Polite Kid

Too much loyalty, or too little?
It seems that loyalty is at the core of much of what is wrong with America today. In some ways we have far too much of it and in some ways we are lacking in it. Or we have the wrong kind of loyalty, to the wrong people, and are deficient in it where it is most needed.
I have been thinking of this in connection with the current political situation, and the woeful choices being presented to us in this election, but this problem is widespread and has a bearing on many aspects of our lives.
The most pressing misapplication of loyalty is of the 'vertical loyalty' in which people seem to look for some kind of charismatic man on a horse to put the world to rights for them. We need only look at the example of Barack Obama and the bizarre cult surrounding him: women swooning at his public appearances, and people reacting as they would at a fervid prayer-meeting or revival instead of at a political rally.
A disturbing number of Republicans are also showing signs of being drawn into the Obama admiration society. Any perceptive and honest person can guess at the reasons for this.
The more common problem among 'conservatives' at this time is not the unthinking 'vertical loyalty' to a slick leader, but to the Republican Party, coupled with the flip side, a rather exaggerated fear of the opposing party. Is this a 'horizontal loyalty', loyalty to a group of people or is it just a loyalty to the brand name of the GOP and what it purports to stand for? I would say it's more the latter.
Lacking on both sides of the political aisle is sufficient horizontal loyalty towards one's people, and I would say our loyalty to our own stretches not just laterally to our contemporaries but backward and forward in time, encompassing our ancestors and our future progeny. We see far too little concern for this; there is too much orientation to the present with little thought for the future. Since we have become a materialistic people with a dwindling belief in things eternal, in the old verities, we naturally tend to neglect the long-range prospects for our people.
Why have we come to have so little 'horizontal loyalty' to our own? There is no simple one-sentence answer but obviously there has been a long-term effort to undermine this natural feeling of kinship. Divide and rule has been an effective strategy and our country with its tradition of welcoming in people from far-flung countries was susceptible to having its very core identity and essence assailed by means of immigration from incompatible peoples.
I think it's too easy to blame 'the liberals' for much of this; in so doing, many Republicans and conservatives absolve themselves of any complicity in it, when in fact they have acquiesced if not actively participated in the divide-and-rule process.
As it stands, we are now divided many ways, based, most obviously, on race and ancestry, then along religious lines (atheists vs. Christians, other religions vs. Christians, Christians among themselves), as well as sex/gender lines, class lines, regional loyalties, and of course politics. The first and the last categories seem to engender the most bitter and intractable conflicts.
Al Gore appears to have been unwittingly accurate when he mistranslated 'E Pluribus Unum' as 'out of one, many.'
So, lacking the normal and healthy quantum of lateral or horizontal loyalty among ourselves, we substitute vertical loyalty, and tend to submit to the powerful at the top, whether a charismatic individual in whom we invest our allegiance, or whether we make The Party the be-all and the end-all and bow our knee to the party powers-that-be.
Some people, of course, devote most of their loyalty to a religious system or hierarchy, with some systems being more authoritarian than others.
As a Christian I believe that God alone merits that kind of total submission, not any human being or system. Any absolute faith in or devotion to a human being or a man-made philosophy or institution is just misplaced and will lead to grief at some point. Patriotism can become a false religion when it crosses the line to unquestioning, blind faith in one's country.
Patriotism, party loyalty, loyalty to a religious system or ideology, all these have to be taught; they are not natural and innate in us, as is the bond to those close to us, to kin and kind.
It becomes a perplexing question: how is it that so many of us are willing or able to forego their "natural affections" in order to follow a leader or a political party or system which is actually inimical and destructive to their kin and kind? What is short-circuiting our natural affections and loyalties that enables this to happen?
Human beings do possess innate instincts for group loyalty and affinity; I am convinced of that. But human beings, being flawed as we are, can circumvent or bypass the natural inclinations in many ways. Maybe part of our fallen condition, in Christian terminology, is that we are malleable and suggestible. That's the whole story of Genesis 3, isn't it? The persuasive serpent in the garden, leading Eve astray -- aided by her cooperation.
We seem to have lost the discernment and the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, genuine from counterfeit, and when discernment is lacking, people look for a leader they trust and like. This might also be blamed on moral laziness; people seem to find it too demanding these days to discern right and wrong, good and bad, for themselves, so it's tempting to look either for a ready-made guide, some system of thought or ideology, to decide for us what is good or bad, right or wrong. And some declare that there is no wrong or right, merely different 'narratives' and preferences.
But following a charismatic leader is tempting for some people, perhaps the people who are the most emotionally immature, and the people who have nothing else in which they have faith. The leader then becomes their guide and their authority; they need only follow, and follow blindly in too many cases. Then it seems that when a cult develops around an individual, that in-group satisfies their natural need for group identity and belonging, a need which in a normal society would be met by the natural bond of the group one is born into.
In a society which is becoming more fragmented by the day, more lacking in normal attachments, we are on a path to becoming more susceptible to charismatic seducers who then provide the sense of belonging, and the sense of purpose that is lacking.
Thomas Carlyle, who wrote so much about heroes and great men, wrote about the different kinds of heroes or 'great men', including the prophet, the poet, and the 'commander over men.'
Carlyle said of the last type, the King, that "He is practically the summary for us of all the various figures of heroism: Priest, Teacher, whatsoever of earthly or spiritual dignity we can fancy to reside in a man, embodies itself here, to command over us, to furnish us with constant practical teaching to tell us for the day and hour what we are to do."
Is it true of all of us that we need this kind of authoritarian figure to 'command over us' and 'tell us for the day and hour what we are to do'? I like to think this tendency to submit blindly to flesh and blood is a weakness and a flaw that is not common to all human beings, but there may be that tendency in all of us. However it seems to me that Americans are more prone to this kind of submissive followership now than in past eras. Our founding ancestors did not approve of this kind of cravenness in human nature. George Washington (whose birthday just passed, without the honor due) refused the offer to make him a king instead of our first President.
In the past I've lamented the lack of leadership in our day; we seem to live in an age of pygmies and eunuchs who nonetheless have courtiers bowing to them. But in the end maybe it's true that each age gets the leaders it deserves.
If we could rediscover our history and our sense of unity we might be better able to raise up leaders, competent and decent men among us, and above all, to have the discernment to recognize those who are truly fit for leadership. As it is, we are at risk to be exploited by the manipulators and demagogues who dominate our age.

