 'conservatives' who is part the globalist/transnationalist web of influence. Another one is Newt Gingrich, as I am sure most of my readers are aware, just as with Norquist.
The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think. Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude? I mean does that kind of attitude lead to outmarriage or does the marriage lead the American spouse in that direction?
The Bush family would seem to be another example, with the Mexican marital ties.
I would think that conservatism, as it used to be understood, would incline people to loyalty towards their own people and country, and intermarriage with someone from a disparate people and religion would indicate a lack of loyalty, or would then diminish loyalty to one's own roots, causing conflicted allegiances.
Williams' article accurately describes the transnational scheme and strategy.
''Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)''
In all of the propaganda that had led directly or indirectly toward the transnational goals, the idea of loyalty to one's own country and people becomes lost and devalued. That needs to be recovered if we are to have any hope of prevailing.
Labels: Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnoconservatism, Faux Conservatism, Globalism
0 comment | admin
Jean Raspail Speaks of "Big Other"
Jean Raspail is interviewed for French TV about his book, 'Camp of the Saints.' The phrase 'Big Other' is his pun on the familiar 'Big Brother', and is the title of the new preface to his book.
You can view the video at GalliaWatch, where Tiberge offers excerpts translated into English. If your French is good enough, you can watch the complete interviews at the links on GalliaWatch.
From her excerpts:
''And The Camp of the Saints ends badly� badly or well, according to your opinion. There are four hundred pages. Imagine all the questions it raises in our minds - on a social level, on the national level, but also on the inner level of each person. What do you do? If you allow in such a mass, what happens to the country? If you don't allow them in where is your Christian charity? Where is your pity, and many other things like that�
[...]
If civilizations have disappeared it is because they were engulfed by the tidal wave of the more advanced newcomers. With us, the situation is the reverse. We have an old civilization in Europe, in France, and we find ourselves before gigantic masses of people. Europe does not have a billion people, yet we face hundreds of thousands, millions, billions. Logically, we should be forced to defend ourselves, but how?
[...]
In truth, charity does not consist of opening our doors and our arms to invaders. No, it does not consist in returning the flags of Lepanto, as Paul VI did, to the Turks, who have no knowledge of repentance. It does not consist of kissing the Koran as Pope John-Paul II did, in an unfortunate gesture.
No, it does not consist in offering lands of our old Christian country, as the French bishops have done, to build mosques or worse, to accept the transformation of churches into mosques. That is the opposite of charity, a turning away from charity; it is inversion, subversion, corruption.''
Read the rest at the link.
Jean Raspail is interviewed for French TV about his book, 'Camp of the Saints.' The phrase 'Big Other' is his pun on the familiar 'Big Brother', and is the title of the new preface to his book.
You can view the video at GalliaWatch, where Tiberge offers excerpts translated into English. If your French is good enough, you can watch the complete interviews at the links on GalliaWatch.
From her excerpts:
''And The Camp of the Saints ends badly� badly or well, according to your opinion. There are four hundred pages. Imagine all the questions it raises in our minds - on a social level, on the national level, but also on the inner level of each person. What do you do? If you allow in such a mass, what happens to the country? If you don't allow them in where is your Christian charity? Where is your pity, and many other things like that�
[...]
If civilizations have disappeared it is because they were engulfed by the tidal wave of the more advanced newcomers. With us, the situation is the reverse. We have an old civilization in Europe, in France, and we find ourselves before gigantic masses of people. Europe does not have a billion people, yet we face hundreds of thousands, millions, billions. Logically, we should be forced to defend ourselves, but how?
[...]
In truth, charity does not consist of opening our doors and our arms to invaders. No, it does not consist in returning the flags of Lepanto, as Paul VI did, to the Turks, who have no knowledge of repentance. It does not consist of kissing the Koran as Pope John-Paul II did, in an unfortunate gesture.
No, it does not consist in offering lands of our old Christian country, as the French bishops have done, to build mosques or worse, to accept the transformation of churches into mosques. That is the opposite of charity, a turning away from charity; it is inversion, subversion, corruption.''
Read the rest at the link.
Labels: Demographic Warfare, France, Globalism, Mass Immigration, National Identity, Population Replacement
0 comment Sunday, November 16, 2014 | admin
Have you read about the lights going off around the world?
''SYDNEY/LONDON (Reuters) - People switched off lights across the world on Saturday, dimming buildings, hotels, restaurants and bars to show concern at global warming.
Up to 30 million people were expected to switch off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" -- which started at 8 p.m. in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- completed its cycle westwards.''
Are any of you observing 'Earth Hour' and turning off your lights at the designated time? Apparently we're supposed to turn off our lights at 8 o'clock local time, according to what I have heard.
This is typical liberal 'activism': a symbolic show with little of substance behind it. As if turning off our lights for 60 minutes would forestall this global warming doomsday that they keep prophesying.
It's not that I am one of those 'conservatives' who scorns concern for the environment just because of the liberal hysteria aboout it. It's true that the left and the liberals go overboard in their obsessing about Mother Earth, and it's true that much of their purported concern for the environment is limited to a kind of neo-Luddite hatred of our first-world lifestyle, mingled with a loathing for Big Business and all its works. However, having said that, I don't completely disregard environmental concerns; I think much of the damage to the environment is a result of overpopulation in most of the world, and of course 'most of the world' is taken up by the hallowed 'developing countries', who are for some reason held blameless when it comes to environmental damage. The best thing that could be done for the environment would be to stop all this reckless overpopulating, which is, after all, the main reason for this flood of immigration which threatens to overwhelm the entire Western world. Third World peoples keep breeding recklessly and irresponsibly, and of course they and their countries cannot support the children they are bringing into the world, so the overflow is being dropped on our doorstep, and we are being forced to deal with it.
For years, for decades, actually, the left has preached that our First World lifestyle is evil. Now, with the belief that we are on the 'Global Warming Eve of Destruction,' they preach more insistently than ever that we have to stop burning fossil fuels and living our generally wasteful and ecologically irresponsible way of life. Books like 'Small is Beautiful' and leftist films like 'Koyaanisqatsi' idealized the primitive lifestyle of Third World peoples and shamed us for living as we do. We should emulate the primitives, so the message implied, and "live simply that others may simply live." While there is a grain of good advice there, and no doubt simpler living would be healthier for all of us, it is just one more piece of hypocrisy from the left. Why do I say this? Because if they really, honestly believed what they say and preach, they would do all in their power to see that these 'noble savages' remained in their Third World Edens, living their 'small and beautiful' lifestyle. The last thing leftist and liberals should want, if man-made global warming is really occurring, is to bring as many as possible from the Third World to join in our First World lifestyle. Mass immigration to the West is, if anything, only accelerating global warming, as we add tens of millions of new consumers and more cars on the roads, meaning more emissions and more waste dumped in our environment. Does this make even an iota of sense? Of course it doesn't.
I might conclude that the global-warming, 'sky-is-falling' crowd don't really believe their own prophecies of looming disaster. I might wonder if they are cynically manufacturing panic about 'global warming' just to push their agenda.
However it may well be that they believe what they are saying; liberals and leftists have no problem holding many contradictory positions and professing illogical beliefs.
Why is it that they can't, or won't, see the deleterious role mass immigration is playing in their supposed global warming scenario?
I tend to be something of an agnostic on whether or not global warming is a long-term trend, whether it is irreversible, or whether it is merely part of the cycles in our climate that come and go. I tend to think the latter. However I suppose one could argue, as a conservative, that it would be better to prepare for the worst and to try to fend off any global warming which would tend to be disruptive of human society or destructive of human life. But then again, if global warming is happening, and if it is happening as rapidly as the doomsayers insist, is it even possible to stop it, much less to reverse it? Are we human beings really powerful enough to effect permanent changes in the earth's cycles by our relatively puny human efforts? And what could we realistically do, short of destroying all our modern technology and returning to a primitive lifestyle? How realistic would that be?
It might be a good thing in many ways, including from the perspective of improving the quality of our lives, to simplify the way we live, and return to living more as our ancestors did two or three generations ago. But can we, and would even returning to the horse-and-buggy days remove the environmental Sword of Damocles hanging over us?
I don't know that many leftists would sign on to such a program. I think their constant cries of 'repent! The time is at hand!' are mostly just secular versions of the warnings of the old prophets of the Bible. For many leftists and liberals, their politics are their religion, and although many of them scoff at Christian beliefs in heaven and hell, they very much believe that heaven and hell are here on earth.
In his 'Screwtape Letters', C.S. Lewis has his character, the devil's minion Screwtape, instructing the apprentice "Wormwood" on the devil's plans for humanity:
"...we want a man hagridden by the Future -- haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth...''
The idea was to make people believe that they had it in their power to attain heaven on earth or avert hell on earth.
This is the hubris of the liberal.
Unfortunately, it isn't just the left; we have the globalists, including transnational business interests, pushing for a one-world order, and the global warming scare is another tool they are employing to convince us that we must accept a powerful global government, along with a drop in our living standards, and the loss of our national sovereignty and personal freedoms. And people will accept these things, if they become convinced that it is necessary to avert the global warming hell.
''SYDNEY/LONDON (Reuters) - People switched off lights across the world on Saturday, dimming buildings, hotels, restaurants and bars to show concern at global warming.
Up to 30 million people were expected to switch off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" -- which started at 8 p.m. in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- completed its cycle westwards.''
Are any of you observing 'Earth Hour' and turning off your lights at the designated time? Apparently we're supposed to turn off our lights at 8 o'clock local time, according to what I have heard.
This is typical liberal 'activism': a symbolic show with little of substance behind it. As if turning off our lights for 60 minutes would forestall this global warming doomsday that they keep prophesying.
It's not that I am one of those 'conservatives' who scorns concern for the environment just because of the liberal hysteria aboout it. It's true that the left and the liberals go overboard in their obsessing about Mother Earth, and it's true that much of their purported concern for the environment is limited to a kind of neo-Luddite hatred of our first-world lifestyle, mingled with a loathing for Big Business and all its works. However, having said that, I don't completely disregard environmental concerns; I think much of the damage to the environment is a result of overpopulation in most of the world, and of course 'most of the world' is taken up by the hallowed 'developing countries', who are for some reason held blameless when it comes to environmental damage. The best thing that could be done for the environment would be to stop all this reckless overpopulating, which is, after all, the main reason for this flood of immigration which threatens to overwhelm the entire Western world. Third World peoples keep breeding recklessly and irresponsibly, and of course they and their countries cannot support the children they are bringing into the world, so the overflow is being dropped on our doorstep, and we are being forced to deal with it.
For years, for decades, actually, the left has preached that our First World lifestyle is evil. Now, with the belief that we are on the 'Global Warming Eve of Destruction,' they preach more insistently than ever that we have to stop burning fossil fuels and living our generally wasteful and ecologically irresponsible way of life. Books like 'Small is Beautiful' and leftist films like 'Koyaanisqatsi' idealized the primitive lifestyle of Third World peoples and shamed us for living as we do. We should emulate the primitives, so the message implied, and "live simply that others may simply live." While there is a grain of good advice there, and no doubt simpler living would be healthier for all of us, it is just one more piece of hypocrisy from the left. Why do I say this? Because if they really, honestly believed what they say and preach, they would do all in their power to see that these 'noble savages' remained in their Third World Edens, living their 'small and beautiful' lifestyle. The last thing leftist and liberals should want, if man-made global warming is really occurring, is to bring as many as possible from the Third World to join in our First World lifestyle. Mass immigration to the West is, if anything, only accelerating global warming, as we add tens of millions of new consumers and more cars on the roads, meaning more emissions and more waste dumped in our environment. Does this make even an iota of sense? Of course it doesn't.
I might conclude that the global-warming, 'sky-is-falling' crowd don't really believe their own prophecies of looming disaster. I might wonder if they are cynically manufacturing panic about 'global warming' just to push their agenda.
However it may well be that they believe what they are saying; liberals and leftists have no problem holding many contradictory positions and professing illogical beliefs.
Why is it that they can't, or won't, see the deleterious role mass immigration is playing in their supposed global warming scenario?
