0 comment Sunday, August 31, 2014 | admin
So much of the 'news' lately reported in the old media, and even in the blogosphere, seems to be so much distraction from some of the rather unsettling things that are happening quietly, unbeknownst to most Americans.
I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.
HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.
The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.
Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''
There's also a related bill here.
Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:
"Barack Obama will require you to work."
"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual � uninvolved, uninformed � you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged."
These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.
Any reactions? Comments?
I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.
HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.
The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.
Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''
There's also a related bill here.
Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:
"Barack Obama will require you to work."
"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual � uninvolved, uninformed � you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged."
These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.
Any reactions? Comments?
Labels: Communism, Congress, Indoctrination, Mass Media, National Service, Socialism, Volunteerism
0 comment Sunday, August 24, 2014 | admin
I know some of you are staunch proponents of the 'kill your TV' doctrine, but over the Christmas season, it's hard not to tune into at least some of the classic Christmas programming. And unsurprisingly, the propagandistic advertising assails your senses when you watch TV for more than a few moments. It seems that every commercial has to have some racial/ethnic propaganda, often coupled with feminist messages, all of which are delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
Either the multicult is so overconfident that they no longer try to hide the agenda, or they are getting desperate and hoping to bludgeon us into submission as speedily as possible. I am not sure which it is; maybe both.
Just one example: a Big Lots commercial advertising Christmas sales, in which two couples are seen riding in a sleigh in a snowy landscape, dressed in rather cartoonish Victorian clothing. One of the males is black. To me this whole scenario is bizarre and unlikely in the extreme. Are we to believe that there were such improbable social arrangements back in Victorian times? Apparently so. But it's absurd, and it's hard not to feel one's intelligence insulted by these surreal scenes.
I suppose we have to suspend disbelief, because the advertisers are showing us not reality, or even a simulated reality, but their alternate view of the world -- as they think it should be. The world depicted in commercials is an alternate, politically-corrected, multicultural babel in which people are randomly mixed together in unlikely combinations. That's the prescribed order of things, the world as the multicult wishes it to be, plans for it to be, and strives to force it to become.
I used to think, as most people think automatically, that these ads with their mix 'n match groupings of people, were meant to make the nonwhite races feel accepted and to gain their goodwill and their business. Advertisers, we are led to believe, just care about the bottom line, and everybody's money is green. So 'green' is the only color advertisers see; they just want everybody's dollars.
There may be that aspect to it, but it seems the primary purpose now is to ensure that White people get accustomed to the idea that this is not a White-majority country anymore -- even though it is, numerically speaking. But it will soon be a country with a majority nonwhite population if the busy elites have their way. They are working night and day to change the makeup and the character and the face of this country, and the commercials are one way of subliminally telling us that this ain't your daddy's America anymore, and that we must accept that inevitability. Not only must we accept it, we must celebrate it, welcome it, weep with joy over it (as when Obama was elected). We must submit. Resistance is futile.
I've noticed, as I know others have too, that the cable news channels have increased their percentages of nonwhite 'anchors' and presenters and reporters and pundits. CNN is the most obviously nonwhite channel, which has actually been going on for some years, as the channel considers itself a world news channel, not an American one. Fox News is also following suit with more black personalities.
The Weather Channel must comb the country for 'diverse' meteorologists -- or are all those diverse faces real weather scientists?
Even the Food Network, which is one of the last refuges from politically correct programming, has become more ''diverse'' (read: more black) with at least two new shows featuring blacks and ostensibly 'black' cuisine.
The channels which supposedly specialize in documentary-style programming (like the History channels and the National Geographic channels, etc.) are also riddled with political correctness.
The shopping channels have their share of black presenters and models, but so far the PC message has not been successfully worked into the sales pitches -- unless you count things like their pushing the 'Obama coins' and commemorative plates. Who is behind this phenomenon, I wonder? Who writes the copy for these ads -- things like:
"His confident smile and kind eyes are an inspiration to us all." Or this line: " this will be a family heirloom."
I've been wondering if he himself is making a profit on these things though many of the irate pro-Obama commenters on Politico.com fiercely deny that he is making money from the merchandise.
But does he not have the right to control the use of his image, and to license products using it? There have been many celebrities who have sued those who used their image without permission on items like this.
But in any case the coins aren't legal tender, per Politico.com :
''Now, the real U.S. Mint has issued an advisory about the coins, warning consumers that the coins aren't official government tender, but merely plastic coating on real dollar coins.
Says the Mint:
These advertisements feature genuine United States coins that the private commercial businesses have altered by affixing a colorized image to the coin. Additionally, some businesses have treated the coins by gold-plating them.
These items are not official United States Mint products. Furthermore, these products, businesses, and advertisements are not approved, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by the United States Mint, the Department of the Treasury, or the United States Government.
The United States Mint does not encourage, endorse, or sponsor products that alter the fundamental images depicted on its coins.'
How fitting: the coins are bogus, just as most of the multicultural ideology which propelled the Obama to the presidency.
I'm convinced that the "historic" election of Obama is the end result, direct or indirect, of the decades-long multicultural, anti-White advertising and indoctrination which the mainstream media specializes in. Decades of images of blacks as wise, superior people as contrasted to inept, feckless White males have had their desired effect.
The fact that so many people's views today are 180 degrees away from those of their parents and grandparents is proof of how effective this re-education effort has been.
And it isn't just here in the United States; I've heard similar complaints from people in all Western countries; it's going on everywhere. There seems to be a stepping-up of the effort to eliminate all dissenting viewpoints, and any remaining vestiges of traditional ideas and practices. And the underlying message being displayed is: 'surrender, Dorothy.' The change to the 'new order' is inevitable and it's for the best. Give up and give in.