Labels: Identity Politics, Leadership, Loyalty, Politics, Societal Decay

In response to a recent blog entry of mine, on pop culture and politics, the subject of television and the role it has played in the dumbing down of our culture, including our politics, was brought up.
I had been thinking of the huge role that the advent of television had in the social revolution that we mostly associate with the Sixties, and with my generation, the baby-boomers. While I acknowledge the foolishness of my generation and the responsibility we bore for some of the social destruction which was in full swing in the 60s and thereafter, I have argued that the changes we all recognize were in fact already well under way when my peers and I were children in the 50s, and even before.
Television, which began regular national broadcasting in the late 1940s, was a huge factor.
Television became an incredibly influential medium, which truly revolutionized the world.
This piece by Hereward Lindsay, called On the Decline of Our People, deals with the changes wrought by television, and the deleterious effects on our culture.
A friend recently sent me an email that concluded:
The cathode ray tube was the most powerful invention of the 20th century. I defy anybody to prove that wrong.
He didn't get any defiance from me. The malevolent impact of television is a subject I have thought about a lot. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that my hyper-Calvinist ancestors were right in their suspicion of drama and actors. (Socrates, by the way, had somewhat similar ideas. Read Plato's dialogue the Ion and you will be astonished at how timely it is with its warnings about actors trying to influence government policy and their inherent bad character as people who are professionals at creating illusions and fantasies, i.e. trained deceivers and people whose minds are not grounded in the concrete and real.)
All of us American dissidents (or "thought criminals", as might be more appropriate) have lain awake at night throughout our adult lives trying to figure out how our race and civilization have collapsed. There is no subject more important and more entitled to consideration.''
[Emphasis mine]
Lindsay goes on to tie together certain trends in our society, factors such as decline in the number of self-employed individuals, and the concomitant decline in the thinking skills and independence of mind of Americans. I am not clear, actually, how he correlates the advent of television with, say, the dwindling number of small independent farmers, but I agree with his argument that television has wielded enormous power in spreading a uniform set of ideas, which have become a stultifying orthodoxy. Received opinion dominates the national discussion, such as it is, thanks to the ubiquity of television, and the monolithic party line which is handed down mostly by that medium.
Newspapers are less and less influential; subscribers are fewer with each passing year, and many newspapers have disappeared because of dwindling readership. But cable news (and to some extent, the internet) are taking over the role once played by newspapers.
Lindsay writes about how the domination by the means of images rather than the printed word has made for more passive, less engaged, less imaginative citizens. It used to be said that radio, in its heyday, was the 'theatre of the mind', requiring considerable powers of active imagination and concentration on the part of its listeners. The visual media like TV, movies and videos, relying on pictures rather than words on a page, tend to 'dumb down' the populace, and literacy declines, along with the attention span.
Lindsay also mentions how political debates have become more simple-minded and devoid of serious content. This is obvious, however it may be less apparent to those who don't remember any other state of affairs. In the past, after some of the early ''debates'' in our present campaign, I drew my readers' attention to a website which contains transcripts of past presidential debates and of course there are now video clips of such debates.
The debates, even as recently as the 1960s, were true debates, and not merely 'panel discussions' and staged, scripted events which our recent debates are. However, the first series of televised presidential debates, in 1960, was the beginning of the trend of focusing on appearance, as Richard Nixon appeared nervous and sweaty on camera, while Kennedy appeared composed and confident.
I've blogged before, too, about our present society's obsession with 'image' and style, and the apparent preference for the telegenic and media-savvy candidate, no matter how inconsequential his ideas or his message. There are limitations to this analysis; if looks were all, John Edwards would be the Democrat candidate (even though some Republicans like to ridicule his looks or hairstyle, he is a telegenic, attractive man). And surely McCain would not be a frontrunner ,as he appears to be, if looks were all. But the truth is, being telegenic and glib, and facile with sound bites and one-liners counts for more these days than it did back in the days of Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, or Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.
One of the criticisms most frequently made of Tom Tancredo, who has now dropped out of the Presidential race, was that he was a 'poor speaker', too hesitant, not confident enough. On the other hand, we hear that Barack Hussein Obama's voice is supposedly a great asset. Personally, I think his voice is reminiscent of actor Ted Cassidy's.
Again, critics (most of whom, I would say, are already against Ron Paul) criticize and ridicule his 'nerdy' demeanor and his less-than-commanding voice. I say this is a shallow criticism. It is said that Thomas Jefferson had a very weak speaking style, despite his great facility with language in the written form.
Of his first Inaugural Address, it was said that
The speech was delivered in so low a tone that few heard it. Mr. Jefferson had given your Brother [Samuel Harrison Smith, editor of the National Intelligencer] a copy early in the morning, so that on coming out of the house, the paper was distributed immediately.
The second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805, like the first one, "was only partly audible."
Jefferson was by all accounts a shy and retiring man, hardly one of those back-slapping, smarmy politicians who are considered the ideal today. If today's superficial standards had applied in his day, we would have been deprived of his great genius in shaping our country.
The emphasis on looks, style, and image over substance and character are in some part a legacy of television.
Mitt Romney is considered by most to be the most 'attractive' Republican candidate (which is not saying much, considering the pickings). However I find him rather artificial and false, and I usually have a very good nose for insincerity. I was warning people about Bill Clinton from the git-go, and few were willing to be wary then; he seemed so friendly and warm, and people are so easily gulled these days.
But this is the result of looking only at the surface of people and things.
The way the primary season is shaping up, it looks as though Americans are gearing up to elect themselves another silver-tongued deceiver of whichever party, and to give a cold shoulder to principle and character.
The political campaign is just one manifestation of how television has deeply affected our society. The overall picture is that television has ensured that a single set of very liberal beliefs dominates our society, and this set of beliefs was in reality revolutionary, overturning the mores and habits of old America. The pernicious system we call 'political correctness,' which paralyzes us when it comes to protecting our territory and our people and culture, would not be possible without the role played by television in establishing 'respectable' opinion. One need not watch the cable ''news'' channels to be indoctrinated by the pundits and political hacks; one can get the party line via the favorite sitcoms, crime shows, reality shows, MTV, and even Country Music Television. And even if you manage to avoid all those, the commercials also carry the required memes. There is literally no escaping the 'message', the agenda.
And if you don't recognize that there IS an agenda and a message that is relentlessly pushed by television (and movies, and the music industry, etc.) then you are merely so used to it that you no longer see it. It is so ingrained in most Americans (and all Western peoples) these days that no one even notices it, or thinks it to be propaganda. It just 'is.' And for the younger generations, it's all they've known. So it becomes invisible, and second nature to most of us.
Lindsay correctly describes the entertainment industry in general as being about deception. And yes, some entertainment is innocuous, but few today have the discernment to sift the wheat from the chaff.
So we are easy prey for 'whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.'
It's facile to blame the 'liberals' or the baby-boomers for all that is amiss in our world, but the fact is, the process has been under way for some time, and it is not merely 'the liberals' or 'the hippies' who created the monster. It has been a process of collusion, unwitting or witting, between the ideologues who have set out to remake the world, and the people who are out to make a buck via the bread and circuses of television and the entertainment industry. The latter are happy to present subversive material if there is profit in it, and if revolution and transformation of Western society are good for their bottom line, they will happily collude. I don't know who is using whom in this strange alliance of leftists and corporate interests; I think they are both manipulating us.
As I've said, we have to free ourselves from the paralyzing effect of the prevailing orthodoxies and opinions, and as long as we are glued to the mass media, whether it's 'entertainment' or junk news on the cable news channels, we cannot extricate ourselves from the snares laid for us.
Fortunately we do have a choice; we can become aware of these destructive influences, and we can walk away, and we can create alternatives. It will be a long-term effort, and distressingly, we have a short time frame in which to try to reverse course, but we really have no choice but to try. The present course is taking us perilously close to a point of no return.
Forum comments here.