I tend to be something of an agnostic on whether or not global warming is a long-term trend, whether it is irreversible, or whether it is merely part of the cycles in our climate that come and go. I tend to think the latter. However I suppose one could argue, as a conservative, that it would be better to prepare for the worst and to try to fend off any global warming which would tend to be disruptive of human society or destructive of human life. But then again, if global warming is happening, and if it is happening as rapidly as the doomsayers insist, is it even possible to stop it, much less to reverse it? Are we human beings really powerful enough to effect permanent changes in the earth's cycles by our relatively puny human efforts? And what could we realistically do, short of destroying all our modern technology and returning to a primitive lifestyle? How realistic would that be?
It might be a good thing in many ways, including from the perspective of improving the quality of our lives, to simplify the way we live, and return to living more as our ancestors did two or three generations ago. But can we, and would even returning to the horse-and-buggy days remove the environmental Sword of Damocles hanging over us?
I don't know that many leftists would sign on to such a program. I think their constant cries of 'repent! The time is at hand!' are mostly just secular versions of the warnings of the old prophets of the Bible. For many leftists and liberals, their politics are their religion, and although many of them scoff at Christian beliefs in heaven and hell, they very much believe that heaven and hell are here on earth.
In his 'Screwtape Letters', C.S. Lewis has his character, the devil's minion Screwtape, instructing the apprentice "Wormwood" on the devil's plans for humanity:
"...we want a man hagridden by the Future -- haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth...''
The idea was to make people believe that they had it in their power to attain heaven on earth or avert hell on earth.
This is the hubris of the liberal.
Unfortunately, it isn't just the left; we have the globalists, including transnational business interests, pushing for a one-world order, and the global warming scare is another tool they are employing to convince us that we must accept a powerful global government, along with a drop in our living standards, and the loss of our national sovereignty and personal freedoms. And people will accept these things, if they become convinced that it is necessary to avert the global warming hell.
Labels: Environmentalism, Global Warming, Globalism, Liberalism, Overpopulation
0 comment Tuesday, November 11, 2014 | admin
I saw part of a discussion on Cavuto's show about this story:
Obama plan: paint roofs white to save the world
Steven Chu, who directed the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and was professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California before being appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Energy Secretary, says white paint is what's needed to fix global warming.
Chu, who according to the federal agency's website, successfully applied the techniques he developed in atomic physics to molecular biology and recently led the lab in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies, has told the London Times that by making paved surfaces and roofs lighter in color, the world would reduce carbon emissions by as much as parking all the cars in the world for 11 years.
The DOE says Chu's areas of expertise are in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics. According to the Times, he was speaking at the St. James' Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, in which the Times partners for media events, when he described his simple and "completely benign" � "geo-engineering" plan.
He said building codes should require that flat roofed-buildings have their tops painted white. Visible sloped roofs could be painted "cool" colors. And roads could be made a lighter color. ''
My first reaction to this story was incredulity, followed by uneasy laughter. Are they serious? It seems like something out of The Onion, but they are serious.
The FReepers discuss the WND story here, and Rush Limbaugh's comments are quoted:
They don't want to stop at roofs. Making roads and roofs a paler color could have this effect. "It was a geo-engineering scheme that was 'completely benign' and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning." How much paint is this going to take, by the way? How much of a footprint does paint manufacturing leave? Here's the real question about this. I need a scientist to answer this for me. I understand how clouds at altitude can help reflect the heat. But I want to know how something white on the surface of the planet, where does that reflected heat go? If the road is white, and the heat reflects, aren't you going to boil if you happen to be walking on it in the summertime? Where does this reflected heat go? Are we being told here that reflected heat is not damaging at all but direct heat is? It seems to me if we had global warming wouldn't we want dark roofs to absorb the heat? Yeah, it may be cooling your house a little bit, but� This is all such gobbledygook.''
I'm no scientist, but it all sounds rather silly to me, and a few practical questions come to mind for me, as well as for some of the FReepers.
Commenter T Minus Four says
Oh for the love of Mike! Think of the epic paint fumes and the billions of dirty brushe, plastic drop sheets, cans and buckets clogging up the land fills. And who�s going to pay for all the paint? That stuff ain�t cheap. I am also unaware of any paint that will stick to asphalt shingles.
Wonder if white roofs will raise the cost of heating homes?
Don�t these people ever think past the ends of their noses?
Wow, think of the run on Lowes. Side note: do you ever wonder what all the people in a hurricane zone did with all the millions of sheets of plywood that were bought last hurricane scare?''
Another says
Anyone who has studied the GW hoax knows that part of the claim of those who support the GW propaganda is that it is manmade structures REFLECTING heat that gets trapped by the atmosphere and adds to the GW.
Painting roofs white would only (theoretically) increase this effect.''
That occurred to me, too.
And this:
Houses in the south had mostly white shingles on the roof, pre air conditioning, and they still do in Florida. So, this thinking is nothing new.
Trouble is, if reflective surfaces cooled the environment as a whole, and not just the surfaces, the Sahara wouldn�t be quite so hot, now would it?''
I am not a total unbeliever in ''climate change'', which I now understand to be the preferred term for what we are observing in our environment, but call me a global warming agnostic. I just think that the jury is out; there is some evidence that we are not in a ''warming'' phase but entering a cooling phase.
I do know that there is much that we don't know about long-term climate trends; we do know that the earth has always gone through cycles where climate is concerned. The people who lived at the time of the Ice Ages may have believed that the earth was going to freeze forever, and never warm up again. Why should we believe that the ''global warming'' trend will be long-term or irreversible?
While it's prudent to anticipate the worst and prepare accordingly, and to try to do all that is humanly possible to forestall any destructive trends in the environment, there is a limit to what is in fact humanly possible. If there is a dangerous warming trend underway, how do we know that any efforts we make will be enough to reverse it? And the length of time required to see any real change as a result of our human efforts is more time than we have -- if in fact the global warming believers are correct. Even if we returned to a much more primitive 'environmentally friendly'' lifestyle, which in fact would cause great economic and cultural disruption, if not chaos, we might not be able to reverse any warming trend.
The news media periodically run these alarmist stories about rising sea levels, melting glaciers and icebergs. They warn that we will have ''many millions of climate refugees'' who will have to be evacuated to Western countries to escape the flooding. What a handy coincidence that the only places for safety, apparently, will be in our countries, and the only 'climate refugees' will be the usual economic migrants and mendicants who are now looking for a chance to emigrate here.
Well, since it seems that the globalist plan is to resettle these people among us anyway, why not add the urgent 'global warming' refrain to the same old song?
If human beings are causing 'global warming', presuming there is a warming cycle going on, it would seem that we lack the time and the luxury of being able to effect the kinds of sweeping, disruptive changes that would be needed to even hope to reverse things.
Human beings have lived through climate changes in the past. European men in particular survived Ice Ages and have lived in every kind of climate, surely it does not befit us to react hysterically to the prospect of yet another climate cycle. Long ago my lefty anthropology teachers taught us that what differentiated human beings from other species was the ability to make cultural and technological adaptations to varying environments. If that's true, I have faith that at least some of us will survive any scary ''global warming'' scenario.
I am concerned not about a man-made global warming process, which may or may not be happening, but about a man-made transformation of the earth that involves moving populations en masse from the Third World to our world. I am worried about man-made global shrinking; the world was a much more hospitable and happy place when it was bigger. It's getting too small these days.
Obama plan: paint roofs white to save the world
Steven Chu, who directed the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and was professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California before being appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Energy Secretary, says white paint is what's needed to fix global warming.
Chu, who according to the federal agency's website, successfully applied the techniques he developed in atomic physics to molecular biology and recently led the lab in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies, has told the London Times that by making paved surfaces and roofs lighter in color, the world would reduce carbon emissions by as much as parking all the cars in the world for 11 years.
The DOE says Chu's areas of expertise are in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics. According to the Times, he was speaking at the St. James' Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, in which the Times partners for media events, when he described his simple and "completely benign" � "geo-engineering" plan.
He said building codes should require that flat roofed-buildings have their tops painted white. Visible sloped roofs could be painted "cool" colors. And roads could be made a lighter color. ''
My first reaction to this story was incredulity, followed by uneasy laughter. Are they serious? It seems like something out of The Onion, but they are serious.
The FReepers discuss the WND story here, and Rush Limbaugh's comments are quoted:
They don't want to stop at roofs. Making roads and roofs a paler color could have this effect. "It was a geo-engineering scheme that was 'completely benign' and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning." How much paint is this going to take, by the way? How much of a footprint does paint manufacturing leave? Here's the real question about this. I need a scientist to answer this for me. I understand how clouds at altitude can help reflect the heat. But I want to know how something white on the surface of the planet, where does that reflected heat go? If the road is white, and the heat reflects, aren't you going to boil if you happen to be walking on it in the summertime? Where does this reflected heat go? Are we being told here that reflected heat is not damaging at all but direct heat is? It seems to me if we had global warming wouldn't we want dark roofs to absorb the heat? Yeah, it may be cooling your house a little bit, but� This is all such gobbledygook.''
I'm no scientist, but it all sounds rather silly to me, and a few practical questions come to mind for me, as well as for some of the FReepers.
Commenter T Minus Four says
Oh for the love of Mike! Think of the epic paint fumes and the billions of dirty brushe, plastic drop sheets, cans and buckets clogging up the land fills. And who�s going to pay for all the paint? That stuff ain�t cheap. I am also unaware of any paint that will stick to asphalt shingles.
Wonder if white roofs will raise the cost of heating homes?
Don�t these people ever think past the ends of their noses?
Wow, think of the run on Lowes. Side note: do you ever wonder what all the people in a hurricane zone did with all the millions of sheets of plywood that were bought last hurricane scare?''
Another says
Anyone who has studied the GW hoax knows that part of the claim of those who support the GW propaganda is that it is manmade structures REFLECTING heat that gets trapped by the atmosphere and adds to the GW.
Painting roofs white would only (theoretically) increase this effect.''
That occurred to me, too.
And this:
Houses in the south had mostly white shingles on the roof, pre air conditioning, and they still do in Florida. So, this thinking is nothing new.
Trouble is, if reflective surfaces cooled the environment as a whole, and not just the surfaces, the Sahara wouldn�t be quite so hot, now would it?''
I am not a total unbeliever in ''climate change'', which I now understand to be the preferred term for what we are observing in our environment, but call me a global warming agnostic. I just think that the jury is out; there is some evidence that we are not in a ''warming'' phase but entering a cooling phase.
I do know that there is much that we don't know about long-term climate trends; we do know that the earth has always gone through cycles where climate is concerned. The people who lived at the time of the Ice Ages may have believed that the earth was going to freeze forever, and never warm up again. Why should we believe that the ''global warming'' trend will be long-term or irreversible?
While it's prudent to anticipate the worst and prepare accordingly, and to try to do all that is humanly possible to forestall any destructive trends in the environment, there is a limit to what is in fact humanly possible. If there is a dangerous warming trend underway, how do we know that any efforts we make will be enough to reverse it? And the length of time required to see any real change as a result of our human efforts is more time than we have -- if in fact the global warming believers are correct. Even if we returned to a much more primitive 'environmentally friendly'' lifestyle, which in fact would cause great economic and cultural disruption, if not chaos, we might not be able to reverse any warming trend.
The news media periodically run these alarmist stories about rising sea levels, melting glaciers and icebergs. They warn that we will have ''many millions of climate refugees'' who will have to be evacuated to Western countries to escape the flooding. What a handy coincidence that the only places for safety, apparently, will be in our countries, and the only 'climate refugees' will be the usual economic migrants and mendicants who are now looking for a chance to emigrate here.
Well, since it seems that the globalist plan is to resettle these people among us anyway, why not add the urgent 'global warming' refrain to the same old song?
If human beings are causing 'global warming', presuming there is a warming cycle going on, it would seem that we lack the time and the luxury of being able to effect the kinds of sweeping, disruptive changes that would be needed to even hope to reverse things.
Human beings have lived through climate changes in the past. European men in particular survived Ice Ages and have lived in every kind of climate, surely it does not befit us to react hysterically to the prospect of yet another climate cycle. Long ago my lefty anthropology teachers taught us that what differentiated human beings from other species was the ability to make cultural and technological adaptations to varying environments. If that's true, I have faith that at least some of us will survive any scary ''global warming'' scenario.
I am concerned not about a man-made global warming process, which may or may not be happening, but about a man-made transformation of the earth that involves moving populations en masse from the Third World to our world. I am worried about man-made global shrinking; the world was a much more hospitable and happy place when it was bigger. It's getting too small these days.