The blatantly propagandistic commercials and the forced 'diversity' in the news media as well as the 'entertainment' media, is aimed only secondarily at the 13% or so of blacks or the 15% Hispanic viewers. It's aimed first and foremost at you and me, to inure us to the fact that we are being displaced, dispossessed, demoted, and basically written out of the script. And it's working, for most people, who seem resigned and even quite content to be second-class or third-class citizens in the land their ancestors created and fought for.
Getting people to disengage from the media and from the whole consumer culture would seem essential, but it seems that few are willing to do so until or unless they become aware of the obvious agenda, and begin to realize that the media are hostile to us, and toxic for us and for our national immune system. I know when I became more awake and aware, my radar for the media hazards became much more acute, and my tolerance level for the propaganda dropped. I sincerely hope the media and the whorish advertising industry will overplay their hand even more, and alienate people on a widespread scale. I believe that the educational system (falsely so-called) and the 'mass media' are the biggest pollutants of our minds right now.
We live in an age in which people worry more about minor environmental pollutants than about the real dangers, the mental and spiritual pollution to which we are being subjected.
Either the multicult is so overconfident that they no longer try to hide the agenda, or they are getting desperate and hoping to bludgeon us into submission as speedily as possible. I am not sure which it is; maybe both.
Just one example: a Big Lots commercial advertising Christmas sales, in which two couples are seen riding in a sleigh in a snowy landscape, dressed in rather cartoonish Victorian clothing. One of the males is black. To me this whole scenario is bizarre and unlikely in the extreme. Are we to believe that there were such improbable social arrangements back in Victorian times? Apparently so. But it's absurd, and it's hard not to feel one's intelligence insulted by these surreal scenes.
I suppose we have to suspend disbelief, because the advertisers are showing us not reality, or even a simulated reality, but their alternate view of the world -- as they think it should be. The world depicted in commercials is an alternate, politically-corrected, multicultural babel in which people are randomly mixed together in unlikely combinations. That's the prescribed order of things, the world as the multicult wishes it to be, plans for it to be, and strives to force it to become.
I used to think, as most people think automatically, that these ads with their mix 'n match groupings of people, were meant to make the nonwhite races feel accepted and to gain their goodwill and their business. Advertisers, we are led to believe, just care about the bottom line, and everybody's money is green. So 'green' is the only color advertisers see; they just want everybody's dollars.
There may be that aspect to it, but it seems the primary purpose now is to ensure that White people get accustomed to the idea that this is not a White-majority country anymore -- even though it is, numerically speaking. But it will soon be a country with a majority nonwhite population if the busy elites have their way. They are working night and day to change the makeup and the character and the face of this country, and the commercials are one way of subliminally telling us that this ain't your daddy's America anymore, and that we must accept that inevitability. Not only must we accept it, we must celebrate it, welcome it, weep with joy over it (as when Obama was elected). We must submit. Resistance is futile.
I've noticed, as I know others have too, that the cable news channels have increased their percentages of nonwhite 'anchors' and presenters and reporters and pundits. CNN is the most obviously nonwhite channel, which has actually been going on for some years, as the channel considers itself a world news channel, not an American one. Fox News is also following suit with more black personalities.
The Weather Channel must comb the country for 'diverse' meteorologists -- or are all those diverse faces real weather scientists?
Even the Food Network, which is one of the last refuges from politically correct programming, has become more ''diverse'' (read: more black) with at least two new shows featuring blacks and ostensibly 'black' cuisine.
The channels which supposedly specialize in documentary-style programming (like the History channels and the National Geographic channels, etc.) are also riddled with political correctness.
The shopping channels have their share of black presenters and models, but so far the PC message has not been successfully worked into the sales pitches -- unless you count things like their pushing the 'Obama coins' and commemorative plates. Who is behind this phenomenon, I wonder? Who writes the copy for these ads -- things like:
"His confident smile and kind eyes are an inspiration to us all." Or this line: " this will be a family heirloom."
I've been wondering if he himself is making a profit on these things though many of the irate pro-Obama commenters on Politico.com fiercely deny that he is making money from the merchandise.
But does he not have the right to control the use of his image, and to license products using it? There have been many celebrities who have sued those who used their image without permission on items like this.
But in any case the coins aren't legal tender, per Politico.com :
''Now, the real U.S. Mint has issued an advisory about the coins, warning consumers that the coins aren't official government tender, but merely plastic coating on real dollar coins.
Says the Mint:
These advertisements feature genuine United States coins that the private commercial businesses have altered by affixing a colorized image to the coin. Additionally, some businesses have treated the coins by gold-plating them.
These items are not official United States Mint products. Furthermore, these products, businesses, and advertisements are not approved, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by the United States Mint, the Department of the Treasury, or the United States Government.
The United States Mint does not encourage, endorse, or sponsor products that alter the fundamental images depicted on its coins.'
How fitting: the coins are bogus, just as most of the multicultural ideology which propelled the Obama to the presidency.
I'm convinced that the "historic" election of Obama is the end result, direct or indirect, of the decades-long multicultural, anti-White advertising and indoctrination which the mainstream media specializes in. Decades of images of blacks as wise, superior people as contrasted to inept, feckless White males have had their desired effect.
The fact that so many people's views today are 180 degrees away from those of their parents and grandparents is proof of how effective this re-education effort has been.
And it isn't just here in the United States; I've heard similar complaints from people in all Western countries; it's going on everywhere. There seems to be a stepping-up of the effort to eliminate all dissenting viewpoints, and any remaining vestiges of traditional ideas and practices. And the underlying message being displayed is: 'surrender, Dorothy.' The change to the 'new order' is inevitable and it's for the best. Give up and give in.