Labels: Corportate Media, Entertainment Media, Identity Politics, Junk News, Propaganda, Societal Decay, Television, Western Decline

David Yeagley discusses Michele Bachmann's candidacy and what it means for our country.
Though he praises her lavishly for her politics and her 'beautiful, tender, loving voice', he ultimately concludes that electing a woman, even a very 'conservative' woman, would mean the end for the White male in political leadership.
But, again, why are we talking about Michele Bachmann, mother of five and twenty-plus, wife of thirty one years, and seemingly perfectly normal�we should say, normative�American woman? She is in our sites because she is now running for president of the United States.
How is that possible? Through the emasculation of the white male.
It is the same abuse of "equality" that calls for the wealthy to surrender their wealth to the poor, and the strong to give up their strength to the weak.
[...]
Next, a child will become president.
What in the world happened to the white male? Has he been asleep? Is he on dope? Can he rise again? ''
Actually, in 2008, it seemed to me that the White male was already being displaced. A point that I tried to make then was that the election had established a precedent that would be hard to break, and was in fact an 'overturning' as Dr. Yeagley says of the potential election of a woman president.
It's already happened, and it could be that to have a woman president next would further marginalize male leadership, specifically White male leadership.
Where are the male leaders? This question has been asked here and elsewhere. Obviously the political movers and shakers, or the elites, have decided that no strong male will be allowed to be elevated to high position. Only the weak, the politically correct lackeys and appeasers, are to be presented as candidates.
I was thinking of these things earlier as I watched the live video feed of the Vancouver riots. I noted the number of female authority figures interviewed, and their schoolmarmish responses to the reporters. They did not present an authoritative image, these women; rather, they sounded like slightly irritated kindergarten teachers dealing with misbehaving five-year-olds.The male officials as well as the females kept using words like 'disappointed' in regard to the violence.
As I watched the rioters in action, I could only think: this is what a society of fatherless children looks like. It's true of all Western families. We often read articles about the problem of children, especially boys, who grow up without the presence of a father, specifically, a father who is actively involved. Even though many of society's misfits have been raised solely by women, in effect, our whole society is fatherless now. We have no real effective male authority figures or father-protector figures. We have only these irritable feminist schoolmarms in charge of things, and they cannot fill the male role. We are seeing proof of that all around us.
Women certainly have a role, but in the rightful order of things, men are to wield the real power, to enforce standards and rules, to administer justice. Women are too easily swayed by emotion, and tend to seek to 'understand' everybody, and they often fail to use a firm hand or to be harsh when that is called for. Just as our mothers tended to be the ones to forgive or overlook our misdeeds when we were children, and our fathers were the disciplinarians, representing order and justice, each sex has its particular qualities, and women are not best equipped to wield authority and to enforce order.
The fact that there are certain exceptions, such as the very masculine or faux-masculine women in authority here and there, does not prove the generalization false. Has anyone else noted the presence of so many female police chiefs and fire chiefs in many towns? Every time there is a press conference about a crime or fire, it seems a woman chief is front and center. This seems to be de rigueur nowadays. Political correctness, of course, demands this. And more often than not, the woman is also a minority.
It's no new observation, but our society has become so unbalanced towards the feminine side -- leftism/Marxism is a very feminine entity -- that we need to make a sharp correction in the opposite direction, and very soon.
As for Michele Bachmann, she seems like a very 'nice' lady, but her politics are far too politically correct, and this is most assuredly not what we need.
And even if her politics were more 'conservative' or pro-White, I would say she is far too 'nice' to exercise authority. Niceness and goodness are not the same thing, and we don't need more of the treacly niceness in this age of crisis we are entering.

Labels: Ethnic Loyalty, Gop, Identity Politics, Political Parties, Societal Decay

During this ongoing Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, I have been hearing a great deal of commentary from the mainstream 'right' which repeatedly uses the term 'anti-American' in condemning Wright.
I noticed in surfing past Fox News that they keep harping on Wright's 'anti-American' statements.
Is this just an oblique way of criticizing his anti-white statements? Is it more politically correct to say 'anti-American' rather than anti-white? After all, if the 'conservatives' on Fox News or the big Republican forums want to criticize Wright or Obama, they cannot criticize his anti-white beliefs without themselves appearing to be pro-white. And it's still verboten to be pro-white -- even in those 'right-wing' cable TV discussions.
Yes, Wright in his diatribes (I wouldn't dignify them by describing them as sermons) denounces the actions of the U.S. Government, specifically, as when he is haranguing in the video about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That might be called 'anti-American' or at least anti-American government. But when he starts his accusations about HIV being cooked up in a laboratory for 'genocidal' purposes against black folks, then he is accusing whites as a group of diabolical actions and intentions. This is anti-white, not anti-American.
Wright is denouncing us as a race, and we are not allowed to defend ourselves in those terms.
But how do we denounce specifically anti-white propaganda without being, you know, pro-white? There's the PC dilemma.
This sums up our position in a nutshell. We are under siege in many different ways, and yet we are not free to defend ourselves verbally; to do so in most instances means we will be called names and shouted down, and for some, it may mean a loss of livelihood and it may mean social stigma and harassment by the armies of 'tolerance.' For people in some Western countries, defending our people, whites, may mean being subject to some kind of charge of 'hate speech' or other such thought-crime allegations.
In this context, it is understandable that people carefully frame this controversy in acceptable terms, making it about 'anti-Americanism.' But how long, I wonder, before someone will say that being pro-American is 'divisive, exclusive, and xenophobic'? Political correctness has a way of spreading and our freedom of expression is thus diminishing by the encroachment of PC.
But passively submitting to these strictures only weakens our position. At some point, people have to refuse to continue to conform, and break the taboos. The cowards in political office will not be the ones to do so, nor the media lackeys. It will have to start elsewhere. If enough of us stop meekly accepting these limitations on our speech and thought, we might reach that critical mass which makes it possible to break through the conditioning.
We can't continue being afraid to claim our racial identity. Everybody else has a racial identity, and racial pride, except Anglo-Americans. We are the only people, despite our supposed 'dominance' of this country, who are not allowed to speak up in defense of ourselves when attacked as a race by people like Wright or the Mexican revanchists or whoever else is slandering us on any given day.