Labels: Climate Change, Global Warming, Globalism, Mass Migration, One World
0 comment Monday, November 10, 2014 | admin
This story and a later one are interesting in a couple of ways. First, though, we all knew, those of us who care about these things, that this was a deliberate plan. We knew that it was being carried out contrary to the wishes of the people of the UK, just as the same kind of thing is going on here and in all Western countries. An excerpt:
Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government�s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced 'by a lot�.
[...]
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour�s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, didn't just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000...was to open up the UK to 'mass immigration.'
But the fact that this is being discussed so openly is the interesting thing. Can any American reading this blog imagine one of our large daily newspapers acknowledging such a thing? I can't. The Washington Times is the only thing approaching a 'conservative' major daily paper, and it is politically correct in its way. I confess I have not read the Washington Times lately, because it is so predictably Republican and 'safe.' But though stories about border violations (Border Patrol agents shot by illegal immigrants or drug gangs, etc.) they did not address immigration policy, or the very fact that our country was being transformed, even though it may be the biggest story of our lifetimes.
So, the British media is sometimes more open and frank than our own media on this issue, at least. And given the fact that the UK overall seems to keep a much tighter control over people's speech and behavior, this is not what we would expect.
A commenter says:
''Immigration has utterly ruined this country. Our homogenous British population gave us a stable society to which everyone belonged to, with everyone sharing the same culture and values. Mass immigration of foreign people and their cultures has thrown a very large spanner in the works, one which is rapidly eradicating the cultural and ethnic identity of our country. I really fear for the future of our country. It's the British people who made this country great, but they are now being replaced.
- Oliver, Surrey, G Britain
This is a very civil and factual comment, but I think in some of our papers, the moderators would delete it. The first sentence alone would probably doom the comment to deletion.
Most such articles in the Telegraph seem to elicit hundreds of comments, so there are obviously strong feelings on the part of many people in the UK, where immigration is concerned.
We here in the States have some latitude as to freedom of expression, but politically incorrect comments on newspaper websites are often deleted or heavily moderated, and usually are met with obnoxious responses from leftist readers -- who may in fact be people who are paid to shout down politically incorrect comments on the Internet, or they may just be true believer leftists. In any case, I would say that outside the blogosphere, viewpoints that are politically incorrect are just not heard, not allowed to be heard. Some news websites are more lenient than others, but a great deal of censorship goes on.
This is also true of talk radio, which used to be considered a bastion of conservatism. So other than blogs, these issues are pretty much ignored.
Most Americans on 'conservative' blogs jeer at the British for being too passive and supine when it comes to the transformation and ethnic cleansing that is going on, but I question whether that is an accurate impression; it may be that there are things going on beneath the surface.
Before someone tells me that I am imagining this to be true, just indulging in wishful thinking, I think that one advantage that the people of the UK have is that they are not afflicted with this national neurosis regarding slavery, racial amends, and proving our lack of 'racist' inclinations. While American 'conservatives' are scouring the landscape, searching the farthest horizons for 'conservative blacks' to promote to leadership, the British, French, et al seem relatively free of this strange affliction, thus enabling them to think more clearly about the situation. Until we Americans can disentangle ourselves from this obsession, we will forever be spinning our wheels.
I don't count the British out just yet; we don't know what may happen. And there are signs of life in France as well, though now ''our'' government is presuming to teach the French how to have better rapport with their 'minority populations.' It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
Somebody needs to teach the American people, particularly those of the colorblind Republican persuasion, how to shed their peculiar hangups so that this country might be able to see clearly again.
Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government�s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced 'by a lot�.
[...]
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour�s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, didn't just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000...was to open up the UK to 'mass immigration.'
But the fact that this is being discussed so openly is the interesting thing. Can any American reading this blog imagine one of our large daily newspapers acknowledging such a thing? I can't. The Washington Times is the only thing approaching a 'conservative' major daily paper, and it is politically correct in its way. I confess I have not read the Washington Times lately, because it is so predictably Republican and 'safe.' But though stories about border violations (Border Patrol agents shot by illegal immigrants or drug gangs, etc.) they did not address immigration policy, or the very fact that our country was being transformed, even though it may be the biggest story of our lifetimes.
So, the British media is sometimes more open and frank than our own media on this issue, at least. And given the fact that the UK overall seems to keep a much tighter control over people's speech and behavior, this is not what we would expect.
A commenter says:
''Immigration has utterly ruined this country. Our homogenous British population gave us a stable society to which everyone belonged to, with everyone sharing the same culture and values. Mass immigration of foreign people and their cultures has thrown a very large spanner in the works, one which is rapidly eradicating the cultural and ethnic identity of our country. I really fear for the future of our country. It's the British people who made this country great, but they are now being replaced.
- Oliver, Surrey, G Britain
This is a very civil and factual comment, but I think in some of our papers, the moderators would delete it. The first sentence alone would probably doom the comment to deletion.
Most such articles in the Telegraph seem to elicit hundreds of comments, so there are obviously strong feelings on the part of many people in the UK, where immigration is concerned.
We here in the States have some latitude as to freedom of expression, but politically incorrect comments on newspaper websites are often deleted or heavily moderated, and usually are met with obnoxious responses from leftist readers -- who may in fact be people who are paid to shout down politically incorrect comments on the Internet, or they may just be true believer leftists. In any case, I would say that outside the blogosphere, viewpoints that are politically incorrect are just not heard, not allowed to be heard. Some news websites are more lenient than others, but a great deal of censorship goes on.
This is also true of talk radio, which used to be considered a bastion of conservatism. So other than blogs, these issues are pretty much ignored.
Most Americans on 'conservative' blogs jeer at the British for being too passive and supine when it comes to the transformation and ethnic cleansing that is going on, but I question whether that is an accurate impression; it may be that there are things going on beneath the surface.
Before someone tells me that I am imagining this to be true, just indulging in wishful thinking, I think that one advantage that the people of the UK have is that they are not afflicted with this national neurosis regarding slavery, racial amends, and proving our lack of 'racist' inclinations. While American 'conservatives' are scouring the landscape, searching the farthest horizons for 'conservative blacks' to promote to leadership, the British, French, et al seem relatively free of this strange affliction, thus enabling them to think more clearly about the situation. Until we Americans can disentangle ourselves from this obsession, we will forever be spinning our wheels.
I don't count the British out just yet; we don't know what may happen. And there are signs of life in France as well, though now ''our'' government is presuming to teach the French how to have better rapport with their 'minority populations.' It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
Somebody needs to teach the American people, particularly those of the colorblind Republican persuasion, how to shed their peculiar hangups so that this country might be able to see clearly again.
Labels: Ethnic Cleansing, France, Free Speech, Globalism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Tyranny, Uk
0 comment Friday, November 7, 2014 | admin
The tainted pet food story seems to grow and grow, although it is currently being soft-pedaled in the media. But here is a recent Washington Post piece which warns us that
It's Not Just Pet Food
"...It's not just pet owners who should be worried. The uncontrolled distribution of low-quality imported food ingredients, mainly from China, poses a grave threat to public health worldwide.
Essential ingredients, such as vitamins used in many packaged foods, arrive at U.S. ports from China and, as recent news reports have underscored, are shipped without inspection to food and beverage distributors and manufacturers. Although they are used in relatively small quantities, these ingredients carry enormous risks for American consumers. One pound of tainted wheat gluten could, if undetected, contaminate as much as a thousand pounds of food.
[...]We know, however, that alarms have been raised about hygiene and labor standards at many Chinese manufacturing facilities. In China, municipal water used in the manufacturing process is often contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides and other chemicals. Food ingredient production is particularly susceptible to environmental contamination.
Equally worrisome, U.S. officials often lack the capability to trace foreign-produced food ingredients to their source of manufacture. In theory, the Bioterrorism Prevention Act of 2001 provides some measure of traceability. In practice, the act is ineffective and was not designed for this challenge. Its enforcement is also shrouded in secrecy by the Department of Homeland Security.
Even if Food and Drug Administration regulators wanted to crack down on products emanating from the riskiest foreign facilities, they couldn't, because they have no way of knowing which ingredients come from which plant.
[...]...80 percent of the world's vitamin C is now manufactured in China -- much of it unregulated and some of it of questionable quality.
[...]The United States is sitting on powder keg with uncontrolled importation and the distribution of low-quality food ingredients. Before it explodes -- putting more animals and people at risk -- corrective steps must be taken.''
And this blogger elaborates further on the vitamin issue in her informative blog entry.
Did any of you realize the fact that China monopolizes so much of the vitamin market? I was not aware of that situation. Some sources I read say that China produces almost all the vitamins we buy in this country, although according to the Washington Post article, they make 'only' 80 percent of the world supply.
Think how many vitamin supplements are ingested in our currently health-obsessed country. It's ironic that an item which is sold as a health-enhancing, life-giving product might turn out to be toxic or tainted.
And here:
Food Inspectors Target Bay Area Ethnic Markets
(CBS 5) ANTIOCH The cost of testing and inspection are making it a burden for county health officials in the Bay Area to examine the safety of imported foods sold at ethnic markets among other places.
Potentially unsafe imported food slips past inspection every day in California.
At one Thai and Laotian market in San Pablo, health inspectors found teas and puddings from China without ingredient labels, and food from Russia packed in cans made with lead.
[...]
"As safe as our food supply is, there is risk," he said. "I don't want people to be overly afraid of the food supply, but I think they need to be very careful."
Last month alone, the FDA detained almost 900 shipments of fish, vegetables, nuts, spices and oils. Imported foods were tainted by unsafe food-coloring, salmonella, or pesticides. Some shipments were just plain filthy.
China and Mexico are the biggest offenders.''
No surprise that those two countries would be the big offenders, and they are two countries which are seemingly being coddled and catered to by our government.
And speaking of our government, which supposedly acts in our interest,
Effort to guard U.S. food supply still sits on shelf
WASHINGTON - After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Food and Drug Administration developed a comprehensive plan to guard the U.S. food supply against tainted imports, which were seen as a serious security threat. But nearly six years later, the plan has languished because of a lack of official will and tight federal budgets, according to former senior officials involved in formulating the strategy.
[...]``It was a bitter pill to swallow,'' said Benjamin England, a former FDA regulatory lawyer who worked on the plan for the agency. ``I'm disappointed that they are basically sitting on the solution.''
In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the government and an army of experts developed protections against a wide array of threats. But as time passed and no new attacks occurred, the sense of urgency faded. In the case of foodstuffs, the FDA's Import Strategic Plan fell victim to budget constraints, competing priorities and government inertia.
``The bottom line is that the United States is being overwhelmed with food imports, and they are not being screened by the FDA,'' said William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner for policy and planning.
``A lot of time and effort went into it, and the best minds of the agency were brought in,'' he said of the import protection plan. ``It wasn't approved or disapproved. It was basically, `We can't do this because we have no money.''
There is, however, a new urgency to deal with the threat: The chemicals implicated in the pet deaths, identified as melamine and cyanuric acid, were found in protein ingredients used in human foods, ranging from bread to veggie burgers.
[...]
This week, the FDA announced that it is expanding testing for contamination of human foods. China, a country with a reputation for lax safety standards, is a major supplier of ingredients used in both pet and human food products marketed by U.S. companies.
And here, at the China Confidential blog, we read that
To make matters worse, China's retail sales arm--the brutal, Main Street-busting behemoth known as Wal-Mart--plans to grow so-called organic food in China. Organic food ... from a country plagued by toxic industrial pollution that taints the water and soil in which the crops are grown. Wonderful.
Dr. David Acheson, chief medical officer of the FDA's food-safety center, said the agency was alerting food producers and importers about possible risks involving six protein-concentrate products. It also is testing imports from China.
The blogger Fallenmonk thinks the tainted pet food incidents are
Just the Tip of the Iceberg
The companies that distribute foods nationally can get their meat from anywhere in the world and sell it at your local grocery and you will never know where that meat came from unless there is a problem identified after the fact.
This is ugly and will get uglier trust me on that. We are at high risk and there is no one doing anything about it.''
I have to agree with him on that point; I don't see the issue being covered by the Big Media for the most part, except minimally. Of the bloggers who are sounding the alarm, most are dealing only with the pet food aspect of this story, which is merely one part of it. Maybe the media are hoping to play this story down, minimize it into a pet food only issue. And I certainly don't see any sense of urgency on the part of our government and our emasculated FDA to do much about this worrying problem, considering the vast scale of the situation.