The blatantly propagandistic commercials and the forced 'diversity' in the news media as well as the 'entertainment' media, is aimed only secondarily at the 13% or so of blacks or the 15% Hispanic viewers. It's aimed first and foremost at you and me, to inure us to the fact that we are being displaced, dispossessed, demoted, and basically written out of the script. And it's working, for most people, who seem resigned and even quite content to be second-class or third-class citizens in the land their ancestors created and fought for.
Getting people to disengage from the media and from the whole consumer culture would seem essential, but it seems that few are willing to do so until or unless they become aware of the obvious agenda, and begin to realize that the media are hostile to us, and toxic for us and for our national immune system. I know when I became more awake and aware, my radar for the media hazards became much more acute, and my tolerance level for the propaganda dropped. I sincerely hope the media and the whorish advertising industry will overplay their hand even more, and alienate people on a widespread scale. I believe that the educational system (falsely so-called) and the 'mass media' are the biggest pollutants of our minds right now.
We live in an age in which people worry more about minor environmental pollutants than about the real dangers, the mental and spiritual pollution to which we are being subjected.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Diversity, Indoctrination, Liberalism, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness
0 comment Tuesday, August 5, 2014 | admin
One of the vexing politically correct habits, which I've alluded to before is the knee-jerk, all-purpose response of ''they're not all like that.'' Our people seem to have had this ingrained into them, indelibly etched into their brains, judging by how often they employ this meme.
The ''They'' who are ''not all like that'' in this context means minorities, mainly nonwhites and non-Christians. It seems to be the way that liberals both Republican and Democrat, talk themselves into clinging to their 'colorblindness' and 'tolerance.' It is the ready answer when confronted with news stories involving interracial crime (black on white, to cite the most common) or misdeeds by other non-White or non-Christian people. The latter may be Moslems or they may be Jews; the colorblind Republican rigidly holds to the idea that all bad behavior, all aggression, passive or active, against us by such people, is the exception. They are not all like that! If you cite some outrage perpetrated by one of any of the favored victim groups, the colorblind conservatives will cite some exemplary person of that same group. The one person in a hundred or in a thousand is to be the 'real' example of their group, not the majority.
Events like the recent rash of violence at various McDonald's franchises simply calls forth references to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain or Allen West, or name your 'favorite' minority exemplar.
The prize-winner in this category was some poster on Free Republic who said, in discussing the McDonald's beating in Baltimore "I would die fighting for Allen West, Herman Cain, Walter Williams, or any of our black conservatives.'' Ponder the significance of that kind of thing coming from a White. How many White people today would defend their own folk in that fashion? That kind of devotion should belong only to God or to one's nearest and dearest, but yet we have people saying that about these public figures, who have somehow achieved demigod status among some conservatives.
This really does border on idolatry, as Cambria Will Not Yield alludes to on his blog frequently.
How does it happen that this kind of zeal on behalf of Others is so ingrained in many people today? The quick answer is 'programming, or indoctrination', but as we've asked here before, how did it come to be that our people were so susceptible to this kind of upside-down thinking?
It's no good answering ''Christianity programmed them'', considering that the rise of this kind of adulation of Others grew only as Christianity declined. Christianity, throughout most of its existence, was free of such deluded servility. The old-time Christian believed in bringing the gospel to far-off nations but most had realistic attitudes about the people in those countries. There was no looking up to them as sages or saviors, as with today's twisted multicult image of Third Worlders. Today's fawning attitudes owe more to Rousseau and his idea of the 'noble savage', the savage as innocent, unspoiled child, than to anything in Christianity. The left and their religious arm, the 'new agers', revere something called 'crazy wisdom' which they believe resides only in pure third-worlders or alien peoples and religions.
So now we have this mass of people whose knee-jerk impulse is to defend Others rather than their own flesh and bone.
And these people maintain their absurd ideas by telling themselves that all these violent crimes are anomalies, random acts, the work of only a few bad apples. The 'real' representatives of any given group are the few who conform to our standards.
This is true whether the group being discussed is blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews or whoever.
A few years ago when I posted links to articles about problems with Somalis refugees in Maine, I got an irate and condemnatory comment from some goody-two-shoes in Maine who claimed that Somalis are wonderful hard-working people who get along famously with their White neighbors.
So first comes the race card, or the victim card, followed closely by ''they're not all like that.'' Sometimes the next cliche on the list is that 'Whites commit lots of crimes too.''
I truly do see this attitude and defense mechanism as an impediment to facing reality. As long as our people can continue to take refuge in these facile cliches, these platitudes, I see little hope of honesty and clear-thinking.
And it seems that conservatives in particular cling fiercely to these notions, often lashing out at anybody who tries to dispute the facts with them.
Perhaps decades of maleducation has left many people unable to spot faulty logic or fallacious thinking. It should be obvious to anybody who can think that there are undeniable patterns, patterns which are unfailing predictors of how groups of people will generally behave. They truly think that if they can find one exception somewhere, the many 'bad apples' are therefore insignificant. We can disregard them, because they are not representative; the few are the real 'typical' members of that group, or so they maintain.
For instance, in talking with people I have cited the correlation between 'diversity' in a city or town and crime, or social deterioration and pathology. I can show people statistic after statistic as evidence of the link between demographics and the 'liveability' of a given place. Detroit is probably the prime example of this, but then you are met with these absurd explanations such as the articles about the 'Ruins of Detroit' being examples of Democrat misrule! For many 'conservatives', minority dysfunction or bad behavior is due to 'liberals keeping them ignorant and dependent.' In other words, if only they would read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, or listen to Allen West, blacks might all be successful businessmen and high-achieving, law-abiding citizens.
But the mere existence of Williams or Sowell or Cain is incontrovertible proof that ''they're not all like that'' -- they are all in fact potential Herman Cains, and Hispanics are all potential Marco Rubios.