Labels: American Identity, Anti-White Racism, Ethnic Division, Identity Politics, Political Correctness

Tom Sunic, in an Occidental Observer piece called White Identity in Postmodernity, discusses the minefield of "White identity". He writes of how many Whites in the West, wary of expressing a White identity, choose instead a sort of neutral national identity, as with most Republicans whose identity is bound up exclusively with national patriotism and loyalty to 'the American idea'. For many on the left particularly, who have been schooled to regard White identity as not only illegitimate but as prima facie 'racism', their choice is often to identify with some subculture. He cites the examples of Whites who champion the cause of Tibet or, in his words, 'exotic Afro or Asian escapism.' These types are very common among those who are politically leftist. Everything they do and everything they enjoy is meant to express their desired solidarity with some Third World culture or cause. They may wear 'rasta' dreadlocks or tattoo themselves like tribesmen of some sort or wear some kind of Third World ethnic garb, and listen to Third World music and eat exotic foods and worship at the altar of Asian religions or some kind of syncretic faith which involves Third World traditions.
Many less exotically-identified American liberals instead choose to identify with black Americans or Afrocentric culture. Their counterparts back in the 1970s and 80s may have been more likely to pick ''Native Americans'' as their ersatz identity.
What seems to be the important thing in adopting such a false identity is to express solidarity with some 'underdog' or downtrodden group, apparently as a way of assuaging their hyper-developed consciences about history's wrongs. For the last 40 years or so, Whites have been taught at every turn that their identity is in itself a guilt-saturated thing, because their ancestors were the authors of most wrongs in the world.
Sunic mentions that many Europeans or European-descended Americans may not discover any ethnic or racial identity without being threatened by someone else's national identity, and he uses the example of the break-up of Yugoslavia to illustrate his point.
He also emphasizes how victimhood and victimology are at the heart of the many competing minority identities which are proliferating in the West. There is inevitably a hierarchy of victimhood, and in our country blacks and to some extent Jews enjoy primacy in this department, though the exponential increase in the number of Hispanics in our country threatens to topple the current victim-order.
When I was in college in the 70s, as all this victim-veneration was just reaching a new peak, I noticed, to my surprise, that blacks did not like to share the victimhood mantle with other minority groups; there was instead a competition among the minority groups as to whose suffering was most intense or most prolonged. Blacks at that time fell back on frequent references to '400 years of slavery', sometimes extended to '500 years of slavery' or '500 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow' or some such claim. American Indians were enjoying a vogue in the 1970s, and there were many Ward Churchill types running around campuses, their identity being based on having supposedly had a remote ''Native American" ancestor. Asians were also in the victimhood sweepstakes, and their claims centered on past expulsions of Asian immigrants or the internment of Japanese during World War II.
But I noticed that these groups did not work together; they were all intensely ethnocentric, and quite competitive or jealous when it came to sharing the victimhood spotlight. They might put aside their rivalries to participate in some anti-White demonstration on campus but generally they were wary of each other, or outright unfriendly to one another.
As Sunic points out in his piece, when victimhood is claimed, that implies a victimizer, or a 'monster' as he says. It does seem to be an ironclad rule: the common thread in all the victimhood narratives is "Whitey did it." It is Whites who are to blame in every case; there is always a Honky in the woodpile when a cry of victimhood is raised.
And as Sunic says, the victimology leads to conflict not only between the vicitims and the accused (and automatically convicted) White victimizer, but among minority groups scrambling for their place in the hierarchy and their share of the spoils. If 'reparations' for blacks are to be paid, there will be outcries from Hispanics, who will demand payment for the 'theft' of their fictional Aztlan. What happens when the spoils are no longer so plentiful?
And more importantly, what will happen when the goose that laid the golden egg is moribund?
Sunic says that an authoritarian society is necessary to manage all the divisiveness that is inherent in such an unstable system; his words are that 'high levels of social control' are needed. We are seeing that happening. And many of us wonder if that is not one of the reasons why our rulers have purposely introduced so much diversity into Western countries: to break up any natural cohesion and racial integrity, and to produce instability as a prelude to their further plans. Otherwise we can only conclude that our ''leaders'' are utterly incompetent and clueless. Either explanation is sobering to say the least.
Sunic describes the psychological state of Western White people as being overwhelmed by the constant barrage of guilt and the clamoring by the various voices of grievance and discord. I think this is taking a toll, as he implies, and I think it may reach a tipping point before very long, unless the cacophony of complaints and accusations stops. Is this too part of the plan, I wonder?
He says that Whites don't have the option of claiming victimhood themselves, but actually some do just that; for example in our country, those who see their immigrant ancestors as having been victimized by founding-stock Americans a hundred or so years ago are rather good at bringing up their grievances, and these same people all too often side with illegal immigrants and work towards open borders and the third-worldizing of America.
America is perhaps more disunited than other Western countries in that respect; those European countries which are monocultural and monoethnic have a decided advantage over those countries with more than one nationality within their borders. This is illustrated by the comments on this AmRen thread discussing Nick Griffin's remarks about Black and Asian residents of the UK not being Britons. Someone asks whether ethnic Irish in the UK are ethnic foreigners, and several answer 'yes'. A squabble then erupts between posters who appear to be Irish-descended Americans and Anglo-Americans or British posters. It's an interesting but complicated argument, with people citing British celebrities who are supposedly ''really'' Irish. There seems to be some confusion about Irish people of Anglo-Norman descent, or people of mixed English and Irish descent. So even in the United Kingdom there are elements of ethnic conflict, though among closely-related peoples. America is not the only English-speaking nation with internal divisions among close kin.
These are issues that have to be addressed, along with ideological and religious divisions in our country and other Western countries. If we lack the capacity to put aside our other differences in favor of uniting based on our kinship connection, we really don't stand much of a chance.

Labels: Balkanization, Diversity, Ethnocentrism, Identity Politics, Multiculturalism, National Identity, Political Correctness, Western Decline