Certainly some activism is called for here; this issue, as I said, should transcend politics; it's our safety, and we should all be concerned, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum. And simply becoming more aware of where our food comes from, reading labels, researching things, is a first step. I think many people, myself included, were only marginally aware of our utter dependence on imports for so many of our necessities, including food.
For a big, rich country like the United States to be dependent on foreign countries, especially untrustworthy countries, for so much of our food supply is dangerous and just plain foolish; this is a situation that needs rectifying.
Labels: Food Safety, Free Trade, Globalism, Media
0 comment Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | admin
We've all been watching the discussion of the citizenship questions regarding Obama. I've said almost nothing about it because the whole subject is so complicated, seemingly, that it makes my head swim to try to sort it out. And regardless of what some critics say, we don't know for certain where Obama was born; the question of his birthplace is far from settled.
According to World Net Daily, there is a Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.''
[Emphasis mine]
So as in all things, Obama proves to be a polarizing, divisive figure, as the article shows us. The fact that many Americans hold to the 'Humpty Dumpty' school of thought on the Constitution is troubling. Remember in Alice in Wonderland, when Humpty Dumpty told Alice that ''a word means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"? Such is the attitude most liberals and other uninformed people hold in regard to that shifting, changing, ''living" collection of words called the Constitution.
Here is the latest discussion from Texas Darlin's blog on the natural-born citizenship question. Make of it what you will. I am not sure the truth will ever be known, so I am not devoting too much time or energy to trying to solve the legal puzzles.
And over at Free Republic, someone posted a link to a .pdf file which is from a legal publication, discussing this topic. You can download the file at the link; it's 20-some pages long but if you are savvy in legal and constitutional matters, you might find it interesting.
Amending Natural-born citizen requirements
However, at Webster's Blogspot, Terry Morris raises a more important question:
...let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.''
Terry asks readers' opinions as to what might happen if this scenario actually happened.
I say that this is the more important question because I think there may be a larger plan here to push the issue of the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for the presidency. I have been getting the impression for a few years now, in light of the move towards a ''global society" and the erosion of the whole idea of nationality, that there is a plan to remove the citizenship restrictions on presidential candidates.
But suppose it's brought to light that the president-elect is either not a native-born citizen, or that he holds dual citizenship? There would be quite a commotion should he be disqualified after the fact, and especially should his disqualification be on the basis of what most Americans would consider an obscure technicality.
Consider that we are being dragged into this new 'global age', into a supposed New World Order in which nationality and national citizenship will be stripped of their importance, if not abolished altogether. Who better to inaugurate this new order than someone of mixed parentage, a cosmopolitan, transnational upbringing, and ambiguous birth, namely, our president-elect? This may be the very reason he was likely groomed and propelled to the presidency in such a head-spinningly short period of time.
This section from the .pdf file linked above from FR confirms what I have been thinking:
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19�21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.
Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Now, think of it this way: if someone had tried to introduce the idea a year or more ago, it probably would not have aroused much interest or much support, outside the usual leftist circles. I am sure most Americans gave little thought to the possibility of a non-citizen president, or a president with dual citizenship, which may be the present situation. So an initiative on this issue would have gone nowhere, most likely.
But when the issue is personalized, around a candidate who has so many zealous followers, a personality who seems to evoke such a strong emotional response, it stands a much better chance of attracting support.
All this secrecy and subterfuge about the birth certificate, and the presentation of such an obvious fake Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet may have been fostered in order to start the public talking about the citizenship requirements for the Presidency, and it might also have served the purpose of creating opposition which would cause the Obama supporters to rally around their Dear Leader, seeing him as the target of 'bigoted' attacks from the right.
I know someone will mention Occam's Razor, and imply that I am reading too much into this, but I think it's certainly a possibility. Even if this is not part of an overall plan to push the idea that the citizenship requirement is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair', it's probably likely that the Democrats and the left generally are milking this for what it is worth. Count on the fact that they want to pull down all our traditional fences and safeguards. Anything which furthers the global, anti-national agenda is on their to-do list.
According to World Net Daily, there is a Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.''
[Emphasis mine]
So as in all things, Obama proves to be a polarizing, divisive figure, as the article shows us. The fact that many Americans hold to the 'Humpty Dumpty' school of thought on the Constitution is troubling. Remember in Alice in Wonderland, when Humpty Dumpty told Alice that ''a word means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"? Such is the attitude most liberals and other uninformed people hold in regard to that shifting, changing, ''living" collection of words called the Constitution.
Here is the latest discussion from Texas Darlin's blog on the natural-born citizenship question. Make of it what you will. I am not sure the truth will ever be known, so I am not devoting too much time or energy to trying to solve the legal puzzles.
And over at Free Republic, someone posted a link to a .pdf file which is from a legal publication, discussing this topic. You can download the file at the link; it's 20-some pages long but if you are savvy in legal and constitutional matters, you might find it interesting.
Amending Natural-born citizen requirements
However, at Webster's Blogspot, Terry Morris raises a more important question:
...let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.''
Terry asks readers' opinions as to what might happen if this scenario actually happened.
I say that this is the more important question because I think there may be a larger plan here to push the issue of the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for the presidency. I have been getting the impression for a few years now, in light of the move towards a ''global society" and the erosion of the whole idea of nationality, that there is a plan to remove the citizenship restrictions on presidential candidates.
But suppose it's brought to light that the president-elect is either not a native-born citizen, or that he holds dual citizenship? There would be quite a commotion should he be disqualified after the fact, and especially should his disqualification be on the basis of what most Americans would consider an obscure technicality.
Consider that we are being dragged into this new 'global age', into a supposed New World Order in which nationality and national citizenship will be stripped of their importance, if not abolished altogether. Who better to inaugurate this new order than someone of mixed parentage, a cosmopolitan, transnational upbringing, and ambiguous birth, namely, our president-elect? This may be the very reason he was likely groomed and propelled to the presidency in such a head-spinningly short period of time.
This section from the .pdf file linked above from FR confirms what I have been thinking:
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19�21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.
Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Now, think of it this way: if someone had tried to introduce the idea a year or more ago, it probably would not have aroused much interest or much support, outside the usual leftist circles. I am sure most Americans gave little thought to the possibility of a non-citizen president, or a president with dual citizenship, which may be the present situation. So an initiative on this issue would have gone nowhere, most likely.
But when the issue is personalized, around a candidate who has so many zealous followers, a personality who seems to evoke such a strong emotional response, it stands a much better chance of attracting support.
All this secrecy and subterfuge about the birth certificate, and the presentation of such an obvious fake Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet may have been fostered in order to start the public talking about the citizenship requirements for the Presidency, and it might also have served the purpose of creating opposition which would cause the Obama supporters to rally around their Dear Leader, seeing him as the target of 'bigoted' attacks from the right.
I know someone will mention Occam's Razor, and imply that I am reading too much into this, but I think it's certainly a possibility. Even if this is not part of an overall plan to push the idea that the citizenship requirement is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair', it's probably likely that the Democrats and the left generally are milking this for what it is worth. Count on the fact that they want to pull down all our traditional fences and safeguards. Anything which furthers the global, anti-national agenda is on their to-do list.
Labels: Citizenship, Constitution, Globalism, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Monday, October 27, 2014 | admin
In a recent blog entry, titled In their words, I simply posted a number of quotes from various individuals, all of which spelled out the rationalizations for internationalism, and for this 'global governance' agenda which is being forced on us. The very last quote in that post was by Samuel Zane Batten, from a work of his called The New World Order.
Batten was rather an interesting character; he was not the originator of the ideas he promoted in the New World Order; he was merely writing on a theme which was being sounded from various quarters, even as early as the latter part of the 19th century when he wrote some of his works.
It is notable that in his work ''If America Fail', he delineates the idea of America as 'proposition nation', which was an idea which was already in play. If the country had deemed it useful to admit millions of people of disparate origins, as was the case since the mid-19th century, then it was necessary to remake the image of America to accommodate and rationalize the presence of so many aliens. So the 'proposition nation' and Israel Zangwill's ''melting pot'' were pressed into service as a justification for altering this country.
Batten, in If America Fail, says
''America is not a country merely, not primarily a form of government. America is a gospel, an ideal, The Mission of America a faith, a spirit, a state of heart, a set of principles, a trinity of ideas, an interpretation of the kingdom of God, the far-off goal of history.''
At this point, Batten addresses the question of why nations decline and fall. His recounting of the cycle of nations recalls the work of Sir John Glubb about which I posted recently.
''There are causes and conditions which make nations great and strong; and there are conditions and causes which weaken and destroy nations. What are the causes which have destroyed nations in the past? This question is not easy to answer for the reason that the records are incomplete. Many nations have perished, leaving only a name and a memory. Of some of these nations and peoples we have no written record; all that remains are a few fragments like the fossils of some long-perished mastodon.''The first cause he cites is prosperity, or luxury.
''There is another aspect of this question which we may notice. The growth of luxury always leads to social vices which rot the moral fiber of a nation and cause national decay. For one thing the blight of luxury is felt earliest and most fatally in the home. In the early history of Rome the family life was held in high honor, the marriage bond was respected, and for five centuries divorce was unknown in the Roman world. But the time came when all this was changed.
Under the Empire marriage came to be regarded with disfavor and disdain. Women, as Seneca says, married in order that they might be divorced; and were divorced in order that they might marry. There were noble Roman matrons, he tells us, who counted the years not by the consuls but by the number of their husbands. As might be expected, to have a family was regarded as a misfortune, and all kinds of methods were used to prevent the birth of children. The rich and aristocratic, intent only on their own pleasure and gratification, chafed under the restraints of marriage and grew reluctant to rear children. The poor and servile classes, imitating their superiors, became unwilling to marry and found a family. This suggests the next cause.
The time was when men divided the race into two great classes, the superior, made up of the cultured and the prosperous, and the inferior, made up of the uncultured and the slow-witted. It has been assumed that these two classes possessed very different powers and capacities, that the so-called superior were made of finer clay than these so-called inferior persons. The anthropologist and sociologist of our time no longer accept any such classification as this. In fact the scientist seriously maintains that there is as much real capacity in one race as in another.''
In this area of his thinking, Batten seems to be a curious ''missing link'' between the old, race-conscious thought and the new, increasingly egalitarian, one-world mindset. He wrote a good deal about the Anglo-Saxon origins of this country in some of his works, praising the accomplishments of the founding stock. He acknowledges differences among nations and races of people, but he then reassures us that the races are equal in capacity.
''It is true that the characteristics of one may differ greatly from another; but this is a question of aptitude and not of capacity. Further than this, the sociologist seriously maintains that capacity is practically the same in all classes of people; that there is as much real capacity in what we call the submerged tenth, as in the emerged tenth. It is not a question of capacity but of opportunity.
We believe in the value of man as man; we believe also in what is called the democracy of birth and the essential equality of all men. But the fact remains that men do not possess the same traits and qualities; and further, some qualities and characteristics make for national progress and strength, while certain other qualities and strains make against national progress and vigor. These qualities are not abstract or impersonal, but are always incarnated in persons.
There are persons possessed of unusual forethought, great vigor of mind and body, with initiative and self-control. We shall not call those who do not possess these qualities inferior classes and lesser breeds; but we do say that these are superior qualities so far as the race is concerned; and we do say that no people can be great, progressive, strong, enduring, unless it develops and contains a large number of persons possessing these qualities.
A people rises or falls, it grows or declines, as the proportion of people possessing these qualities increases or decreases. We may illustrate this principle from the experience of Greece and Rome. In ancient Greece there was a time when the family was honored and men and women considered it an honor to raise children. Then Greece advanced to the front rank and rose to the highest greatness. But with prosperity came luxury, and with luxury came a love of pleasure and a softness of temper. In the patrician families the birth-rate declined, and the race was drained of its finest qualities.''
Here, he touches on the theme of declining birth rates as a sign, if not a cause, of the fall of nations.
''The same process is seen in Rome with hardly a change of terms. The greatness of old Rome was built upon the family; so long as the family remained intact and it was an honor to rear children, Rome ruled the world and was invincible. But as the family declined and patricians no longer were willing to bear the burden of children, the foundations of the Empire were undermined and the beginning of the end had come.
In vain did Greek philosophers construct in imagination ideal states where only the best members should have offspring to be supported and reared by the public wisdom and at the public cost. In vain did Roman emperors bestow special privileges on fathers of three children or more. The duties and responsibilities of family life fell into disfavor among many of the best men and the ablest and most attractive women. The stock deteriorated and the fruits of centuries of magnificent civilization were cast away.