I cited my personal experiences in my previous post, with being a crime victim, and since those things happened, I've had a great variety of unpleasant interactions with random 'Others' who behaved aggressively towards me or mine. However, I'm sorry to say it was years before the cumulative weight of all those bad experiences, and of hearing or seeing the bad experiences of others, led me to see how preposterous our racial cliches are, how out of touch with reality, how false.
It seems it often takes much hard experience to wake people up -- yet some people persist in their stubborn delusions. Why? It must have some payoff for them; it makes them ''feel good about themselves'' to know that whatever they are they are not 'racist'. For most Americans, sad to say, that is the single most defining proof of virtue or character, to be 'colorblind' or 'tolerant.' Some people will even give up their lives rather than relinquish their illusions.
A variant on this 'they're not all like that' meme is the 'favorite minority'. I see this a lot among HBDers, who, even in using the acronym, 'NAM', indicate that Asians are given an exemption from criticism; they are the good immigrants who will benefit our country by bringing us their high IQs and 'successful'' wealth-creating ways. The Non-Asians are the group who are the lesser -- though many of the HBDers seem enamored of Hispanics, especially the 'hot' Hispanic women or Filipinas. At AmRen, many regulars seem to have their favorite minorities, including even the Sikhs, who have been involved in violence according to recent news stories.
In a way I think even people who are 'race realists' or even WNs believe in the proposition nation business; they are willing to accept others, however alien, if they think that these people accept American laws or 'contribute to society' or don't commit too many crimes.
How do we persuade people who refuse to recognize patterns and accept reality?
Or again, is it even necessary to win them over? Do we need the majority on board with us, or do we just need to neutralize this nonsense and hope they will stop working against their own folk?
The ''They'' who are ''not all like that'' in this context means minorities, mainly nonwhites and non-Christians. It seems to be the way that liberals both Republican and Democrat, talk themselves into clinging to their 'colorblindness' and 'tolerance.' It is the ready answer when confronted with news stories involving interracial crime (black on white, to cite the most common) or misdeeds by other non-White or non-Christian people. The latter may be Moslems or they may be Jews; the colorblind Republican rigidly holds to the idea that all bad behavior, all aggression, passive or active, against us by such people, is the exception. They are not all like that! If you cite some outrage perpetrated by one of any of the favored victim groups, the colorblind conservatives will cite some exemplary person of that same group. The one person in a hundred or in a thousand is to be the 'real' example of their group, not the majority.
Events like the recent rash of violence at various McDonald's franchises simply calls forth references to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain or Allen West, or name your 'favorite' minority exemplar.
The prize-winner in this category was some poster on Free Republic who said, in discussing the McDonald's beating in Baltimore "I would die fighting for Allen West, Herman Cain, Walter Williams, or any of our black conservatives.'' Ponder the significance of that kind of thing coming from a White. How many White people today would defend their own folk in that fashion? That kind of devotion should belong only to God or to one's nearest and dearest, but yet we have people saying that about these public figures, who have somehow achieved demigod status among some conservatives.
This really does border on idolatry, as Cambria Will Not Yield alludes to on his blog frequently.
How does it happen that this kind of zeal on behalf of Others is so ingrained in many people today? The quick answer is 'programming, or indoctrination', but as we've asked here before, how did it come to be that our people were so susceptible to this kind of upside-down thinking?
It's no good answering ''Christianity programmed them'', considering that the rise of this kind of adulation of Others grew only as Christianity declined. Christianity, throughout most of its existence, was free of such deluded servility. The old-time Christian believed in bringing the gospel to far-off nations but most had realistic attitudes about the people in those countries. There was no looking up to them as sages or saviors, as with today's twisted multicult image of Third Worlders. Today's fawning attitudes owe more to Rousseau and his idea of the 'noble savage', the savage as innocent, unspoiled child, than to anything in Christianity. The left and their religious arm, the 'new agers', revere something called 'crazy wisdom' which they believe resides only in pure third-worlders or alien peoples and religions.
So now we have this mass of people whose knee-jerk impulse is to defend Others rather than their own flesh and bone.
And these people maintain their absurd ideas by telling themselves that all these violent crimes are anomalies, random acts, the work of only a few bad apples. The 'real' representatives of any given group are the few who conform to our standards.
This is true whether the group being discussed is blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews or whoever.
A few years ago when I posted links to articles about problems with Somalis refugees in Maine, I got an irate and condemnatory comment from some goody-two-shoes in Maine who claimed that Somalis are wonderful hard-working people who get along famously with their White neighbors.
So first comes the race card, or the victim card, followed closely by ''they're not all like that.'' Sometimes the next cliche on the list is that 'Whites commit lots of crimes too.''
I truly do see this attitude and defense mechanism as an impediment to facing reality. As long as our people can continue to take refuge in these facile cliches, these platitudes, I see little hope of honesty and clear-thinking.
And it seems that conservatives in particular cling fiercely to these notions, often lashing out at anybody who tries to dispute the facts with them.
Perhaps decades of maleducation has left many people unable to spot faulty logic or fallacious thinking. It should be obvious to anybody who can think that there are undeniable patterns, patterns which are unfailing predictors of how groups of people will generally behave. They truly think that if they can find one exception somewhere, the many 'bad apples' are therefore insignificant. We can disregard them, because they are not representative; the few are the real 'typical' members of that group, or so they maintain.
For instance, in talking with people I have cited the correlation between 'diversity' in a city or town and crime, or social deterioration and pathology. I can show people statistic after statistic as evidence of the link between demographics and the 'liveability' of a given place. Detroit is probably the prime example of this, but then you are met with these absurd explanations such as the articles about the 'Ruins of Detroit' being examples of Democrat misrule! For many 'conservatives', minority dysfunction or bad behavior is due to 'liberals keeping them ignorant and dependent.' In other words, if only they would read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, or listen to Allen West, blacks might all be successful businessmen and high-achieving, law-abiding citizens.