I didn't watch it. It took some doing to avoid it, considering that apparently the Weather Channel and the shopping channels even covered the circus in D.C. today, which seems to have been the longest and most elaborate such ceremony in any of our lifetimes.
I'm glad I did not watch, especially when I read transcripts or other accounts of what happened. This one for example, from WVWN:
European Americans insulted in Inaugural 'benediction' Rev. Joseph Lowery prays for the day when whites will "embrace what is right" Joseph Lowery, an elderly veteran of the "civil rights movement" and an ordained preacher put a kink in the media narrative of the inauguration of Barack Obama as the "first black President" with a cheap shot at European Americans in his "prayer" ending the ceremony.
Implying that white people that have not yet acknowledged their supposed oppression of nonwhites, Lowery engaged in a call and response routine joined in by the crowd, estimated by National Public Radio to be 98% black.
Lowery's words were improvised from the lyrics of a blues song from the 1940s, and called to "work for that day... when white will embrace what is right."
[...] Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around...
(LAUGHTER)
... when yellow will be mellow...
(LAUGHTER)
LOWERY: ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen.
LOWERY: Say Amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen.
LOWERY: And Amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen. (APPLAUSE)''
So we are being accused and condemned even in the 'benediction.' I wonder if Lowery even knows what 'benediction' means; it means 'blessing.' Who was being blessed in that little outburst? It was more of an imprecation.
And this administration claims to stand for 'transcending race.' If 'transcend' means 'dwell on', 'harp on,' 'exploit' or 'milk for all it's worth', then I guess they are 'transcending' race. If 'transcending race' means re-opening old wounds and inflicting new ones, then I guess they are transcending race.
Then there was this example:
"Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all."
Thus prayed the hireling Rick Warren today at the inauguration of a base stranger to the office of President of the United States of America. Surely more than a few Americans realized that this blasphemous plea directly contradicted what John Jay wrote in Federalist No. 2, that he counted it a blessing that America possessed "one united people�a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion"? Surely more than a few of us honestly and unashamedly despised Warren for what he was saying and what he was doing?
Warren had barely finished speaking when the electronic enemy began analyzing what he�d said and done. His self-professed "friend," Randall Balmer, professor of American religious history at Columbia University, snapped, "I don't think he acquitted himself very well. To lead the nation in saying the Lord's Prayer, which is so particularly Christian, was a mistake."
A professor. Of American religious history.''
I prefer the much better prayer which is at the end of the linked blog entry.
Finally, Melanie Phillips at the UK's Daily Mail gives us this rather mixed bag, which starts out fairly soundly, but then veers off to bow at the politically correct altar en route to the conclusion:
Sorry to be a party pooper, but I can't share this swooning Obama hysteria Has everyone lost their marbles? The inauguration of President Obama is being treated like the Second Coming. The coverage is so gushing we might all drown.
Of course it�s a great thing that America, with its history of slavery and segregation still a shockingly recent memory, now has a black President; the palpable joy of African-Americans is entirely understandable and deeply touching. And there�s no doubt that Obama is a highly charismatic and attractive personality.
But what�s more than a wee bit troubling is that the swooning hysteria reflects the fact that people appear to believe that as of today the world will be saved. Swords will be beaten into ploughshares, peace will be brought to the Middle East, Iran will be pacified, every American will have health insurance, poverty will be eliminated and utopia will have arrived.''
The obligatory PC disclaimer, which is there to announce that ''I'm not a racist, honestly I'm not", sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, but check out the FReepers' response, which is not to disagree with Philliips's condemnation of America's ''history of slavery and segregation", but to petulantly mention that Britain was just as guilty in those bad old days of our bad old racist forefathers.
Over at the Forum, I posted a link to Justin Raimondo's piece, in which he contrasts Jefferson's inauguration to today's grotesque extravaganza:
When Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated, he sought to dismantle the evolving Federalist tradition of pomp and circumstance. In a ceremonial sense, royalism seemed to have been restored, or so it appeared to him. As this blogger put it, "Dressed in simple attire, Jefferson walked over to the Capitol with a phalanx of riflemen, friends, and fellow citizens from his home state of Virginia."
In these last days of the American Empire, such austere republicanism would be considered impossibly quaint. Having long ago morphed into Jefferson's worst nightmare, the closer we get to the end, the more glamorous our inaugurals become. The poorer we are, the more millions we'll throw at a ceremony that is really the crowning of a monarch � and not just any old king, but an emperor bestriding the globe.''
Today's bizarre display should make us stop and reflect on how we've gone from the Republic founded by our forefathers, led by men like Washington and Jefferson, to today's surreal spectacle.
''How prone all human institutions have been to decay; how subject the best-formed and most wisely organized governments have been to lose their check and totally dissolve; how difficult it has been for mankind, in all ages and countries, to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges, impelled as it were by an irresistible fate of despotism." - James Monroe, 1778

Labels: Cult Of Personality, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Politics, Racial Division

I notice that over at Free Republic, Bobby Jindal is being talked up as the 'new Gipper.'
When Michael Steele was announced as the new chairman of the RNC, the FReepers thought he was a great choice, and just what was needed to counter the Democrats' Dear Leader. I notice Steele's recent remarks about a new 'hip-hop' Republican Party were met with rather muted responses over there, but few were willing to say that they were wrong to swoon over Steele a few weeks ago.
The enthusiasm for the essentially unknown and unproven Piyush Jindal is a product of the same mindset: the self-abasing idea embraced by many Republicans that the party is 'behind the times' and deficient without a nonwhite leader to legitimize it. To me, the fact that so many Republicans have adopted this notion is just proof of how deeply they've internalized all the politically correct orthodoxies on race which the Democrats champion. And yet they imagine that they are the opposition to the Democrats, while in fact they are just the little shadow of the Democrats, politically correct to the core.
Unless some other party or group arises which represents the interests of the White majority in this country, it looks as though we are imposing a kind of dhimmitude on ourselves, even before we've become a numerical minority in this country.

Labels: Ethnic Division, Gop, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Political Parties

I realize it's early yet, but it's starting to look like the fix may be in. The GOP nominee may well be Herman Cain, judging by the mania that is developing out there.
At Fox News, there is gushing over Cain as the next Ronald Reagan.
See also this American Thinker piece and the comments following.
Some examples:
''Herman Cain is the Black Ronald Reagan of our time. His message of limited government, fair tax, self-responsibility and American exceptionalism is right on. My wife and I plan to max out our contributions to help get him elected. (No thanks to the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold act which limits our free speech pocketbook rights to only $2,5000 apiece) I've never been excited enough for a candidate to consider volunteering, but I will for Mr. Cain. Like Herman said yesterday - "America needs a LEADER, not a READER!" Imagine if Obama's opponent was a black Reagan. It blows the race issue away, creates for once a truly positive role model for black youth and I see no down side as of today. I realize this is a long shot but I have tossed my chips in on him. We need a unconventional candidate who will unite and lead this nation and none of the RINO establishment types have a prayer of doing so. Best guess, this guy has a excellent chance of cleaning house and I will honestly say, I would love to see Obama get his floor waxed on the issues by a man who feels no need to tip toe... ''
Another commenter - (all misspellings are as they appeared in the original post):
''Bottom line this is the best thing to happen to the GOP field since 2008, 2010, ...
You have Palin (conservative American woman) Bachcmann (conservative American woman) Nicky Haley (conservative "Indian" American woman SC Gov) Susan Matinz (Conservative "Hispanic" American NM Gov) Mark Rubio (sonservative "Hispanic" American FL Sen) etc. etc. etc.''
And now Citizen Cain complete with a real American History and Story (conserevative "Black" American Pres Canidate) This is the real reason the Dems are running scared. The really big tent is shifting and the BO run Dem Tent has been lifted to expose the true radicals and globalist, and cronie capitalist's. The true Tectonic shift that is and will continue to grow no matter what happens in the GOP primary is this fact, "the GOP is the real big tent party that does not seek control but liberty for all". Oh let's not forget about Jindal in SC either. Can you say "real diversity"? What have the dems always told their supporters "that the GOP is an old white guys in coutry clubs," only party. The last 3 years have shattered that and Cain is just the past piece of the puzzle no matter what happend. Thank you Mr and Mrs Cain. I watched that speech too, what a guy.''
'Real diversity.' The 'real big tent party.' This is what it has come to.
''Herman Cain will drive the libtards nuts, especially those at the Lame Stream Media outlets. They lose their Ace in the Hole, RACISM! What the hell will they have to talk about? Mr. Cain can slam dunk everyone of the clunkers policies and walk away unscathed. He is hugely loved in Fly Over USA!! YES WE CAIN!!!!''
Yes we Cain? No, we cain't.
The last commenter above shows how little has been learned after seeing every 'conservative black' on the GOP side be called 'Uncle Toms' or 'Aunt Jemima', like Condi Rice. The race card has been played against Clarence Thomas and every other black 'conservative' paragon they wheel out. Black conservatives will not nullify the race card, as these Republicans keep saying. And even if they could, what would that imply? That we ourselves can't speak for ourselves, we must have blacks to intercede for us with the gods of Political Correctness?
On the other hand, a little bit of sanity interrupts the Cain lovefest:
''Change a few words and substitute 'Obama' for 'Cain' and this article could have been written about Obama back in 2007. I have no interest in the amount of electricity and enthusiasm a candidate can generate. Look where that got us in 2008. I look forward to hearing more about Cain's views as well as proof that he means what he says. Say what you will about 'Washington establishment' people who are running; any candidate who's been in office has a record as evidence they are who they claim to be, and I view that as a good thing. It's a catch-22 to nominate an outsider who may be untainted by 'politics,' but who will need to heavily rely on experienced staff to navigate the shark-infested waters once in office.''
Back to the Cainiacs, and this one spells out exactly what is behind this whole phenomenon:
'' Mr. Cain as a conservative black appeals to me in several ways. First: since obama took the country, I have become a racist. Never before have I felt hatred for the black race. Mr. Cain would redeem me by allowing me to feel blacks can be wonderful. Second: Cain says things about America which makes me feel he likes America and Americans (like me). Third: he has pulled himself up by his bootstraps (I hope affirmative action did not have too much to do with his success). Fourth: he seems humble. A couple negatives: his name: Cain vs Able. his experience . his unknowns (what do we really know about the man)''
It's just as Cambria Will Not Yield says: these people are looking for redemption from blacks or absolution for their 'sins'. And they just can't see that they are validating the leftist belief system by reacting with guilt, and seeking some kind of exoneration of their imaginary crimes.
The fact that Cain is gaining so much momentum is worrying, because what will our choices be in the next election? A choice between black candidate A and black candidate B.
Just like Henry Ford supposedly said of the Model T, ''you can have any color you want, as long as it's black.''
I've said before, back in 2008, that electing a black president would be crossing a bridge, and it would establish a precedent that would then become the new norm, the default. A White nominee, from now on, will be at a decided disadvantage. Pale, male, and stale, as our foes put it. Now in our new and improved non-racist America, a black and/or female must henceforth be the only viable candidates. Anything else will be the fabled ''big step backward'' and 'proof that ugly racism still thrives in America'' and all the rest of it.
And it is troubling to see so many of these self-described conservatives not just buying the leftist's diversity and inclusion argument, but literally running to follow in the left's footsteps. Our black can beat your black, our black is the real thing, yours is a fake. You are the real racist. We're the real colorblind party, so there.
Childish thinking. And this is the 'conservative' mindset now. I think many of our folk are too far gone to ever be brought back from the dead.
Still, I have to think that there is a long way to go between now and November, 2012. Is there any hope of talking these 'conservatives' down from the cliff they are about to jump from? Is there any chance of reversing things by means of the ballot box?
About the only hope I see is for a Third Party to appear. And I truly don't want to hear the old refrain about how Third Parties can never succeed; they just divide the GOP vote. That is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's only true because so many people will themselves to believe it.
Actually, what we need first is not a third party, but a second party. We actually only have one party, a Multicult Progressive Globalist party that has two 'wings', and little difference between those two wings.
We need a party that represents the majority population of this country, not a party which represents only the interests of a congeries of 'special interest' protected groups whose interests are at odds with our own.