The conclusion is certain; the decline of a nation is due in large part to the fact that the proportion of the people with certain necessary superior qualities decreased, and the proportion of people without these necessary survival qualities increased.
It is not possible here to consider all of the causes that have produced these changes and have brought a decline of the better strains. The time was when men explained it, or thought they had explained it, by saying that the stock ran out and the people died of old age. But these things are themselves results and do not touch the causes; in fact they are the very things to be explained.''
[Emphasis mine.]
It is interesting that he uses terms like ''the better strains'' and ''superior qualities.'' Of course he would be shouted down as a bigot and an elitist and a hater if he used such loaded terms today. Although he carefully avoids calling certain people, or groups of people superior, he does allow that some possess ''superior qualities'', although one might take away the impression that he sees these ''superior qualities'' randomly distributed across human populations, and this is not evident according to our common sense and our powers of observation.
At this point, he uses the familiar argument that any differences in circumstances or ability are due to 'social and economic causes.'
''Today it has become very evident that the causes of these changes are largely economic and social. First, note the economic cause of race decline. In every nation, soon or late, as we have seen, there has arisen the problem of land monopoly. The land fell into the hands of a few; the soil was over-worked; the cost of living rose higher and higher; the people left the farms and crowded into the cities; the social pressure became intense; the more prosperous and luxurious classes were unwilling to bear the trouble of raising children; the social pressure greatly reduced the birth-rate among the middle classes.
As a consequence the less provident, the more shiftless classes, taking no thought for tomorrow, following impulse only, were the only people that produced many children. In this way the vigor and stamina of the nation were reduced, and a steady national decline began. That is to say, the economic pressure meant a proportionate decrease in the more vigorous, thoughtful, successful, and progressive stock, and a proportionate increase in the less provident, less thoughtful, less self-controlled and successful people.''
It sounds very much like he is making eugenic arguments. Nowadays, most 'conservatives' have knee-jerk response to the idea of eugenics, as if it is not simply common sense to choose a mate of sound health and character, and to want our children to do likewise. The ''conservatives'' who jeer at eugenics (because it conjures up associations with Margaret Sanger and Hitler) can't actually believe dysgenics is preferable. But much of the reproduction in our day is in fact dysgenic, in exactly the way that Batten says in the following paragraphs:
''The other cause is more social and personal. The prosperous and successful classes were unwilling to bear the burden and strain of a family, and so they ceased to have their proportion of children. In all times one fact appears with monotonous iteration: In the so-called upper classes, the nobility, the people of culture and ability, there has been a decline in the birth-rate and number of children. In this way there was a decrease in the number of forceful personalities, men of foresight and ability, men of self-control and self-reliance. This then is the result of it all: With the decreasing number of children in the more successful, more restrained classes, and the increasing number of children in less successful and more shiftless classes, there has followed a decline in the national strength and cohesion.
However powerful a society may seem to be, it is doomed if it so organizes itself as to breed the wrong sort of people and to favor the survival of the least desirable at the expense of the more valuable. Any society that does these things is a failure � a failure in the degree in which these results are attained.
No people can prosper and grow and endure where the less vigorous and less successful outpropagate the more vigorous and more successful. Historians and sociologists have named many causes, poHtical and economic, to explain the decadence of nations. Slavery, civil war, foreign conquest, bloated armaments, lust of gold, loss of martial spirit, the decay of religion, the decline of the national strength, these have all been summoned to ac- count for their fall. But beyond all, more insidious than all, more fatal than any, in large part the cause of all other causes, is a wrongly selected birth-rate leading to the proportionate decline of the more thrifty and stronger stock and the proportionate increase of the more thriftless and weaker strains.
We may state the law of national progress or decline in the following terms: If from any cause there be a proportionate decrease in the number of people with marked qualities of thrift, vigor, initiative, and ability, and a proportionate increase of the people with the traits of shiftlessness and weakness, there follows an inevitable decline of the national life. If by economic and social conditions children be made too heavy a burden on the more desirable elements of the population, there is a danger that the thrifty and the far-seeing members of the community will postpone marriage, and when married restrict the number of their offspring. Thus while the weak and careless elements grow at an increasing rate, the good stocks of the people check their rate of growth or even diminish in number, and the selective deterioration of the race is hastened in two ways.''
In our age of massive migrations of peoples from the Third World, we see exactly what he describes in action. It's uncomfortable for many people to acknowledge this because there is just no denying that the 'careless elements' are in many cases immigrants and those of the Groups Who Must Not Be Criticized.
Batten's viewpoints, in many cases, would be condemned today for their political incorrectness, but in the long run, he was very much a part of the move towards the multiracial/multicultural, ecumenical, egalitarian One World system.
In fact he was one of the Founding Members of a group called the Brotherhood of the Kingdom, which more or less developed what Christians now refer to as the Social Gospel movement. That movement was in great part a forerunner of the Civil Rights revolution, which has now brought us to our present situation.
Again, this is another example of how the ideas that shaped our present dystopian world order started long, long before the 1960s. It all came out in the open then, whereas it had bubbled beneath the surface for many decades prior to that fateful era.
Batten was rather an interesting character; he was not the originator of the ideas he promoted in the New World Order; he was merely writing on a theme which was being sounded from various quarters, even as early as the latter part of the 19th century when he wrote some of his works.
It is notable that in his work ''If America Fail', he delineates the idea of America as 'proposition nation', which was an idea which was already in play. If the country had deemed it useful to admit millions of people of disparate origins, as was the case since the mid-19th century, then it was necessary to remake the image of America to accommodate and rationalize the presence of so many aliens. So the 'proposition nation' and Israel Zangwill's ''melting pot'' were pressed into service as a justification for altering this country.
Batten, in If America Fail, says
''America is not a country merely, not primarily a form of government. America is a gospel, an ideal, The Mission of America a faith, a spirit, a state of heart, a set of principles, a trinity of ideas, an interpretation of the kingdom of God, the far-off goal of history.''
At this point, Batten addresses the question of why nations decline and fall. His recounting of the cycle of nations recalls the work of Sir John Glubb about which I posted recently.
''There are causes and conditions which make nations great and strong; and there are conditions and causes which weaken and destroy nations. What are the causes which have destroyed nations in the past? This question is not easy to answer for the reason that the records are incomplete. Many nations have perished, leaving only a name and a memory. Of some of these nations and peoples we have no written record; all that remains are a few fragments like the fossils of some long-perished mastodon.''The first cause he cites is prosperity, or luxury.
''There is another aspect of this question which we may notice. The growth of luxury always leads to social vices which rot the moral fiber of a nation and cause national decay. For one thing the blight of luxury is felt earliest and most fatally in the home. In the early history of Rome the family life was held in high honor, the marriage bond was respected, and for five centuries divorce was unknown in the Roman world. But the time came when all this was changed.
Under the Empire marriage came to be regarded with disfavor and disdain. Women, as Seneca says, married in order that they might be divorced; and were divorced in order that they might marry. There were noble Roman matrons, he tells us, who counted the years not by the consuls but by the number of their husbands. As might be expected, to have a family was regarded as a misfortune, and all kinds of methods were used to prevent the birth of children. The rich and aristocratic, intent only on their own pleasure and gratification, chafed under the restraints of marriage and grew reluctant to rear children. The poor and servile classes, imitating their superiors, became unwilling to marry and found a family. This suggests the next cause.
The time was when men divided the race into two great classes, the superior, made up of the cultured and the prosperous, and the inferior, made up of the uncultured and the slow-witted. It has been assumed that these two classes possessed very different powers and capacities, that the so-called superior were made of finer clay than these so-called inferior persons. The anthropologist and sociologist of our time no longer accept any such classification as this. In fact the scientist seriously maintains that there is as much real capacity in one race as in another.''
In this area of his thinking, Batten seems to be a curious ''missing link'' between the old, race-conscious thought and the new, increasingly egalitarian, one-world mindset. He wrote a good deal about the Anglo-Saxon origins of this country in some of his works, praising the accomplishments of the founding stock. He acknowledges differences among nations and races of people, but he then reassures us that the races are equal in capacity.
''It is true that the characteristics of one may differ greatly from another; but this is a question of aptitude and not of capacity. Further than this, the sociologist seriously maintains that capacity is practically the same in all classes of people; that there is as much real capacity in what we call the submerged tenth, as in the emerged tenth. It is not a question of capacity but of opportunity.
We believe in the value of man as man; we believe also in what is called the democracy of birth and the essential equality of all men. But the fact remains that men do not possess the same traits and qualities; and further, some qualities and characteristics make for national progress and strength, while certain other qualities and strains make against national progress and vigor. These qualities are not abstract or impersonal, but are always incarnated in persons.
There are persons possessed of unusual forethought, great vigor of mind and body, with initiative and self-control. We shall not call those who do not possess these qualities inferior classes and lesser breeds; but we do say that these are superior qualities so far as the race is concerned; and we do say that no people can be great, progressive, strong, enduring, unless it develops and contains a large number of persons possessing these qualities.
A people rises or falls, it grows or declines, as the proportion of people possessing these qualities increases or decreases. We may illustrate this principle from the experience of Greece and Rome. In ancient Greece there was a time when the family was honored and men and women considered it an honor to raise children. Then Greece advanced to the front rank and rose to the highest greatness. But with prosperity came luxury, and with luxury came a love of pleasure and a softness of temper. In the patrician families the birth-rate declined, and the race was drained of its finest qualities.''
Here, he touches on the theme of declining birth rates as a sign, if not a cause, of the fall of nations.
''The same process is seen in Rome with hardly a change of terms. The greatness of old Rome was built upon the family; so long as the family remained intact and it was an honor to rear children, Rome ruled the world and was invincible. But as the family declined and patricians no longer were willing to bear the burden of children, the foundations of the Empire were undermined and the beginning of the end had come.
In vain did Greek philosophers construct in imagination ideal states where only the best members should have offspring to be supported and reared by the public wisdom and at the public cost. In vain did Roman emperors bestow special privileges on fathers of three children or more. The duties and responsibilities of family life fell into disfavor among many of the best men and the ablest and most attractive women. The stock deteriorated and the fruits of centuries of magnificent civilization were cast away.
The conclusion is certain; the decline of a nation is due in large part to the fact that the proportion of the people with certain necessary superior qualities decreased, and the proportion of people without these necessary survival qualities increased.
It is not possible here to consider all of the causes that have produced these changes and have brought a decline of the better strains. The time was when men explained it, or thought they had explained it, by saying that the stock ran out and the people died of old age. But these things are themselves results and do not touch the causes; in fact they are the very things to be explained.''
[Emphasis mine.]
It is interesting that he uses terms like ''the better strains'' and ''superior qualities.'' Of course he would be shouted down as a bigot and an elitist and a hater if he used such loaded terms today. Although he carefully avoids calling certain people, or groups of people superior, he does allow that some possess ''superior qualities'', although one might take away the impression that he sees these ''superior qualities'' randomly distributed across human populations, and this is not evident according to our common sense and our powers of observation.
At this point, he uses the familiar argument that any differences in circumstances or ability are due to 'social and economic causes.'
''Today it has become very evident that the causes of these changes are largely economic and social. First, note the economic cause of race decline. In every nation, soon or late, as we have seen, there has arisen the problem of land monopoly. The land fell into the hands of a few; the soil was over-worked; the cost of living rose higher and higher; the people left the farms and crowded into the cities; the social pressure became intense; the more prosperous and luxurious classes were unwilling to bear the trouble of raising children; the social pressure greatly reduced the birth-rate among the middle classes.
As a consequence the less provident, the more shiftless classes, taking no thought for tomorrow, following impulse only, were the only people that produced many children. In this way the vigor and stamina of the nation were reduced, and a steady national decline began. That is to say, the economic pressure meant a proportionate decrease in the more vigorous, thoughtful, successful, and progressive stock, and a proportionate increase in the less provident, less thoughtful, less self-controlled and successful people.''