But the mere existence of Williams or Sowell or Cain is incontrovertible proof that ''they're not all like that'' -- they are all in fact potential Herman Cains, and Hispanics are all potential Marco Rubios.
I cited my personal experiences in my previous post, with being a crime victim, and since those things happened, I've had a great variety of unpleasant interactions with random 'Others' who behaved aggressively towards me or mine. However, I'm sorry to say it was years before the cumulative weight of all those bad experiences, and of hearing or seeing the bad experiences of others, led me to see how preposterous our racial cliches are, how out of touch with reality, how false.
It seems it often takes much hard experience to wake people up -- yet some people persist in their stubborn delusions. Why? It must have some payoff for them; it makes them ''feel good about themselves'' to know that whatever they are they are not 'racist'. For most Americans, sad to say, that is the single most defining proof of virtue or character, to be 'colorblind' or 'tolerant.' Some people will even give up their lives rather than relinquish their illusions.
A variant on this 'they're not all like that' meme is the 'favorite minority'. I see this a lot among HBDers, who, even in using the acronym, 'NAM', indicate that Asians are given an exemption from criticism; they are the good immigrants who will benefit our country by bringing us their high IQs and 'successful'' wealth-creating ways. The Non-Asians are the group who are the lesser -- though many of the HBDers seem enamored of Hispanics, especially the 'hot' Hispanic women or Filipinas. At AmRen, many regulars seem to have their favorite minorities, including even the Sikhs, who have been involved in violence according to recent news stories.
In a way I think even people who are 'race realists' or even WNs believe in the proposition nation business; they are willing to accept others, however alien, if they think that these people accept American laws or 'contribute to society' or don't commit too many crimes.
How do we persuade people who refuse to recognize patterns and accept reality?
Or again, is it even necessary to win them over? Do we need the majority on board with us, or do we just need to neutralize this nonsense and hope they will stop working against their own folk?
Labels: Colorblind Conservatives, Ethnoloyalty, Indoctrination, Political Correctness
0 comment Saturday, June 21, 2014 | admin
Peter Wilson at American Thinker tells us about an exhibit, now at the Boston Museum of Science, called "RACE -- Are we so different?"
You know what the answer is, at least as given by the people who designed this exhibit to program schoolchildren and other gullible people. Wilson says
''Even a sympathetic reviewer in the Boston Globe admits that "there's a wearying didacticism to the show," and it's no surprise that the didactic lessons about race are all slanted toward the left.''
He cites a Boston Globe writer who is "surprisingly critical":
One can support affirmative action, for example, and still wonder about the presence of a display called "Affirmative action: undoing inequality.'' That's not science or even sociology; that's politics. Right or wrong, some people think affirmative action furthers inequality. Another display is called "White -- the color of money.'' It shows stacks of dollar bills whose height corresponds to the relative wealth of whites, Asians, blacks, Latinos, and "others'' in US society. A section on discrimination and real estate has two street signs, "Privilege Place'' and "Racism Road.'' It's like an MSNBC production of "Sesame Street.'' Tendentiousness is no less tendentious for being in a good cause.''The exhibit seems to be just what you'd expect. And it may be coming to your town, so beware of your children being press-ganged into attending this exhibit, if you have children in public school.
The depressing part of this piece is the content of the comments following, ostensibly from conservatives. I suppose if I had to sum up the tenor of most of the comments, the theme that runs through it, implicitly, is that ''I'm willing to be colorblind so why won't these liberals and minorities play the game along with me?'' That's actually a very common refrain among many Whites these days. They don't seem to disagree about the 'race is a social contract' fraud, and they don't want to return to the pre-politically correct terms of debate. No, they just want everybody to play by the rules of the 'colorblind game', as if it could all work if only we all pretended together.
This attitude informs what we see happening with the Republican Party, the Herman Cain fan club among the Tea Partiers, and MLK's cult on the right.
You know what the answer is, at least as given by the people who designed this exhibit to program schoolchildren and other gullible people. Wilson says
''Even a sympathetic reviewer in the Boston Globe admits that "there's a wearying didacticism to the show," and it's no surprise that the didactic lessons about race are all slanted toward the left.''
He cites a Boston Globe writer who is "surprisingly critical":
One can support affirmative action, for example, and still wonder about the presence of a display called "Affirmative action: undoing inequality.'' That's not science or even sociology; that's politics. Right or wrong, some people think affirmative action furthers inequality. Another display is called "White -- the color of money.'' It shows stacks of dollar bills whose height corresponds to the relative wealth of whites, Asians, blacks, Latinos, and "others'' in US society. A section on discrimination and real estate has two street signs, "Privilege Place'' and "Racism Road.'' It's like an MSNBC production of "Sesame Street.'' Tendentiousness is no less tendentious for being in a good cause.''The exhibit seems to be just what you'd expect. And it may be coming to your town, so beware of your children being press-ganged into attending this exhibit, if you have children in public school.
The depressing part of this piece is the content of the comments following, ostensibly from conservatives. I suppose if I had to sum up the tenor of most of the comments, the theme that runs through it, implicitly, is that ''I'm willing to be colorblind so why won't these liberals and minorities play the game along with me?'' That's actually a very common refrain among many Whites these days. They don't seem to disagree about the 'race is a social contract' fraud, and they don't want to return to the pre-politically correct terms of debate. No, they just want everybody to play by the rules of the 'colorblind game', as if it could all work if only we all pretended together.
This attitude informs what we see happening with the Republican Party, the Herman Cain fan club among the Tea Partiers, and MLK's cult on the right.