Labels: Gop, Identity Politics, Party Politics, Political Correctness

Tell me again that no third party will ever succeed in America.
Tell me again how the Republicans are 'the best we can hope for.'
It seems I've been told that so many times in recent years, but in light of this, how can anybody say those things in sincerity, or without shame?
''Mr. Cain got a jump on other potential GOP 2012 candidates Wednesday when he formed a presidential exploratory committee, which allows him to raise money for a possible White House run. None of the likely frontrunners have taken that step.
The Atlanta radio host and former chief executive of Godfather�s Pizza said he plans to spend several months seeing if he can drum up enough support among donors and voters to justify a full-blown campaign.''
The FReepers, who to me represent the 'average' GOP voter, seem beside themselves with excitement about Cain running for President, not to mention Allen West, who also sends a thrill up the collective leg of the FReepers.
However, I am dumbfounded that even the FReepers are still trotting out this old chestnut:
''He will be a powerful put-down to the myth of 'republicans = racist�
Now that some brave and powerful black conservatives have put their necks on the line - and WON - there will be more who will step forward.
Without being able to use the race card - the libs so long successful lie - a card now maxed out and soon to be canceled - they will be hard put to refute opposition stances.''
Can you believe anyone can say that with a straight face after the last two years of experience? Does the name 'Michael Steele' ring any bells over in FReeperland? What about J.C. Watts? Condoleezza Rice? Colin Powell? Is there anybody I've forgotten?
One more reminder: surely some of you here remember that some Republicans said that same thing about a certain candidate in 2008. If he were elected, surely that would disarm the left and minority voters, because it would put the lie to their claim that this was a 'racist' country, and they would no longer have any excuses about how blacks can't succeed in this country. Therefore there would be no more race card to play. People actually said that. How has that worked out? Anybody noticed?
Maybe it's been a smashing success and I just haven't noticed.
Really, though, what hope is there for the Republican Party in the next election? The other candidates or wannabees -- Romney, Gingrich, Pence, Jeb Bush, 'Huckster' Huckabee -- could there be any sorrier slate of candidates anywhere?
And yet there are still those who say that a third party can never succeed; it will just elect the Democrats yet again. Invariably somebody brings up Ross Perot and how he caused the election of Clinton. But would Poppy Bush have been any better, apart from the sex scandal thing?
Of course a third party will not succeed as long as people keep denouncing the very idea of it, and calling it a hopeless cause. As long as people convince themselves, or let others convince them of that supposed certainty, then no, a third party will never succeed.
People do forget that the Republicans started as a third party.
Just because third parties since then have failed to capture much support does not mean that it can never happen. There is a first time for everything, and if ever there was a time, it is now, for a party that might actually represent the interests of the American majority.
The Tea Party is the great White hope for some people -- but the Tea Party faithful seem to see themselves as the great Diverse hope, apparently, with their ardent courtship of minorities and the 'colorblind' crowd.
Some might say, 'Cain (or West) might be a good conservative gentleman and a wonderful candidate.' Some people put great stock in their success in past endeavors, business or the military. Surely we can see for ourselves the folly of electing a relative unknown, or a candidate without the right kind of experience. Some might say 'why does his race matter? Why shouldn't Republicans run a black candidate?'
No matter how conservative a black candidate might be, for such a man to be President at a time when things have never been tenser amongst the races would mean that such issues would only be further complicated, not soothed, as some people claim. And it would further marginalize Whites within the Republican Party, as political correctness would be reinforced tenfold, with everybody leaning over backwards to show their 'colorblindness' and to be 'sensitive and inclusive.' We would be even more constrained in acting towards our own interests -- which, once again, do not coincide with those of any ''minority community.''
Having Republicans join Democrats in the never-ending quest for minority approval and for the ultimate Black Savior would only mean that we would be that much farther away from any addressing of our needs and interests. End result: we would be more marginalized than ever, if the GOP becomes another haven for politically correct identity politics.
And as others have pointed out along the line, it will become established policy that we should have a black (and later, other minority) president as some kind of gesture of good faith. To elect a White president after two (or more) black presidents would be denounced as a ''big step backward'' towards the bad old days of discrimination and 'White hegemony.' Republicans would not counter these accusations, but would buckle under and try even harder to appear non-racist.
At this point, electing someone as a gesture of goodwill or a statement against 'racism' or as a way of proving how PC we are is just a very bad reason to choose the occupant of the highest office in our land.
Let only the best candidate be chosen. But at this troubled point in our history, having another presidency in which race would be front and center all the time is the last thing we need. It would not pour oil on the troubled waters, but would be more fuel for conflict.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnopatriotism, Gop, Identity Politics, Respectable Right