It sounds very much like he is making eugenic arguments. Nowadays, most 'conservatives' have knee-jerk response to the idea of eugenics, as if it is not simply common sense to choose a mate of sound health and character, and to want our children to do likewise. The ''conservatives'' who jeer at eugenics (because it conjures up associations with Margaret Sanger and Hitler) can't actually believe dysgenics is preferable. But much of the reproduction in our day is in fact dysgenic, in exactly the way that Batten says in the following paragraphs:
''The other cause is more social and personal. The prosperous and successful classes were unwilling to bear the burden and strain of a family, and so they ceased to have their proportion of children. In all times one fact appears with monotonous iteration: In the so-called upper classes, the nobility, the people of culture and ability, there has been a decline in the birth-rate and number of children. In this way there was a decrease in the number of forceful personalities, men of foresight and ability, men of self-control and self-reliance. This then is the result of it all: With the decreasing number of children in the more successful, more restrained classes, and the increasing number of children in less successful and more shiftless classes, there has followed a decline in the national strength and cohesion.
However powerful a society may seem to be, it is doomed if it so organizes itself as to breed the wrong sort of people and to favor the survival of the least desirable at the expense of the more valuable. Any society that does these things is a failure � a failure in the degree in which these results are attained.
No people can prosper and grow and endure where the less vigorous and less successful outpropagate the more vigorous and more successful. Historians and sociologists have named many causes, poHtical and economic, to explain the decadence of nations. Slavery, civil war, foreign conquest, bloated armaments, lust of gold, loss of martial spirit, the decay of religion, the decline of the national strength, these have all been summoned to ac- count for their fall. But beyond all, more insidious than all, more fatal than any, in large part the cause of all other causes, is a wrongly selected birth-rate leading to the proportionate decline of the more thrifty and stronger stock and the proportionate increase of the more thriftless and weaker strains.
We may state the law of national progress or decline in the following terms: If from any cause there be a proportionate decrease in the number of people with marked qualities of thrift, vigor, initiative, and ability, and a proportionate increase of the people with the traits of shiftlessness and weakness, there follows an inevitable decline of the national life. If by economic and social conditions children be made too heavy a burden on the more desirable elements of the population, there is a danger that the thrifty and the far-seeing members of the community will postpone marriage, and when married restrict the number of their offspring. Thus while the weak and careless elements grow at an increasing rate, the good stocks of the people check their rate of growth or even diminish in number, and the selective deterioration of the race is hastened in two ways.''
In our age of massive migrations of peoples from the Third World, we see exactly what he describes in action. It's uncomfortable for many people to acknowledge this because there is just no denying that the 'careless elements' are in many cases immigrants and those of the Groups Who Must Not Be Criticized.
Batten's viewpoints, in many cases, would be condemned today for their political incorrectness, but in the long run, he was very much a part of the move towards the multiracial/multicultural, ecumenical, egalitarian One World system.
In fact he was one of the Founding Members of a group called the Brotherhood of the Kingdom, which more or less developed what Christians now refer to as the Social Gospel movement. That movement was in great part a forerunner of the Civil Rights revolution, which has now brought us to our present situation.
Again, this is another example of how the ideas that shaped our present dystopian world order started long, long before the 1960s. It all came out in the open then, whereas it had bubbled beneath the surface for many decades prior to that fateful era.
Labels: Creeping Liberalism, Egalitarianism, Globalism, Multiculturalism, National Character, One World
0 comment Tuesday, October 7, 2014 | admin
Recently I had a conversation with someone -- actually it's an ongoing discussion -- about something like this blog piece from April of 2008.
How the Oldtimers Survived the Great Depression and Why We May Not Measure Up
Arguably, things have gotten worse economically since that blog piece was written -- way back before the 2008 election. In fact I hardly know anyone who is not feeling the effects of the economic situation. I suspect all of us know people who are out of work after years of employment, unable to find a job, or people whose income has been drastically reduced, and I think we all notice that the cost of food and other necessities has gone up noticeably.
The blog entry linked above is an interesting one, and I agree with many of the points made.
One of the reasons why we may not fare as well in a depression is the subject of this piece, from a few months ago, painting a rather stark picture of the de-industrialization of our country.
''The deindustrialization of the United States should be a top concern for every man, woman and child in the country. But sadly, most Americans do not have any idea what is going on around them.
For people like that, take this article and print it out and hand it to them. Perhaps what they will read below will shock them badly enough to awaken them from their slumber.
The following are 19 facts about the deindustrialization of America that will blow your mind....
#1 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.''
Read the rest. The writer concludes his piece by asking
''If anyone can explain how a deindustrialized America has any kind of viable economic future, please do so below in the comments section.''
I am interested to hear if anyone believes that we can return to what we were in prosperous times, given that we seem to manufacture very little in this country anymore.
Another subject of discussion with my friend is the fact that many of our foods are grown or processed in some other part of the world, such as Asia or South America. Yet most of our foods grown here seem to be destined for other parts of the world, not local consumption. In other words, the fact that we don't seem to grow much of the food we eat or produce many manufactured goods is not a good sign. We are nowhere near as self-sufficient as we once were.
I know there is a movement among some people to grow food in home gardens or at least, failing that option, to buy locally-grown produce where possible. And now Senate Bill 510 may interfere with our right to grow fruits and vegetables.
The blogger at Code Name Insight, in the first linked article, pinpoints many of the features of old America which enabled them to survive the economic hard times. This piece too delineates how people helped one another during the Great Depression by voluntary giving, personal charity, within their own circle and community. This is something that is rather rare today. I live in a town where people do give rather generously to charity, but I know that much of what is done by the churches involves digging wells in Africa and tending to the people there, or in Central America -- meanwhile there are people in need in this area, people who cannot afford to pay their heating bills or to buy gas for their cars, and so on. Much of the food bank's stock goes to 'immigrants', as donations are insufficient to the demands.
There is a crying need for stronger community bonds and more mutual assistance. This is something that is within our control, even though we can't do much about the other issues, like the fact that our country has lost so many jobs to deindustrialization and offshoring.
Lately I have felt the urge to try to wake my neighbors up to the fact that they need to focus on local needs, and stop trying to save the Third World.
I know I am not the only one who thinks about these issues, and who feels helpless to make a difference as far as the larger economic picture. The globalist elites, who are playing a big game with us as pawns, plainly don't care about our wishes, the will of the people, or about our well-being and prosperity.
I hate that this post sounds rather Glenn Beckish, (minus the chalkboard), but what do the rest of you think about all this? How do things look from where you are?
How the Oldtimers Survived the Great Depression and Why We May Not Measure Up
Arguably, things have gotten worse economically since that blog piece was written -- way back before the 2008 election. In fact I hardly know anyone who is not feeling the effects of the economic situation. I suspect all of us know people who are out of work after years of employment, unable to find a job, or people whose income has been drastically reduced, and I think we all notice that the cost of food and other necessities has gone up noticeably.
The blog entry linked above is an interesting one, and I agree with many of the points made.
One of the reasons why we may not fare as well in a depression is the subject of this piece, from a few months ago, painting a rather stark picture of the de-industrialization of our country.
''The deindustrialization of the United States should be a top concern for every man, woman and child in the country. But sadly, most Americans do not have any idea what is going on around them.
For people like that, take this article and print it out and hand it to them. Perhaps what they will read below will shock them badly enough to awaken them from their slumber.
The following are 19 facts about the deindustrialization of America that will blow your mind....
#1 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.''
Read the rest. The writer concludes his piece by asking
''If anyone can explain how a deindustrialized America has any kind of viable economic future, please do so below in the comments section.''
I am interested to hear if anyone believes that we can return to what we were in prosperous times, given that we seem to manufacture very little in this country anymore.
Another subject of discussion with my friend is the fact that many of our foods are grown or processed in some other part of the world, such as Asia or South America. Yet most of our foods grown here seem to be destined for other parts of the world, not local consumption. In other words, the fact that we don't seem to grow much of the food we eat or produce many manufactured goods is not a good sign. We are nowhere near as self-sufficient as we once were.
I know there is a movement among some people to grow food in home gardens or at least, failing that option, to buy locally-grown produce where possible. And now Senate Bill 510 may interfere with our right to grow fruits and vegetables.
The blogger at Code Name Insight, in the first linked article, pinpoints many of the features of old America which enabled them to survive the economic hard times. This piece too delineates how people helped one another during the Great Depression by voluntary giving, personal charity, within their own circle and community. This is something that is rather rare today. I live in a town where people do give rather generously to charity, but I know that much of what is done by the churches involves digging wells in Africa and tending to the people there, or in Central America -- meanwhile there are people in need in this area, people who cannot afford to pay their heating bills or to buy gas for their cars, and so on. Much of the food bank's stock goes to 'immigrants', as donations are insufficient to the demands.
There is a crying need for stronger community bonds and more mutual assistance. This is something that is within our control, even though we can't do much about the other issues, like the fact that our country has lost so many jobs to deindustrialization and offshoring.
Lately I have felt the urge to try to wake my neighbors up to the fact that they need to focus on local needs, and stop trying to save the Third World.
I know I am not the only one who thinks about these issues, and who feels helpless to make a difference as far as the larger economic picture. The globalist elites, who are playing a big game with us as pawns, plainly don't care about our wishes, the will of the people, or about our well-being and prosperity.
I hate that this post sounds rather Glenn Beckish, (minus the chalkboard), but what do the rest of you think about all this? How do things look from where you are?
Labels: Charity, Economic Depression, Globalism, Localism, Old America, Poverty, Self-Sufficiency
0 comment Monday, October 6, 2014 | admin
Recently, this article from The Guardian appeared, announcing that the non-White populatioln of Britain had reached 9.1 million. Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch UK, says starkly that
''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."
Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.
On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:
''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair�s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:
'It didn�t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration� to make the UK truly multicultural�the policy was intended to rub the Right�s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date� this shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants�
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour�s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation � or, in other words, the majority of the English.''
Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.
I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.
There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.
I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.
This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.
''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."
Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.
On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:
''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair�s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:
'It didn�t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration� to make the UK truly multicultural�the policy was intended to rub the Right�s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date� this shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants�
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour�s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation � or, in other words, the majority of the English.''
Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.
I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.
There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.
I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.
This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.
Labels: Anti-White, Ethnic Cleansing, Globalism, Leftism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Treason
0 comment Tuesday, September 30, 2014 | admin
Over at TakiMag, Paul Gottfried has a piece about Christianity, specifically Protestant evangelical Christianity and the Obama cult, as manifested in a Northern Michigan election party. He relates how a friend sent him clippings about the behavior of many young Christians in northern Michigan upon Obama's election:
In this heavily Protestant and very Nordic region of the country, the youth had trouble containing their joy on the outcome of this year�s election, according to the Northern Weekly Express. Throngs of young adults gathered at an election day party at the InsideOut Gallery in Traverse City, where the full house "rocked the rafters" as they watched Obama storm to victory. "Some of the biggest cheers that night came when images of African-Americans were shown on the big screen, WEEPING FOR JOY at the election of Barack Obama." The paper hastens to remind the reader that this victory was 'by any measure, one of the MOST SIGNIFICANT events in the history of the United States." Even without the use of caps, the Northern Weekly Express conveyed the ecstasy of the hour by showing the glowing faces of the Northern Michigan young standing beside cardboard images of their black savior. The election party looked more like a revival meeting than a Friday night bash, and it radiated something akin to the joy of being cleansed of one�s sins.
[...]
I think this hysteria that I�ve been observing is religious in nature. It is not confined to the atheist, social engineering Left; it is also very much alive and well among religious Protestants, and particularly among the Evangelicals and Mennonites of my acquaintance. These people are anything but non-believers. Nonetheless they entirely agree with Obama�s remark, made to Pastor Rick Warren, indicating that sin means "sexism, racism, and homophobia." A neighbor, who is a very orthodox Mennonite minister and who has the Nicene Creed on his wall, was campaigning for Obama, as an act of overcoming the ingrained racism of his community.
[...]
The exaltation of the supposedly downtrodden, as an act of group atonement for social sins and for thinking bigoted thoughts, and as the prelude to building a truly egalitarian society, have become characteristic of those seeking righteousness. Religious fervor has now been turned toward the task of validating designated minorities, including illegals streaming across our Southern borders. Such behavior is no longer specific to professional atheists, raging at the Christian Right. It is now to all appearances an epidemic spreading through the American religious community and one that is likely to continue to spread. And unlike its manifestations in non-Protestant America, in Protestant America, the advocacy of multiculturalism is definitely aimed at the displacement of traditional ethnic-cultural communities�or of what remains of them.''
I am not sure that I understand that last sentence, and from what I read it to mean, I don't agree. How is 'non-Protestant' America less guilty of promoting the displacement of traditional communities when it supports mass immigration?
The PC Christian phenomenon he is describing is not something that began with the Obama campaign, although Obama provided a figure around which these multicult 'Christians' might rally. The present-day trend in mainstream Christianity, towards embracing leftist positions on all social matters, has been going on for some time. Rick Warren gets a passing mention in the article, though he should be front and center; he has been a big influence in this trend among formerly conservative Christians towards leftist, politically correct values, and away from the Biblically-based faith of their fathers. Warren, with his emphasis on pop psychology and the 'self', along with a warmed-over social gospel, has brought many Christians into line with mainstream liberal ideology. It's no coincidence that Warren is rubbing elbows with the Bono types, and with globalists.
The brand of Christianity that Warren and his followers promote is the kind of thing which causes many outside the Christian sphere to denounce Christianity as being detrimental to Western peoples and their survival.
It's no secret that the mainstream Christian denominations have been heavily infiltrated by leftists since at least the 1940s, if not sooner. The WCC has long been known to be sympathetic to leftist radical causes. The left, as we know, has been fairly open about its longstanding effort to infiltrate and subvert from within all the institutions of our society, and the churches are not exempt; far from it. Influencing Christians away from the Word of God and towards the leftist/socialist/globalist worldview is a strategy aimed at removing one of the last obstacles to the remaking of the world, the erasure of borders, and the breakdown of family and extended kin loyalties.
The fact is, however, this is not just something that can be blamed on Protestantism or those dreaded 'WASPs' again. All branches of Christianity are to some extent affected by the new politically-corrected counterfeit Christianity.
I don't think that it is peculiar to Protestantism, although the TakiMag commentariat might be likely to suggest that, at least those with an open Catholic or Orthodox bias. Obviously the Catholic hierarchy has been in the forefront of activism in favor of open borders, especially when the borders being erased separate us from Latino Catholics, who are now being eagerly welcomed by the Church hierarchy. I've been told by some that the Church rank and file are not as fervently open-borders as the leadership, but I am not sure about that.
However, Protestant churches have been moving towards globalist politically correct ideology, too. Personally, I think it's all a part of a larger trend in Christianity, in which Christians of all denominations seemingly believe that to be a good Christian, one has to embrace one's exact opposite. To champion the rights of those who are not only extremely 'Other' in relation to us is seen as a virtue, and embracing those who are openly hostile to us, even our avowed enemies, is seen as the highest virtue, as saintliness.
We could see the recent events in the Castro District of San Francisco in the light of this. A group of Christians have been going into the Castro to pray and witness to the ''gay community.' However, in the aftermath of the recent furor over Proposition 8 in California, many of the local 'gays' were enraged by the presence of the Christians and by their public singing and praying. So they set upon the Christians, shouting obscenities and threats, and apparently even attempting to molest some of the Christians.
The Christians in question mostly reiterated how they loved their attackers, and forgave them, refusing to press charges for molestation or sexual assault.
I am certain many Christians will say this is exemplary, highly Christian behavior, and that all good Christians might hope to show such character in a similar situation.
I won't try to argue that point; it deserves another post to itself. But it exemplifies the seeming value today's Christians seem to attach to those who are the most hostile towards us. This is how you prove your mettle as a Christian: to lay down and passively accept abuse by others, or to sacrifice yourself so as to benefit some 'Other' who is either indifferent or hostile towards you. I wonder if our forefathers would have interpreted Christianity this way. They certainly did not embrace self-destruction as peoples in the name of Christianity.
Again, I know those who despise Christianity will say that this is exactly why they despise Christianity: because it makes us the doormats of the world. It makes us self-abasing and self-abnegating, and downright masochistic in some cases. I hate to use Freudian jargon but the term masochistic seems to be the only term available to describe those who find some kind of gratification in being mistreated or abused by others. And that sums up much of the Western world's behavior these days, as our leaders avidly seek people to come and loot our countries.
There may be an element of seeking redemption for our supposed collective 'sins' of xenophobia and 'racism'. We have collectively been seized by an apology mania, in which we are desperately seeking someone to whom we can apologize and make restitution for our past 'sins' or the transgressions of our fathers. In Catholic terms this is a seeking of absolution from another human being. But this is not Biblical Christianity; Christians know that we can only be redeemed by Christ, not by another human being or group of human beings.
The comments following are the usual mixed bag, with the usual axes being ground. There is usually at least one in the TakiMag comment box who has to blame the Protestant Reformation for all the evils in the world. But there are a couple of good comments, one by Condor.
Another commenter later in the discussion turns the discussion to the usual condemnation of 'WASPs', saying that the Kennedys, for example, were merely emulating WASP culture, assimilating to WASP 'Boston Brahmin' norms. That argument never dies. It's usually resorted to by those of later immigrant stock, who are still resentful generations after their families immigrated here, resentful of the WASPs -- who gave them the opportunity to become Americans. It shows that no good deed goes unpunished.
The same anti-WASP commenter cites David Hackett Fischer and his work 'Albion's Seed.' I've read Albion's Seed, and it's an interesting book, a sizeable, hefty book, with a lot of information, but it is not Gospel. Fischer is not the last word, and it's really getting very old to hear people citing him in support of their pet theories. The anti-WASP faction really love Fischer. It's too bad he has gained this cult status, and his interpretation seems to go unchallenged.
Gottfried seems to imply in his article that WASPs somehow deserve the animus the various ethnic groups direct towards them, because they ''excluded" the various ethnic immigrants of the Ellis Island wave. Well, there is another side to that story. I might easily say that the various ethnic immigrant groups who have this monumental, generations-long grudge against WASPs are people who suffer from inferiority feelings, and who felt envy towards the WASPs who built the country to which their ancestors sought admission. It seems to be human nature to resent someone to whom you are beholden. We see this with all the minority 'victim' groups, and in fact their cult of victimology, which has done so much harm in our day, could be said to have been pioneered by the various ethnic immigrants. It is they who, to this day, bemoan the supposed 'discrimination' their ancestors suffered when they landed here from the Old Country. The Irish have their centuries-old vendetta against the English for having 'stolen' their country and their culture and their language. That anti-English tradition must have colored their perceptions of the Anglo-Protestants they met here. The rhetoric is exactly the same as that of Third World peoples, American Indians, and others. It might be argued that all the opportunistic 'huddled masses' of today are following the template established by the Ellis Islanders and their descendants.
The whole cult of anti-White or anti-Western resentment might be seen as being based, ultimately, in the 'undeveloped' world's resentment and envy of European man's accomplishments and successes. Look at the Anglo-Saxon as being sort of the epitome of Western strength and dominance (think of the British Empire at its height, or American dominance during its heyday) and success. The most successful are always regarded with a mix of envy and resentment. Sometimes the resentment escalates to hatred and desire for revenge, the desire to pull down the most successful and destroy his accomplishments, which are seen as an affront to the less successful peoples.
The Anglo-Saxon male is the target mostly because he inspired so much envy and resentment by his successes -- and also by his generosity. Sometimes generosity is despised as weakness, even by those who are the recipients of that generosity.
''Envy always implies conscious inferiority wherever it resides." - Pliny
So, again, we have the usual blaming of Christians, and the blaming specifically of Anglo-Saxon Protestants for the perils we are facing now.
How long will this continue? I could blame the later waves of immigrants for their grudges and resentments, and their tendency to champion The Other out of spite towards WASP America.
It is not just the nonwhite victim groups that have fostered this White Protestant guilt syndrome, but all the other immigrant victimhood-cultists. Many White Protestants who are not identified with some ethnic victim group end up absorbing some of the blame and guilt directed at old-stock Anglo-Americans.
We could see that we are all in this together, and that what happened in the mid-19th century should be put aside in the name of saving what remains of our heritage. Can we do that, or will we continue to snipe and one another and undercut one another?
In this heavily Protestant and very Nordic region of the country, the youth had trouble containing their joy on the outcome of this year�s election, according to the Northern Weekly Express. Throngs of young adults gathered at an election day party at the InsideOut Gallery in Traverse City, where the full house "rocked the rafters" as they watched Obama storm to victory. "Some of the biggest cheers that night came when images of African-Americans were shown on the big screen, WEEPING FOR JOY at the election of Barack Obama." The paper hastens to remind the reader that this victory was 'by any measure, one of the MOST SIGNIFICANT events in the history of the United States." Even without the use of caps, the Northern Weekly Express conveyed the ecstasy of the hour by showing the glowing faces of the Northern Michigan young standing beside cardboard images of their black savior. The election party looked more like a revival meeting than a Friday night bash, and it radiated something akin to the joy of being cleansed of one�s sins.
[...]
I think this hysteria that I�ve been observing is religious in nature. It is not confined to the atheist, social engineering Left; it is also very much alive and well among religious Protestants, and particularly among the Evangelicals and Mennonites of my acquaintance. These people are anything but non-believers. Nonetheless they entirely agree with Obama�s remark, made to Pastor Rick Warren, indicating that sin means "sexism, racism, and homophobia." A neighbor, who is a very orthodox Mennonite minister and who has the Nicene Creed on his wall, was campaigning for Obama, as an act of overcoming the ingrained racism of his community.
[...]
The exaltation of the supposedly downtrodden, as an act of group atonement for social sins and for thinking bigoted thoughts, and as the prelude to building a truly egalitarian society, have become characteristic of those seeking righteousness. Religious fervor has now been turned toward the task of validating designated minorities, including illegals streaming across our Southern borders. Such behavior is no longer specific to professional atheists, raging at the Christian Right. It is now to all appearances an epidemic spreading through the American religious community and one that is likely to continue to spread. And unlike its manifestations in non-Protestant America, in Protestant America, the advocacy of multiculturalism is definitely aimed at the displacement of traditional ethnic-cultural communities�or of what remains of them.''
I am not sure that I understand that last sentence, and from what I read it to mean, I don't agree. How is 'non-Protestant' America less guilty of promoting the displacement of traditional communities when it supports mass immigration?
The PC Christian phenomenon he is describing is not something that began with the Obama campaign, although Obama provided a figure around which these multicult 'Christians' might rally. The present-day trend in mainstream Christianity, towards embracing leftist positions on all social matters, has been going on for some time. Rick Warren gets a passing mention in the article, though he should be front and center; he has been a big influence in this trend among formerly conservative Christians towards leftist, politically correct values, and away from the Biblically-based faith of their fathers. Warren, with his emphasis on pop psychology and the 'self', along with a warmed-over social gospel, has brought many Christians into line with mainstream liberal ideology. It's no coincidence that Warren is rubbing elbows with the Bono types, and with globalists.
The brand of Christianity that Warren and his followers promote is the kind of thing which causes many outside the Christian sphere to denounce Christianity as being detrimental to Western peoples and their survival.
It's no secret that the mainstream Christian denominations have been heavily infiltrated by leftists since at least the 1940s, if not sooner. The WCC has long been known to be sympathetic to leftist radical causes. The left, as we know, has been fairly open about its longstanding effort to infiltrate and subvert from within all the institutions of our society, and the churches are not exempt; far from it. Influencing Christians away from the Word of God and towards the leftist/socialist/globalist worldview is a strategy aimed at removing one of the last obstacles to the remaking of the world, the erasure of borders, and the breakdown of family and extended kin loyalties.
The fact is, however, this is not just something that can be blamed on Protestantism or those dreaded 'WASPs' again. All branches of Christianity are to some extent affected by the new politically-corrected counterfeit Christianity.
I don't think that it is peculiar to Protestantism, although the TakiMag commentariat might be likely to suggest that, at least those with an open Catholic or Orthodox bias. Obviously the Catholic hierarchy has been in the forefront of activism in favor of open borders, especially when the borders being erased separate us from Latino Catholics, who are now being eagerly welcomed by the Church hierarchy. I've been told by some that the Church rank and file are not as fervently open-borders as the leadership, but I am not sure about that.
However, Protestant churches have been moving towards globalist politically correct ideology, too. Personally, I think it's all a part of a larger trend in Christianity, in which Christians of all denominations seemingly believe that to be a good Christian, one has to embrace one's exact opposite. To champion the rights of those who are not only extremely 'Other' in relation to us is seen as a virtue, and embracing those who are openly hostile to us, even our avowed enemies, is seen as the highest virtue, as saintliness.
We could see the recent events in the Castro District of San Francisco in the light of this. A group of Christians have been going into the Castro to pray and witness to the ''gay community.' However, in the aftermath of the recent furor over Proposition 8 in California, many of the local 'gays' were enraged by the presence of the Christians and by their public singing and praying. So they set upon the Christians, shouting obscenities and threats, and apparently even attempting to molest some of the Christians.
The Christians in question mostly reiterated how they loved their attackers, and forgave them, refusing to press charges for molestation or sexual assault.
I am certain many Christians will say this is exemplary, highly Christian behavior, and that all good Christians might hope to show such character in a similar situation.
I won't try to argue that point; it deserves another post to itself. But it exemplifies the seeming value today's Christians seem to attach to those who are the most hostile towards us. This is how you prove your mettle as a Christian: to lay down and passively accept abuse by others, or to sacrifice yourself so as to benefit some 'Other' who is either indifferent or hostile towards you. I wonder if our forefathers would have interpreted Christianity this way. They certainly did not embrace self-destruction as peoples in the name of Christianity.
Again, I know those who despise Christianity will say that this is exactly why they despise Christianity: because it makes us the doormats of the world. It makes us self-abasing and self-abnegating, and downright masochistic in some cases. I hate to use Freudian jargon but the term masochistic seems to be the only term available to describe those who find some kind of gratification in being mistreated or abused by others. And that sums up much of the Western world's behavior these days, as our leaders avidly seek people to come and loot our countries.
There may be an element of seeking redemption for our supposed collective 'sins' of xenophobia and 'racism'. We have collectively been seized by an apology mania, in which we are desperately seeking someone to whom we can apologize and make restitution for our past 'sins' or the transgressions of our fathers. In Catholic terms this is a seeking of absolution from another human being. But this is not Biblical Christianity; Christians know that we can only be redeemed by Christ, not by another human being or group of human beings.
The comments following are the usual mixed bag, with the usual axes being ground. There is usually at least one in the TakiMag comment box who has to blame the Protestant Reformation for all the evils in the world. But there are a couple of good comments, one by Condor.
Another commenter later in the discussion turns the discussion to the usual condemnation of 'WASPs', saying that the Kennedys, for example, were merely emulating WASP culture, assimilating to WASP 'Boston Brahmin' norms. That argument never dies. It's usually resorted to by those of later immigrant stock, who are still resentful generations after their families immigrated here, resentful of the WASPs -- who gave them the opportunity to become Americans. It shows that no good deed goes unpunished.
The same anti-WASP commenter cites David Hackett Fischer and his work 'Albion's Seed.' I've read Albion's Seed, and it's an interesting book, a sizeable, hefty book, with a lot of information, but it is not Gospel. Fischer is not the last word, and it's really getting very old to hear people citing him in support of their pet theories. The anti-WASP faction really love Fischer. It's too bad he has gained this cult status, and his interpretation seems to go unchallenged.
Gottfried seems to imply in his article that WASPs somehow deserve the animus the various ethnic groups direct towards them, because they ''excluded" the various ethnic immigrants of the Ellis Island wave. Well, there is another side to that story. I might easily say that the various ethnic immigrant groups who have this monumental, generations-long grudge against WASPs are people who suffer from inferiority feelings, and who felt envy towards the WASPs who built the country to which their ancestors sought admission. It seems to be human nature to resent someone to whom you are beholden. We see this with all the minority 'victim' groups, and in fact their cult of victimology, which has done so much harm in our day, could be said to have been pioneered by the various ethnic immigrants. It is they who, to this day, bemoan the supposed 'discrimination' their ancestors suffered when they landed here from the Old Country. The Irish have their centuries-old vendetta against the English for having 'stolen' their country and their culture and their language. That anti-English tradition must have colored their perceptions of the Anglo-Protestants they met here. The rhetoric is exactly the same as that of Third World peoples, American Indians, and others. It might be argued that all the opportunistic 'huddled masses' of today are following the template established by the Ellis Islanders and their descendants.
The whole cult of anti-White or anti-Western resentment might be seen as being based, ultimately, in the 'undeveloped' world's resentment and envy of European man's accomplishments and successes. Look at the Anglo-Saxon as being sort of the epitome of Western strength and dominance (think of the British Empire at its height, or American dominance during its heyday) and success. The most successful are always regarded with a mix of envy and resentment. Sometimes the resentment escalates to hatred and desire for revenge, the desire to pull down the most successful and destroy his accomplishments, which are seen as an affront to the less successful peoples.
The Anglo-Saxon male is the target mostly because he inspired so much envy and resentment by his successes -- and also by his generosity. Sometimes generosity is despised as weakness, even by those who are the recipients of that generosity.
''Envy always implies conscious inferiority wherever it resides." - Pliny
So, again, we have the usual blaming of Christians, and the blaming specifically of Anglo-Saxon Protestants for the perils we are facing now.
How long will this continue? I could blame the later waves of immigrants for their grudges and resentments, and their tendency to champion The Other out of spite towards WASP America.
It is not just the nonwhite victim groups that have fostered this White Protestant guilt syndrome, but all the other immigrant victimhood-cultists. Many White Protestants who are not identified with some ethnic victim group end up absorbing some of the blame and guilt directed at old-stock Anglo-Americans.
We could see that we are all in this together, and that what happened in the mid-19th century should be put aside in the name of saving what remains of our heritage. Can we do that, or will we continue to snipe and one another and undercut one another?
Labels: Christianity, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Identity, Globalism, Liberalism, Old America, Political Correctness, Wasps
0 comment Friday, September 26, 2014 | admin
Tim Heydon discusses the relationship between rising food prices, globalization, and the 'popular uprisings' in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere in the Arab world.
Presuming that the 'popular uprisings' are just that, and that they were not fomented by outsiders as many have speculated, it is thought that rising food prices on staple foods provoked the unrest. As we are seeing rising food prices here (along with rising prices, generally) this is something we have to think about.
Heydon says in his piece that
"Globalisation depends on the specialisation or division of labour and Ricardo�s theory of Comparative Advantage. New Labour positioned this country into the Global economy as specialising in financial services. Hence its love affair with the City which has brought us to such disaster, and its total lack of concern for the export of our manufacturng [sic] industry and the huge increase in the population of an already crowded country.''
I surmised some time ago that the idea behind globalizing is in part the idea that the various regions (I started to say, 'nations', silly me) are to specialize, and this, in order that we not be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. I think I wrote on this blog that this forced interdependency, even when it comes to basic foodstuffs, is a way of making us hostages, in a sense, to each other. If we are all dependent on people on the other side of the world for the necessities of life, we are very vulnerable, at the mercy of people (the Chinese, for instance) who are surely not our friends or well-wishers.) I think this forced interdependence is a diabolical idea, in all sense of that word. But Heydon believes that is a part of what is going on.
And as he says, that's why our manufacturing capacity has been destroyed or offshored for the most part, with no seeming regrets among our overlords.
A friend and I were talking recently about the utter insanity of our getting seafood from the other side of the world instead of from local waters, while presumably much of our locally-caught seafood goes to who-knows-where. Read the packagaging labels at your local supermarket; very few food products (or non-food products) are made here. Most products say, at best, 'Distributed by..' someplace in another U.S. state, perhaps, but very little says 'Product of the USA', as it should. We are taking a gamble when we eat anything, really, given China's record of pushing toxic products of all kinds onto the passive world. For the latest instance of that, Time.com reports on the toxic metal contamination of Chinese rice
''The polluting effects of China's rapid industrialization are hardly news. But the industrial clusters cropping up in the nation's farm belts present new problems. Food safety in China in the past few years has primarily been framed as a problem of corruption in the supply chain, as was the case in the melamine scandal, or the overuse of pesticides, insecticides and chemical fertilizers in agriculture. Crop contamination by heavy metals from nearby industry that soak into the soil did not start this year � in fact the rice samples used to determine the 10% contamination rate were taken back in 2007 � but the scope of the problem is just beginning to be fully comprehended.''
Most people, rather than being justifiably alarmed by the many instances of contamination, simply shrug their shoulders and go on buying the stuff. Maybe among the adulterants in the food products is something that makes us passive, docile, and stupid.
I'm only half-joking when I say that.
Along with the artificial population explosion in the UK and our country, via mass uncontrolled immigration, we are in a bad way when it comes to being able to feed ourselves and be self-sufficient. But the idea is that we not be self-sustaining, and that either our ''own'' political classes, and/or the people in China who control our flow of goods, will have power over us by that fact.
This can hardly end well. Now, as the price of gas threatens to hit $5 a gallon soon, prices will surely continue their upward climb.
What next? Do our political classes think they can control and use this crisis that they have engineered, or will it backfire on them?
Heydon concludes by saying that an era of scarcity will put paid to this globalizing experiment that is under way. Another way to look at that is that we need to regain some kind of control over our own lives by producing what we need for ourselves, as was our forefathers' intention. We can't wait for this experiment to fail completely before we decide to work towards more sovereignty over our own lives and more self-sufficiency.
Presuming that the 'popular uprisings' are just that, and that they were not fomented by outsiders as many have speculated, it is thought that rising food prices on staple foods provoked the unrest. As we are seeing rising food prices here (along with rising prices, generally) this is something we have to think about.
Heydon says in his piece that
"Globalisation depends on the specialisation or division of labour and Ricardo�s theory of Comparative Advantage. New Labour positioned this country into the Global economy as specialising in financial services. Hence its love affair with the City which has brought us to such disaster, and its total lack of concern for the export of our manufacturng [sic] industry and the huge increase in the population of an already crowded country.''
I surmised some time ago that the idea behind globalizing is in part the idea that the various regions (I started to say, 'nations', silly me) are to specialize, and this, in order that we not be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. I think I wrote on this blog that this forced interdependency, even when it comes to basic foodstuffs, is a way of making us hostages, in a sense, to each other. If we are all dependent on people on the other side of the world for the necessities of life, we are very vulnerable, at the mercy of people (the Chinese, for instance) who are surely not our friends or well-wishers.) I think this forced interdependence is a diabolical idea, in all sense of that word. But Heydon believes that is a part of what is going on.
And as he says, that's why our manufacturing capacity has been destroyed or offshored for the most part, with no seeming regrets among our overlords.
A friend and I were talking recently about the utter insanity of our getting seafood from the other side of the world instead of from local waters, while presumably much of our locally-caught seafood goes to who-knows-where. Read the packagaging labels at your local supermarket; very few food products (or non-food products) are made here. Most products say, at best, 'Distributed by..' someplace in another U.S. state, perhaps, but very little says 'Product of the USA', as it should. We are taking a gamble when we eat anything, really, given China's record of pushing toxic products of all kinds onto the passive world. For the latest instance of that, Time.com reports on the toxic metal contamination of Chinese rice
''The polluting effects of China's rapid industrialization are hardly news. But the industrial clusters cropping up in the nation's farm belts present new problems. Food safety in China in the past few years has primarily been framed as a problem of corruption in the supply chain, as was the case in the melamine scandal, or the overuse of pesticides, insecticides and chemical fertilizers in agriculture. Crop contamination by heavy metals from nearby industry that soak into the soil did not start this year � in fact the rice samples used to determine the 10% contamination rate were taken back in 2007 � but the scope of the problem is just beginning to be fully comprehended.''
Most people, rather than being justifiably alarmed by the many instances of contamination, simply shrug their shoulders and go on buying the stuff. Maybe among the adulterants in the food products is something that makes us passive, docile, and stupid.
I'm only half-joking when I say that.
Along with the artificial population explosion in the UK and our country, via mass uncontrolled immigration, we are in a bad way when it comes to being able to feed ourselves and be self-sufficient. But the idea is that we not be self-sustaining, and that either our ''own'' political classes, and/or the people in China who control our flow of goods, will have power over us by that fact.
This can hardly end well. Now, as the price of gas threatens to hit $5 a gallon soon, prices will surely continue their upward climb.
What next? Do our political classes think they can control and use this crisis that they have engineered, or will it backfire on them?
Heydon concludes by saying that an era of scarcity will put paid to this globalizing experiment that is under way. Another way to look at that is that we need to regain some kind of control over our own lives by producing what we need for ourselves, as was our forefathers' intention. We can't wait for this experiment to fail completely before we decide to work towards more sovereignty over our own lives and more self-sufficiency.
Labels: Economic Depression, Globalism, Localism, One World, Trade Dependence