Labels: Conservatives, Cultural Marxism, Indoctrination, Political Correctness, Race Denial
0 comment Wednesday, June 11, 2014 | admin
From LiveScience.com, we learn -- surprise, surprise -- that 'Anti-Prejudice Campaigns Can Increase Bias.'
Campaigns to reduce prejudice may backfire if they take the bossy approach and tell people what to do, new research indicates.
In experiments, researchers looked at two different approaches to persuading people to reduce prejudice. One type, the controlling approach, tells people what they should do, while the second explains the advantages of being non-prejudiced. They found that participants responded much better to the second approach; meanwhile, the controlling approach actually increased prejudice.''
I think most of us could have spared the researchers the trouble and expense; I could have told them this, and so could most people with any powers of observation.
So what would we call the approach that is being used 24/7 on the TV-watching public, or the movie-viewing public, or the newspaper- and magazine-reading public? It's always 'bossy' and sledge-hammer subtle, if you ask me.
The people who bombard us with these messages think they are being subtle, perhaps, when they present us with these little vignettes or 'heartwarming' images -- like the one in the article. The idea is: this is the new normal. This is what you should aspire to. This is the 'trend of the future.' If your family does not look like this, why not? Are you a hater/bigot/racist/extremist?
An expert is quoted in the article as saying:
''...people need to feel that they are freely choosing to be non-prejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them."
Sorry, but anybody with sense knows that it is being forced upon us; only the most brain-dead think that they are 'freely choosing' the 'diversity' and miscegeny promoted by the powers-that-be.
I think that all the heavy-handed propaganda in the media played a big part in causing me to reject the 'celebrate diversity or else' message long ago. Nobody has a right to try to dictate, or even shape, how we feel about others. And nobody has a right to invalidate the life-experiences that have in fact shaped our feelings or opinions of others, either individuals or groups of people.
Why do the propagandists not back off, if they realize they are provoking resistance to their agenda among a certain portion of the people? Or are they trying to push us into rebelling?
There seems to be scant evidence that the lovey-dovey ''one big human family'' propaganda is having any effect at all among the 'diversities' out there. All the recent flash mob attacks seem to indicate that the 'youths' out there do not think 'there is just one race, the human race' or that 'we are all the same under the skin.' But then they are not the targets of the diversity-pushing meddlers and peddlers out there. The targets, as always, are Whites who have not volunteered to be blended out of existence just yet.
Campaigns to reduce prejudice may backfire if they take the bossy approach and tell people what to do, new research indicates.
In experiments, researchers looked at two different approaches to persuading people to reduce prejudice. One type, the controlling approach, tells people what they should do, while the second explains the advantages of being non-prejudiced. They found that participants responded much better to the second approach; meanwhile, the controlling approach actually increased prejudice.''
I think most of us could have spared the researchers the trouble and expense; I could have told them this, and so could most people with any powers of observation.
So what would we call the approach that is being used 24/7 on the TV-watching public, or the movie-viewing public, or the newspaper- and magazine-reading public? It's always 'bossy' and sledge-hammer subtle, if you ask me.
The people who bombard us with these messages think they are being subtle, perhaps, when they present us with these little vignettes or 'heartwarming' images -- like the one in the article. The idea is: this is the new normal. This is what you should aspire to. This is the 'trend of the future.' If your family does not look like this, why not? Are you a hater/bigot/racist/extremist?
An expert is quoted in the article as saying:
''...people need to feel that they are freely choosing to be non-prejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them."
Sorry, but anybody with sense knows that it is being forced upon us; only the most brain-dead think that they are 'freely choosing' the 'diversity' and miscegeny promoted by the powers-that-be.
I think that all the heavy-handed propaganda in the media played a big part in causing me to reject the 'celebrate diversity or else' message long ago. Nobody has a right to try to dictate, or even shape, how we feel about others. And nobody has a right to invalidate the life-experiences that have in fact shaped our feelings or opinions of others, either individuals or groups of people.
Why do the propagandists not back off, if they realize they are provoking resistance to their agenda among a certain portion of the people? Or are they trying to push us into rebelling?
There seems to be scant evidence that the lovey-dovey ''one big human family'' propaganda is having any effect at all among the 'diversities' out there. All the recent flash mob attacks seem to indicate that the 'youths' out there do not think 'there is just one race, the human race' or that 'we are all the same under the skin.' But then they are not the targets of the diversity-pushing meddlers and peddlers out there. The targets, as always, are Whites who have not volunteered to be blended out of existence just yet.
Labels: Compulsory Diversity, Cultural Marxism, Diversity Is Strength, Indoctrination, Media, Propaganda
0 comment Thursday, June 5, 2014 | admin
It seems the Spanish have not been sufficiently indoctrinated into the arcana of political correctness. The picture to the left shows the 'faux pas' committed by the Spanish Olympic basketball team, which has caused the ever-vigilant British press to spring into action and expose this 'offensive' act.
Here, the journalist who 'broke' this earth-shaking story justifies his tattling on the team and creating an international tempest-in-a-teapot.
He says:
I mentioned it to my editor, explaining that it was considered a bit of fun in Spain. But the advert certainly was, as the headline said, eye-catching. He asked me to write 300 words. Not a huge amount - in fact hardly anything - tucked away on page 9 of the Guardian sports section. Now it's been round the world whipping up a storm, provoking debate and waves of accusation and counter-accusation. The New York Times ran it, so did the Los Angeles Times. It was the most-read story on guardian.co.uk for three days.
The fact that this inconsequential story is commanding so much attention is a sad commentary on what our society considers important. While the West is burning, our absurd elites are up in arms about this kind of thing. It's as though, unwilling to confront the real crises threatening our civilization, the head-in-the-sand types are working themselves up over this. It seems like a desperate attempt to focus attention away from the things that really matter, and that really need addressing, and diverting the attention of the public.