I've only touched on this subject a time or two, in passing. But as someone who is intrigued by unanswered questions and deliberate obfuscation, I am curious as to what the real story is. And, as always, I am interested in what others are saying in online discussions of this.
I find the reactions to this issue rather maddening, for example, the people who invariably pop up wherever this is being discussed, saying that ''this is all a non-issue; you conspiracy-mongers are crazy" or ''you are being duped and used; this is just meant to bait you into following this down a rabbit hole, and making all conservatives look crazy."
The really ironic response is this frequently-heard one: ''this is a big waste of time! Why do all you people spend your time on this?" Meanwhile the people who write those dismissive comments are themselves spending time endlessly saying 'this is a waste of time. Give it up.' Evidently, it is not a waste of time to chide others about wasting time. And why does anybody object to others trying to solve a mystery? What's it to them?
So the Governor of the state in question suddenly remembers that the parents (putative parents) were 'his friends'? I seem to remember in Jack Cashill's articles, or perhaps elsewhere, that this governor said he knew the 'father' but did not know of a wife or child. But now he "knew them" both.
And first he said he was sure the documents could be produced, to refute the doubters, then he says 'I can't lay hands on them, but I have learned they are there, written down' or words to that effect. Strange wording -- that the proof is 'written down.'
It all gets curiouser and curiouser, as always when you go down a rabbit hole.
I really don't understand those who are quick to dismiss this out of hand. I don't understand those who are content to just repeat what the MSM says, and say 'well, I believe he was born where he says he was born.' Believe, based on what? This attitude seems to me to be Bill O'Reilly-esque, this proclamation that one 'believes' something which has not been established with any certainty -- just because. Incidentally, BOR is one of those who says that he 'believes' in the official birth story, as do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other such stalwarts.
As for me, I don't have a 'belief' on this issue; I am simply interested to see what does turn up. It does seem to be to be generally true in life that where someone goes to great lengths to conceal something or at least to make the facts hard to determine, that there is in fact something being concealed. What it is, I don't pretend to know. I do know that the mainstream media lies and conceals, as do those in authority when they believe it is justified.
Another argument used by the scoffers is that 'this is all a red herring; it is not important. What's important is his deeds, and this is a distraction that keeps us from focusing on the important things.' I just don't see that this is true. One can care about both issues. And anytime our electeds are concealing things, especially when those things involve issues of the Constitution and our rule of law, that is important. We are allowing a precedent to be set in which we will no longer 'vet' our candidates as to their eligibility. And the question of nationality by birth is important; our Founding Fathers were explicit that dual citizens or those not natural-born could not serve as our highest public official. And for good reason.
Even if an 'official' document just handily turns up in Hawaii, there are all those other documents which have not been made public. Is that just an act of defiance toward us, or a demonstration that we are not the repository of power in this supposed representative Republic anymore? Of course we are reminded every day that we are not; we have been made irrelevant as far as the powers-that-be are concerned.
I am glad that somebody is following this issue and trying to bring the truth to light. Would it make any difference, though, if the truth is established? It would assuredly not deter the blind followers; people like that need deprogramming, as with cult members. And would anything be done? Probably not, but isn't it best to know the truth, and to at least try to ensure that the law is not to be openly flouted by those who are elected to enforce and execute it? The cynical side of me knows that our laws and our Constitution are already irrelevant, as we see what is happening with our one-time 'borders' and so many other violations. But we don't want to reach such a peak of cynicism that we just turn a blind eye and shrug, as we fall into utter lawlessness.

Labels: Constitution, Controlled Media, Identity Politics, Rule Of Law

At Free Republic, the FReepers are discussing an AP story about the new chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele.
Which is more discouraging: the fact that the GOP is trying desperately to compete with the Democrats in the diversity sweepstakes, and to out-pander the Dems, or the fact that the FReepers mostly think this is a wonderful step for the GOP, and that Steele is a fine conservative?
Leaving aside Steele's questionable 'conservative' credentials, such as his pro-affirmative action stance, and his softness on the Second Amendment, abortion, and gay 'marriage', I think, despite what the FReepers say, that race does matter here.
The FReepers blithely mention Colin Powell and Condi Rice, as if either of them proved to be conservative exemplars. It seems there are some short attention spans among the Republican diehards; have they forgotten Powell's decision to vote along racial lines in the recent election?
I suppose the fact that some of the FReepers (see post 58) are under the misapprehension that ''MLK was one of us'' tells the tale. Colorblindness, or just plain old blindness?
Race matters for many reasons; for one, in that symbolism is important. I seem to be alone in this opinion, but it subliminally conditions people to see blacks in positions of leadership and prominence; why else are we bombarded with ads and movies featuring blacks and other minorities in the role of the hero or the leader? That kind of conditioning is partly why we now have a black president, and why the Republicans are stampeding to pick leaders ''of color''. In a way, it looks like a childish kind of 'me-too-ism', an effort to keep up with or be one-up on the Democrats. But it is further conditioning us to accept a submissive and subservient role in the society our forefathers made. It further establishes precedents that will be hard to break; if we ever have a White president or RNC chairman again, it will be the cause of no end of lamentations about it being a 'giant step backward.' Once a position is occupied by a black (or a woman) it becomes seen as their territory, their due. This is just a bad precedent for us. From here, this kind of thing will only gain momentum. It looks as though the Republican faithful will be fully on board with the multiculturalizing of the GOP; they will cheer it on, if the FReepers' reactions are any indication.
Just after the fateful election last November, this editorial, 'Memo to the Republican Party' appeared at Occidental Observer:
The message is clear: An unambiguous assertion that the Democrats are the party of the ethnic minorities draws a greater percentage of minority votes.
Of course, the globalists and neocons urge the Republicans to solve their problem by trying to appeal to minorities. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute writes, "If the Republican Party cannot make significant, lasting inroads into � minority voting populations, it has a long-term disaster on its hands."
Apart from the fact that such a strategy amounts to surrender for European America, the problem with this is that it�s really hard to see how the Republicans could have reached out to minorities any more than they did.
[...]
So what more are Republicans supposed to do? The simple fact is that the coalition of minorities in a powerful Democratic Party is their best strategy for achieving their dream of a post-European America, and there is nothing that the Republicans can do to change that.
The only long term choice that makes any sense for the Republicans is to acknowledge that they are a party of European-Americans and that the purpose of their party is to further the interests of European-Americans.
[...]
The Republicans would certainly lose some of their constituencies if they did this. The neocons would be in high dudgeon, although they are nothing if not pragmatic in pursuing their main goal of helping Israel. And the globalists might leave. But neither of these constituencies is numerically significant.
And on the plus side, the new Republican Party would doubtless gain the allegiance of a lot of European-Americans who voted for the Democrats in 2008 while holding their noses.
Of course, the Republicans won�t do this. Not for nothing did Sam Francis call them the Stupid Party.''
And they are stupid in this instance because, as the op-ed writer says, the party will not survive with their current wrong-headed strategy. Why they can't see this is a mystery to me.
Personally, I think they deserve to be extinct as a party because they are no longer conservative; they no longer serve our interests.
Just as R.L. Dabney said so many years ago, as I've quoted him before on this blog
American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.''
Let the GOP, the party of the blind leading the blind, fall into the ditch. Let it be replaced by a party that represents real Americans, and a party which preserves the existing American people. Any party which fails to do that is useless, and worse than useless.