The comments by Guardian readers on this thread are the real cause for disgust.
The Spanish should know that this is a learning opportunity. In the UK we used to have this kind of humour sanctioned and promoted by the BBC in the sixties and seventies but increasing objections and anxieties about these impersonations over the years meant that we have learnt that singling out the physical characteristics of a race in order to make people laugh can, and often is, offensive. Slitty eye impressions, just like big lipped monkey impressions of Africans, are not very funny and backward, and people have the right to find it offensive, especially if they are Chinese and black. You cannot take that right away by claiming that it is all a joke. Ha Ha, it's only a joke to rub your hands together and crouch over and pretend you are Shylock. What next, swastikas? Very funny, I am sure.
Oh yes, the old argumentum ad Hitlerum. ''What next, swastikas?''And then genocide no doubt. To the PC liberal, there is racism around every corner and under every rock, and after racism, genocide.
These people are completely obsessed.
The commenter says this is a 'learning opportunity' for the Spaniards. To these people, everything is a 'learning opportunity',which translated into English means that everything is turned into a PC indoctrination session. That's why our commercials and advertising are chock-full of little preachy vignettes meant to instill correct thoughts and images into our heads.
Another comment:
I lived in Madrid for 1 year in 2001. I know the rest of the country very well too. I have lived in France, am currently living in the US and I'm from England. I would say I have pretty good first hand experience of all the cultures of these places (whilst deferring to the obvious fact that different cultures exist even within each country).So...my conclusions:None of these countries is racism free.Racism exists in these countries in different forms and it occurs in some similar forms. Some of these forms are obvious and some very hidden - the latter being much more concerning.All racism needs to be addressed and should not be tolerated.It is very important, given this continent's recent history, that any potential stirrings of racism or hatred in any form are shown up before the people to judge.''
Leave no stone unturned. No careless, joking word or gesture is to be unexamined. And 'the people' must 'judge' everything.
This sounds suspiciously like the tribunals and condemnation sessions so beloved of the old Communist countries.
I've already judged these self-appointed commissars of political correctness and I find them guilty of being little tin tyrants who must be opposed and resisted whenever and wherever they show up.
I hope that nobody cravenly apologizes, but no doubt that will be next on the schedule.
Labels: Indoctrination
0 comment Thursday, May 15, 2014 | admin
What a long way we've come since 1961, when Kennedy appointee Newton Minow of the FCC proclaimed television to be a 'vast wasteland.' The television of 1961 was certainly full of vacuous programming and commercials, but compared to today's TV, it was high art. And bad as it may have been in parts, it was at least mostly entertainment without an 'agenda' or without heavy-handed messages bludgeoning viewers over the head, and without the steady propaganda that is the whole purpose, seemingly, of much of what is on TV in 2008.
You can't watch TV without being aware of the propaganda and the conditioning. The commercials seem as much or more concerned with selling a politically correct message than with selling a product or a service.
Today as I was watching the National Geographic channel I saw this VISA spot, which I've learned is narrated by Morgan Freeman (who else?). It's ostensibly about the upcoming Olympics, but if you haven't seen it, click on the link and watch it. It's short, but they do manage to pack a lot of propaganda into a short spot. If you want to be really discouraged, read the mindless comments following the spot.
In a ubiquitous Vonage commercial, it isn't the globalist agenda so much as the feminist, anti-White male agenda. Vonage seems to heavily favor ridiculing and belittling White males while exalting snarky, superior females. I am sure you've all seen this particular one, which is inescapable on TV these days.
The smug, sarcastic female seems to be a stock character in commercials these days, alongside the inept, awkward, clueless White male.
But the global agenda and the 'we are all the same' message seem to be promoted more heavily than ever in recent months. I've mentioned the History International Channel before, with its obnoxious 'Globalize Yourself' slogan.
For History International, the image makers at ZONA Design, Inc. created and produced a :30 image spot that encourages each viewer to "Globalize Yourself"; To explore the lives, the cultures, the various histories that shape the world we share; To try and better understand the world's peoples as what happens elsewhere on our planet profoundly impacts our daily lives here at home.
[...] To artfully make the network?s point, the ZONA creatives transitioned a series of images from diverse cultures - Russian, Tibetan, Peruvian, Aboriginal - and faces of African, Asian, Muslim and Hispanic men and women, one to the other, in the process weaving a global tapestry. Each day the world seems to be getting smaller so we created a travelogue that we hoped would help viewers make the connection that, as the History International tagline states, what happens over there indeed matters over here,? explained ZONA Creative Director/Designer Zoa Martinez.''
Celebrate diversity. Or else.
And then the BBC has its 'One World' mantra going. A few years ago, the BBC even ran a poll to find out who most people preferred as leader of a one-world government, which they clearly think is the future.
Now the "Beeb," as it is known, recently announced the results of a poll to find out who its audience would choose to head a worldwide one-size-fits-all government. And the winner was: Ex-South African President Nelson Mandela. According to the BBC, about 15,000 people voted worldwide and the contest was an interactive Power Play game modeled on Fantasy Football; participants were instructed to choose a team of eleven to run the world, from a list of about 100 people offered, coming mainly from the left-liberal end of the political spectrum. About half of the participants were apparently American, and for this reason if no other, the runner-up was William Jefferson Clinton. ''
I guess we all know who would be chosen today to head up this 'one-world' regime. And the media can take most of the 'credit' or more accurately the blame for that.
I suppose these propaganda efforts, obvious and overbearing as they are, must be somewhat effective, judging by the way the young are flocking to Obama and cheering 'Go World.'
But to return for a moment to Newton Minow's 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters, if we read what he says, we can see the direction in which the elites were taking us even then.
Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years, this exciting industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world.
Ours has been called the jet age, the atomic age, the space age. It is also, I submit, the television age. And just as history will decide whether the leaders of today's world employed the atom to destroy the world or rebuild it for mankind's benefit, so will history decide whether today's broadcasters employed their powerful voice to enrich the people or to debase them.''
He concludes:
I urge you, I urge you to put the people's airwaves to the service of the people and the cause of freedom. You must help prepare a generation for great decisions. You must help a great nation fulfill its future.
Do this! I pledge you our help.
Thank you.'
The cause of freedom. It all sounds good. But between the lines, it seems he is talking about the global community, in today's terms, and about the media exercising 'leadership'. The media, though some of them purport to provide strictly entertainment, are now involved in what they think of as 'moral leadership' but which is really social engineering and propaganda. And they believe it is for our good, that they have to enlighten us because we are ignorant and narrow.
It's easy to recommend going TV-free, but the fact is, we still live in a world in which most people spend hours of their lives each day in front of the TV, uncritically absorbing what they see and hear on it. That, in large part, explains the phenomenal rise of Barack Obama, and it explains the political correctness which has infected our society, particularly among the younger and more impressionable.
By all means, keep your children from TV if you can, but it's getting harder and harder to separate oneself from the all-pervasive messages being spewed from television.
You can't watch TV without being aware of the propaganda and the conditioning. The commercials seem as much or more concerned with selling a politically correct message than with selling a product or a service.
Today as I was watching the National Geographic channel I saw this VISA spot, which I've learned is narrated by Morgan Freeman (who else?). It's ostensibly about the upcoming Olympics, but if you haven't seen it, click on the link and watch it. It's short, but they do manage to pack a lot of propaganda into a short spot. If you want to be really discouraged, read the mindless comments following the spot.
In a ubiquitous Vonage commercial, it isn't the globalist agenda so much as the feminist, anti-White male agenda. Vonage seems to heavily favor ridiculing and belittling White males while exalting snarky, superior females. I am sure you've all seen this particular one, which is inescapable on TV these days.
The smug, sarcastic female seems to be a stock character in commercials these days, alongside the inept, awkward, clueless White male.
But the global agenda and the 'we are all the same' message seem to be promoted more heavily than ever in recent months. I've mentioned the History International Channel before, with its obnoxious 'Globalize Yourself' slogan.
For History International, the image makers at ZONA Design, Inc. created and produced a :30 image spot that encourages each viewer to "Globalize Yourself"; To explore the lives, the cultures, the various histories that shape the world we share; To try and better understand the world's peoples as what happens elsewhere on our planet profoundly impacts our daily lives here at home.
[...] To artfully make the network?s point, the ZONA creatives transitioned a series of images from diverse cultures - Russian, Tibetan, Peruvian, Aboriginal - and faces of African, Asian, Muslim and Hispanic men and women, one to the other, in the process weaving a global tapestry. Each day the world seems to be getting smaller so we created a travelogue that we hoped would help viewers make the connection that, as the History International tagline states, what happens over there indeed matters over here,? explained ZONA Creative Director/Designer Zoa Martinez.''
Celebrate diversity. Or else.
And then the BBC has its 'One World' mantra going. A few years ago, the BBC even ran a poll to find out who most people preferred as leader of a one-world government, which they clearly think is the future.
Now the "Beeb," as it is known, recently announced the results of a poll to find out who its audience would choose to head a worldwide one-size-fits-all government. And the winner was: Ex-South African President Nelson Mandela. According to the BBC, about 15,000 people voted worldwide and the contest was an interactive Power Play game modeled on Fantasy Football; participants were instructed to choose a team of eleven to run the world, from a list of about 100 people offered, coming mainly from the left-liberal end of the political spectrum. About half of the participants were apparently American, and for this reason if no other, the runner-up was William Jefferson Clinton. ''
I guess we all know who would be chosen today to head up this 'one-world' regime. And the media can take most of the 'credit' or more accurately the blame for that.
I suppose these propaganda efforts, obvious and overbearing as they are, must be somewhat effective, judging by the way the young are flocking to Obama and cheering 'Go World.'
But to return for a moment to Newton Minow's 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters, if we read what he says, we can see the direction in which the elites were taking us even then.
Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years, this exciting industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world.
Ours has been called the jet age, the atomic age, the space age. It is also, I submit, the television age. And just as history will decide whether the leaders of today's world employed the atom to destroy the world or rebuild it for mankind's benefit, so will history decide whether today's broadcasters employed their powerful voice to enrich the people or to debase them.''
He concludes:
I urge you, I urge you to put the people's airwaves to the service of the people and the cause of freedom. You must help prepare a generation for great decisions. You must help a great nation fulfill its future.
Do this! I pledge you our help.
Thank you.'
The cause of freedom. It all sounds good. But between the lines, it seems he is talking about the global community, in today's terms, and about the media exercising 'leadership'. The media, though some of them purport to provide strictly entertainment, are now involved in what they think of as 'moral leadership' but which is really social engineering and propaganda. And they believe it is for our good, that they have to enlighten us because we are ignorant and narrow.
It's easy to recommend going TV-free, but the fact is, we still live in a world in which most people spend hours of their lives each day in front of the TV, uncritically absorbing what they see and hear on it. That, in large part, explains the phenomenal rise of Barack Obama, and it explains the political correctness which has infected our society, particularly among the younger and more impressionable.
By all means, keep your children from TV if you can, but it's getting harder and harder to separate oneself from the all-pervasive messages being spewed from television.
Labels: Advertising, Entertainment Media, Globalism, Indoctrination, Media Bias, One World, Political Correctness, Propaganda