Labels: Conservatism, Diversity, Gop, Identity Politics, Multiculturalism, Pandering, Political Correctness, Republicans

Over at Free Republic, the mostly 'colorblind' Freepers have been discussing this article, which addresses the question apparently posed by a reader named Richard Banbury:
Why do we call Obama black?
...If we are in the business of telling the truth, when a designation is necessary, Obama is most precisely identified as African American.
As Banbury pointed out, "If he chose to, Barack could have identified himself with his mother's heritage and referred to himself as a white candidate, and perhaps requested to be so identified.
"But I don't think the press would have referred to him in that manner. Equally so, he shouldn't be referred to as a black candidate. It's not a matter of race or group identification. It's simply a question of journalistic accuracy."
Banbury's question as well as headlines from Pennsylvania and West Virginia and from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright episode remind me that the press too easily paints events in black and white. It's time to raise our dialogue about race in America to a more progressive level.
Given its power, the press has an obligation to inform that dialogue as accurately as possible. Obama's candidacy is a rare and riveting opportunity exactly because it is forcing conversations about issues that have been easier to ignore for centuries.''
I leave the Free Republic discussion to my readers' judgment.
But what of the question posed above, and the answer provided?
The writer says that Obama's candidacy is ''forcing conversations" about race, which the writer seems to think is an issue that has been ''ignored for centuries."
Given that a war was fought, with many Americans killed, which at least tangentially had to do with race, I don't see how it can be said that the issue has been ''ignored'. And what was all that uproar in the 1960s about, with the freedom riders and the marches and the National Guard in the schools in Little Rock? Somehow I got the impression it was about race.
What the writer probably alludes to, when she says it has been 'easier to ignore race', is the fact that most white people (and possibly other non-blacks) are too uneasy speaking about race or anything remotely connected to it. Since at least the 1950s, the subject has been a minefield that it's much wiser to avoid than to try to venture across. We've seen good people become casualties, as they chose a wrong word or phrase or allusion, and found themselves exiled from polite society, out of work, and disgraced.
On the other side, it can hardly be said that blacks have 'ignored the subject', since it has been so profitable for them to speak about little else, and to interject the subject where it has no relevance, to insist that all difficulties and inconveniences they experience are a result of race.
We can 'discuss' race, but for all of us who are not black or of another 'special' group, our role in any such discussion is not to discuss, but to listen submissively while we are berated and accused for everything wrong we or our ancestors, however remote, were guilty of. Answering back in self-defense is not allowed, and if we attempt it, we are further denounced for 'racism' and 'hate speech.'
So maybe there are understandable reasons why there has been little real discussion, real give-and-take, on the issue.
But with Obama as a candidate, predictably the subject of race is ever-present, even if only implicitly, in any news story relating to Obama. As I said last year, his candidacy will mean there is no escaping the racial sermons and recriminations.
As to the question addressed in the article, "why do we call Obama black", does this not strike anyone as a bizarre question, which would not have been asked in the old days (pre-PC), a question which is really a strange product of our 'colorblind', politically correct age?
Is the question not at least implying that race is truly a "social construct", or that it's just a matter of personal choice, as we self-identify?
I think this idea began to gain traction back in the 1970s. In college I knew more than a few leftist whites who claimed some Indian ancestry and who then began to wear beads, fringe, and turquoise jewelry and join 'Native American Students' groups on campus. All this with only a tenuous connection to some remote Indian ancestry. However, it is less easy to shift back and forth between a black and white identity.
I've met my share of people of mixed black and white, or black and Indian ("Native American") parentage, who always identify as black. In one case, the woman in question did not look black; I never guessed she was anything but white, but I learned from our boss that the woman was 'African-American.' Unless she informed them, nobody would guess.
It seems an ironclad rule that people of mixed race choose the nonwhite heritage, regardless of their appearance. But if we met Barack Obama, not knowing of his white maternal ancestry, would any of us look at him and think 'white'? If he decided to identify as 'white' and asked to be considered such, would that be credible? Yet that's what many of the Freepers seem to think he should do. "He has a white mother, so he's equally white and black." But does it work that way?
Many whites seem obsessed with Tiger Woods, and cite him as an example of somebody who embraces both heritages (Asian and black). But is he either? Both?
Can anybody be truly half-and-half, neutral between the two poles, especially when the two heritages are so greatly at odds?
And why is it important for the social engineers, the 'colorblind' liberals (Republican and Democrat alike) to pretend that race is not a given, but a chosen thing?
I think the fact that you have so many self-described 'conservatives' adopting the colorblind ideology is what's troubling.
And why is it that the old terms describing people of mixed ancestry are now apparently banished from our vocabulary? Is the word 'mulatto' verboten, like so many old-fashioned descriptive words?
The idea of the 'one-drop rule', supposedly enforced by racist whites, is mentioned, disparagingly, in this connection. In my experience, it seems that people with any degree of black ancestry automatically are part of the ''black community'' simply based on appearance. And that seems to be their personal preference.
By embracing the notion that race is something we can 'choose' I think we are giving place to the liberal idea that all of us are, or can be, self-created individuals, not constrained by sex/gender, nationality, or even that very visible quality, race. This is the liberal's idea of freedom: to construct our own identity, free of any innate, fixed traits over which we have no control.
Are we all perhaps just suffering from a serious cognitive dissonance, given the paradoxical, contradictory messages regarding race which our society imposes on us? On the one hand, ''we are all the same. There's only one race: the human race. Race is only skin deep. Race is a social construct." And on and on.
On the other hand: race is everything, because we are constantly told that 'diversity' based on race is essential to every society. Homogeneity is a bad, unhealthy thing -- and yet aren't we "all the same?"
But how is diversity possible unless we truly are unlike each other in some important ways?
And if colorblindness is the ideal, and recognizing race is bad, why are non-whites constantly talking about race, as if it's the most important thing in their identity and in their life? Why is affirmative action a good thing if judging based on race is bad?
What we have is an impossible situation in which non-whites obtain considerable advantages from keeping race front and center, emphasizing it, focusing on it, using it. Most whites, on the other hand, would prefer to play the 'colorblind' game, seeing as how the issue of race leads to accusations, guilt, and demands for concessions of one sort or another. It's a losing game for the rest of us, but a useful one for blacks, who reap the benefits of being a victim group.
I don't know how we can find our way out of this maze, but it's obvious that we need to try some different path than the present one, which keeps leading us in circles.

Labels: Diversity, Ethnicity, Identity Politics, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness