0 comment Monday, November 24, 2014 | admin
It appears that the story that was going around, regarding Jamie Foxx playing Frank Sinatra in an upcoming movie, was just a joke which the media ran with.
Was this really a joke, or was it a set-up? In today's insane media universe, almost anything is possible, especially where far-fetched racial ''statements'' are contained in much of our purported entertainment.
The rumor was not all that hard to believe, considering that modern treatments of the Robin Hood story place blacks in Sherwood Forest, not to mention Moslems, and a recent Oliver Twist production was to have a black ''Nancy''. What next?
Is this just another example of lefty multicultists trying to 'push the envelope' with the racial agenda? It seems as if nothing is to be left untouched by the politically correct meddlers, who feel the need to administer the diversity makeover to any and every part of our culture.
The recent Star Trek movie seems, from what I have read and heard, to be pushing the racial envelope too, but then the series always did that, even way back in 1966 when it first began. Of course then it was a little more low-key, with the underlying message being 'isn't it wonderful that in the future, we will all get along and work together as one united people under a unified global government.' Of course now we have had a glimpse of that possible future, and it is not the utopia some of us wanted to believe it would be.
The one ironic twist to the cozy little Star Trek multicult universe is this: if the idea is that the future will be egalitarian and colorblind, with racial harmony prevailing, why then are there still identifiable races and nationalities? Why aren't the people in Starfleet all of the same color and of similar features and hair texture? Why are there still hideously White people like Kyle or Janice Rand or Nurse Chapel or McCoy? Obviously the racial blender broke down, or something, between our age and the enlightened future.
The idea, though, that so many people were willing and able to believe that Jamie Foxx would play Frank Sinatra shows just how bizarre our racial politics have become. It appears that many people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that ''race is just a social construct'', or that it's in the (racist) eye of the beholder only.
So maybe it is not so far-fetched that a White icon might be played by a black actor in a movie. If it is not real today, it probably will be at some point, tomorrow or next month or next year. That's the direction in which we are going.
The whole surreal situation reminded me of a movie I saw some years ago. It was a 1993 movie called 'Suture.'
I've mentioned it and I've never encountered anybody who actually saw it, so I might be tempted to think it was all just a strange dream, but no, here it is at IMDB.com, being discussed by the liberal-leaning commenters there.
The plot of the movie, as best I can describe it, is that two brothers or half-brothers meet, after which one is killed, and his identity stolen by the second brother. The twist is that one brother is black, the other is White. Yet in the movie everybody believes the identity switch. The fact that the brothers were of two different races and resembled each other not at all is not noticed by anybody.
What could the point be? That race is not important? That if we, the audience, noticed the racial difference, we are racist? Who knows? The commenters don't even know, and the tone of their comments amuses me:
The concept of all reality being a facade and prey to the unexpected warpings of fate, accident and whimsical doom-laden coincidence is a fundamental aspect of noir. With the twist of no one actually making the obvious connection between the brother's difference and Dennis Haysbert's character Clay gradually absorbing the life of his (not) dead brother without incident, the surreality of the film is magnetically compulsive and as noirish as some of the best films of the 1940s and 50s in dreamy, menacing atmosphere. I found myself deeply caring what happened to Clay on his odyssey towards a (false) identity and finally claiming it.
The whole cast is good, but in this film Dennis Haysbert shows the gravita s and dignity and vulnerability that makes him the real star of the excellent TV thriller '24'. A landmark film of the '90s gone unnoticed!
[...]
The first time I watched "Suture", in 1994, it ripped through me like some kind of high speed extra-terrestrial spacecraft, and I found myself asking, "What was that?" A year later I watched it again and the whole thing began to make sense. This film is unapologetically bizarre, mysterious, and aesthetically engaging -- almost everything I desire in a film. It is more like a piece of music, becoming more enjoyable with each viewing. One reason for the films superb milage is that it can be enjoyed on so many different levels. It is both a mirror image of contemporary society and a message from some alternative universe. The Surrealists made the point that the transcendent is found in the mundane, and "Suture" wallows in the mundane.
[...]
Viewers will not find themselves concerned with such trivia as performances, costumes, cinematography or sets, but rather issues, questions and statements. Issues such as self-awareness, questions such as: "Can we become someone else?", and statements such as: "Skin colour has no relevance to the identification of self". In their black and white feature, McGehee and Siegel fail to differentiate between and African/American man and a man of European descent. We're concerned not with the physical here, but the meta-physical.
As for the answers to these conundrums, one can only reach one's own conclusions. For me though, the personal soul is unchangeable and cannot be interchanged for another's. We may take someone's place, but we cannot become who they are.''
It's strange to see these people dancing around the issue of race while not really touching it. It's as if they have an unspoken agreement not to notice the racial issue.
Only one comment on that page raised the obvious question:
So, some scrawny old balding guy decides to kill his brother who is this big black guy. He slips his magical, indestructible drivers license into the black guy's wallet, and proceeds to blow him up. The dental records won't survive, but the ID card certainly will!
The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy... Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality.
Despite how insanely ridiculous this movie idea is, somehow the film continues to be completely predictable throughout. It's boring to boot.
If anyone can give me one good reason this film exists, please do.''
That last comment is very like the little boy in the Andersen fairy tale ''The Emperor's New Clothes.'' He is the only one who breaks the taboo and points to the obvious, while the others are blinding themselves. This is very much the state of our society, with a large segment of our White population agreeing to ignore the obvious, and to admire something which is not there, something which is only a construct of their minds.
Race-blindness is a social construct.
When I saw ''Suture'' back in 1995 or so, I found it absurd, but now it is becoming more and more plausible. In the context of today's willful race-blindness, in a world in which Ralph Kramden has become black and Morgan Freeman fits into medieval England, anything is possible, including a black Frank Sinatra.
Was this really a joke, or was it a set-up? In today's insane media universe, almost anything is possible, especially where far-fetched racial ''statements'' are contained in much of our purported entertainment.
The rumor was not all that hard to believe, considering that modern treatments of the Robin Hood story place blacks in Sherwood Forest, not to mention Moslems, and a recent Oliver Twist production was to have a black ''Nancy''. What next?
Is this just another example of lefty multicultists trying to 'push the envelope' with the racial agenda? It seems as if nothing is to be left untouched by the politically correct meddlers, who feel the need to administer the diversity makeover to any and every part of our culture.
The recent Star Trek movie seems, from what I have read and heard, to be pushing the racial envelope too, but then the series always did that, even way back in 1966 when it first began. Of course then it was a little more low-key, with the underlying message being 'isn't it wonderful that in the future, we will all get along and work together as one united people under a unified global government.' Of course now we have had a glimpse of that possible future, and it is not the utopia some of us wanted to believe it would be.
The one ironic twist to the cozy little Star Trek multicult universe is this: if the idea is that the future will be egalitarian and colorblind, with racial harmony prevailing, why then are there still identifiable races and nationalities? Why aren't the people in Starfleet all of the same color and of similar features and hair texture? Why are there still hideously White people like Kyle or Janice Rand or Nurse Chapel or McCoy? Obviously the racial blender broke down, or something, between our age and the enlightened future.
The idea, though, that so many people were willing and able to believe that Jamie Foxx would play Frank Sinatra shows just how bizarre our racial politics have become. It appears that many people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that ''race is just a social construct'', or that it's in the (racist) eye of the beholder only.
So maybe it is not so far-fetched that a White icon might be played by a black actor in a movie. If it is not real today, it probably will be at some point, tomorrow or next month or next year. That's the direction in which we are going.
The whole surreal situation reminded me of a movie I saw some years ago. It was a 1993 movie called 'Suture.'
I've mentioned it and I've never encountered anybody who actually saw it, so I might be tempted to think it was all just a strange dream, but no, here it is at IMDB.com, being discussed by the liberal-leaning commenters there.
The plot of the movie, as best I can describe it, is that two brothers or half-brothers meet, after which one is killed, and his identity stolen by the second brother. The twist is that one brother is black, the other is White. Yet in the movie everybody believes the identity switch. The fact that the brothers were of two different races and resembled each other not at all is not noticed by anybody.
What could the point be? That race is not important? That if we, the audience, noticed the racial difference, we are racist? Who knows? The commenters don't even know, and the tone of their comments amuses me:
The concept of all reality being a facade and prey to the unexpected warpings of fate, accident and whimsical doom-laden coincidence is a fundamental aspect of noir. With the twist of no one actually making the obvious connection between the brother's difference and Dennis Haysbert's character Clay gradually absorbing the life of his (not) dead brother without incident, the surreality of the film is magnetically compulsive and as noirish as some of the best films of the 1940s and 50s in dreamy, menacing atmosphere. I found myself deeply caring what happened to Clay on his odyssey towards a (false) identity and finally claiming it.
The whole cast is good, but in this film Dennis Haysbert shows the gravita s and dignity and vulnerability that makes him the real star of the excellent TV thriller '24'. A landmark film of the '90s gone unnoticed!
[...]
The first time I watched "Suture", in 1994, it ripped through me like some kind of high speed extra-terrestrial spacecraft, and I found myself asking, "What was that?" A year later I watched it again and the whole thing began to make sense. This film is unapologetically bizarre, mysterious, and aesthetically engaging -- almost everything I desire in a film. It is more like a piece of music, becoming more enjoyable with each viewing. One reason for the films superb milage is that it can be enjoyed on so many different levels. It is both a mirror image of contemporary society and a message from some alternative universe. The Surrealists made the point that the transcendent is found in the mundane, and "Suture" wallows in the mundane.
[...]
Viewers will not find themselves concerned with such trivia as performances, costumes, cinematography or sets, but rather issues, questions and statements. Issues such as self-awareness, questions such as: "Can we become someone else?", and statements such as: "Skin colour has no relevance to the identification of self". In their black and white feature, McGehee and Siegel fail to differentiate between and African/American man and a man of European descent. We're concerned not with the physical here, but the meta-physical.
As for the answers to these conundrums, one can only reach one's own conclusions. For me though, the personal soul is unchangeable and cannot be interchanged for another's. We may take someone's place, but we cannot become who they are.''
It's strange to see these people dancing around the issue of race while not really touching it. It's as if they have an unspoken agreement not to notice the racial issue.
Only one comment on that page raised the obvious question:
So, some scrawny old balding guy decides to kill his brother who is this big black guy. He slips his magical, indestructible drivers license into the black guy's wallet, and proceeds to blow him up. The dental records won't survive, but the ID card certainly will!
The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy... Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality.
Despite how insanely ridiculous this movie idea is, somehow the film continues to be completely predictable throughout. It's boring to boot.
If anyone can give me one good reason this film exists, please do.''
That last comment is very like the little boy in the Andersen fairy tale ''The Emperor's New Clothes.'' He is the only one who breaks the taboo and points to the obvious, while the others are blinding themselves. This is very much the state of our society, with a large segment of our White population agreeing to ignore the obvious, and to admire something which is not there, something which is only a construct of their minds.
Race-blindness is a social construct.
When I saw ''Suture'' back in 1995 or so, I found it absurd, but now it is becoming more and more plausible. In the context of today's willful race-blindness, in a world in which Ralph Kramden has become black and Morgan Freeman fits into medieval England, anything is possible, including a black Frank Sinatra.
Labels: Entertainment Media, Liberals, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race Denial
0 comment Monday, November 3, 2014 | admin
We knew this was coming. But all the same, it doesn't bode well, for obvious reasons.
THE ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain's minister for culture has said.
Andy Burnham told Britain's The Daily Telegraph newspaper the government was planning to negotiate with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to draw up new international rules for English language websites.
"The more we seek international solutions to this stuff - the UK and the U.S. working together - the more that an international norm will set an industry norm," the newspaper reports the Culture Secretary as saying.
Giving websites film-style ratings would be one possibilty.
"This is an area that is really now coming into full focus," Mr Burnham said.
Internet service providers could also be forced to offer services where the only sites accessible are those deemed suitable for children, the paper said.
[...]
"If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn't reach," Burnham told The Daily Telegraph. "I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now."
He said some content should not be available to be viewed.
"This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."
[Emphasis mine]
We all know that the interpretations of 'offensive' or 'harmful' or 'hateful' will rest with the liberals and leftists who are now to be in the drivers' seat in Washington, D.C. as of January. And if ''our" government is to work hand-in-hand with the leftist British government, no good can come from that for either country.
Blogs like this one, and many other, far less politically incorrect blogs and forums will be filtered if not removed entirely. It may not happen overnight, but this is the direction in which we are headed.
The politically correct vigilantes will be ever more emboldened to silence anyone who fails to toe the line.
We should be thinking about ways to circumvent this effort to quash free speech. We will have to find alternatives, and I believe where there's a will, there's a way. We will have to find alternative ways to communicate and to speak the truth that needs to be heard.
I'm convinced that one of the first acts of our new overlords will be to pass the 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' laws that they have been itching to push through, but failed to do in the last session. I am convinced that this is a priority for them.
"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." - John Adams
"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Who ever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
"For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished freedom is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was still time. - Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it...Where do you stand Citizen?" - Judge Learned Hand
'"Truth is hate to those who hate the truth" - quote from protester Arlene Elshinnawy, from the WND article linked above
THE ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain's minister for culture has said.
Andy Burnham told Britain's The Daily Telegraph newspaper the government was planning to negotiate with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to draw up new international rules for English language websites.
"The more we seek international solutions to this stuff - the UK and the U.S. working together - the more that an international norm will set an industry norm," the newspaper reports the Culture Secretary as saying.
Giving websites film-style ratings would be one possibilty.
"This is an area that is really now coming into full focus," Mr Burnham said.
Internet service providers could also be forced to offer services where the only sites accessible are those deemed suitable for children, the paper said.
[...]
"If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn't reach," Burnham told The Daily Telegraph. "I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now."
He said some content should not be available to be viewed.
"This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."
[Emphasis mine]
We all know that the interpretations of 'offensive' or 'harmful' or 'hateful' will rest with the liberals and leftists who are now to be in the drivers' seat in Washington, D.C. as of January. And if ''our" government is to work hand-in-hand with the leftist British government, no good can come from that for either country.
Blogs like this one, and many other, far less politically incorrect blogs and forums will be filtered if not removed entirely. It may not happen overnight, but this is the direction in which we are headed.
The politically correct vigilantes will be ever more emboldened to silence anyone who fails to toe the line.
We should be thinking about ways to circumvent this effort to quash free speech. We will have to find alternatives, and I believe where there's a will, there's a way. We will have to find alternative ways to communicate and to speak the truth that needs to be heard.
I'm convinced that one of the first acts of our new overlords will be to pass the 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' laws that they have been itching to push through, but failed to do in the last session. I am convinced that this is a priority for them.
"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." - John Adams
"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Who ever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
"For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished freedom is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was still time. - Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it...Where do you stand Citizen?" - Judge Learned Hand
'"Truth is hate to those who hate the truth" - quote from protester Arlene Elshinnawy, from the WND article linked above
Labels: Bloggers, Blogs, Censorship, Cultural Marxism, Free Press, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Hate Speech, Internet, Liberal Intolerance, Liberals
0 comment Friday, October 24, 2014 | admin
The question came up recently in a discussion here as to why there are not more women who are 'race realists'. I think this is a valid question because I think it's true that women tend to be more liberal than men and on questions involving race, ethnicity, and other such touchy matters, women tend to be very liberal and less territorial than men.
But I think the question is really part of the larger issue of why women are more liberal in all respects than men. I speak in a general sense; women just tend to be more liberal, more softhearted, more 'feeling' in their approach, and more prone to sympathize and empathize, and to be 'inclusive' in the best liberal tradition.
Most women will readily concede this fact. Now, I recognize this isn't true of all women, and that there are exceptions. Obviously I'm not typical of women in that respect, and the women who read and post here are also atypical to some degree.
This piece from a dozen years ago discusses the 'gender gap in politics', and the voting patterns of women. I think it's still valid:
STANFORD -- The gender gap in politics, which pollsters expect to be especially large in next week's presidential election, can be attributed to a different stance between men and women toward social equality, says Felicia Pratto, a psychologist who studies political attitudes.
This difference does not consistently show up as a Republican-Democrat or liberal-conservative split, she says. Women voters in this country and elsewhere have been both more conservative and more liberal than male voters in the past, depending upon what the issues of the day were.
"When we ask people in polls to self-identify themselves as liberals or conservatives, we are saying we know what the meaning of those labels are, but I think we are deceived," Pratto says. "That's why it is useful to try to explain differences more explicitly and on a somewhat deeper level."
Gender differences or gaps in those political attitudes also can be explained largely by a tendency among men to want to enhance social hierarchy and a tendency among women to want to attenuate it.
Pratto and her UCLA-based colleague Jim Sidanius and their graduate students consistently find that men are more supportive than women of what Pratto calls "hierarchy enhancing" social policies, such as arresting the homeless for sleeping in public places or increasing military spending. Men are also more likely to endorse ideologies that state or at least imply that certain kinds of people are not as good as others � displaying class, ethnic, national or sexual prejudices, according to their studies.''
Interestingly, researchers who have attributed women's support of social welfare programs to self-interest have not made the same accusation about men's greater support of military and defense programs," she says.
[...]
"Self-interest doesn't explain, for example, why white women are more concerned about racial equality than white men are, and it doesn't explain why women are less opposed to immigration or gay and lesbian rights than men."
[Emphasis mine]
I have noticed this tendency of women to be more liberal on issues like racial equality and immigration, as well as on homosexuality, than men. In conversations I've noticed, too, that even women who can sound very tough and very conservative on issues like illegal immigration might, a short while later, say something very liberal on these issues. I've learned via experience that a woman might sound very conservative one moment and yet the next moment be lamenting 'racism' or 'hate', talking about how horrible we have been to minorities. I have met more than my share of women who are self-contradictory on these issues. I've learned that I have to tread very carefully with the truth when I am talking to such women. I can truly say that it's no wonder that men have tended to accuse women of being inconsistent or illogical; some women seem to waver considerably depending on the circumstances.
I know plenty of Christian women who hold very liberal positions on homosexuality, and who think that it's hateful to call homosexuality a sin. The best I can manage in trying to understand this is to say that it seems that women place a very high premium on being empathetic, and they empathize with the poor homosexuals and believe they are entitled to our compassion and understanding. Similarly with immigrants and ''others'' in general; they tend to feel sorry for the illegals and immigrants generally, and they are quick to believe all the sob stories about the travails and the persecutions of the illegals.
Some women may say something very negative about illegal immigrants, for example, and then a moment later, perhaps thinking better of what they said, will tut-tut about 'hate' towards immigrants, and say that we mustn't give in to 'hate.'
I find such a conversation a hard one to navigate. What does one say in response to that? What can we say that will not sound like a defense of ''hate'' or ''racism''? Nobody wants to defend either of those things.
I would like to find a way to get across to people that it isn't about ''hate'' but about a zeal for defending what is ours: our people, our kin, our neighbors, our homes, our way of life, our heritage. It's about loving and protecting and preserving all those things. It's about wanting the best we can provide for our own, and sometimes, like it or not, that has to come at the expense of others, others who are trying to wrest away what we are trying to hold on to. We can't all have what we want. Sometimes, it is a zero-sum game. It isn't about hate or ''racism''; it's about justice and about boundaries and about protecting and defending and preserving. Ultimately it's about love, love for those nearest to us, and about placing them in the favored position. Maybe most women don't have these protective instincts in the same way that men tend to, or perhaps women tend to want to nurture and help everybody indiscriminately. And it's true, conversely, that there are far too many effeminate men these days who are like the women in that respect. The blurring of gender roles affects all of us.
And yet there are women who think as I do, and who are more hard-line, women who ''get it.'' However I think they are rather few and far between; many women vacillate between defending their own and empathizing with the 'stranger' and the perceived underdog. But what makes some women less prone to that? Maybe I and women like me are some kind of aberration, but then I know there were many more women like me in past centuries. Plenty of colonist and settler women had to be strong, and had to even take up arms to defend the homestead if danger threatened when the menfolk were away. Had women of the past been as wimpy and as promiscuous in their empathy as many of today's women, we simply would not be here today. Women once had more of that 'territorial' instinct that is getting rarer these days among both sexes, it seems.
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I keep looking for signs that things are turning around, and that the old 'tribalism' which enabled us to survive and prevail in the past is resurgent. We have to hope that it is.
But I think the question is really part of the larger issue of why women are more liberal in all respects than men. I speak in a general sense; women just tend to be more liberal, more softhearted, more 'feeling' in their approach, and more prone to sympathize and empathize, and to be 'inclusive' in the best liberal tradition.
Most women will readily concede this fact. Now, I recognize this isn't true of all women, and that there are exceptions. Obviously I'm not typical of women in that respect, and the women who read and post here are also atypical to some degree.
This piece from a dozen years ago discusses the 'gender gap in politics', and the voting patterns of women. I think it's still valid:
STANFORD -- The gender gap in politics, which pollsters expect to be especially large in next week's presidential election, can be attributed to a different stance between men and women toward social equality, says Felicia Pratto, a psychologist who studies political attitudes.
This difference does not consistently show up as a Republican-Democrat or liberal-conservative split, she says. Women voters in this country and elsewhere have been both more conservative and more liberal than male voters in the past, depending upon what the issues of the day were.
"When we ask people in polls to self-identify themselves as liberals or conservatives, we are saying we know what the meaning of those labels are, but I think we are deceived," Pratto says. "That's why it is useful to try to explain differences more explicitly and on a somewhat deeper level."
Gender differences or gaps in those political attitudes also can be explained largely by a tendency among men to want to enhance social hierarchy and a tendency among women to want to attenuate it.
Pratto and her UCLA-based colleague Jim Sidanius and their graduate students consistently find that men are more supportive than women of what Pratto calls "hierarchy enhancing" social policies, such as arresting the homeless for sleeping in public places or increasing military spending. Men are also more likely to endorse ideologies that state or at least imply that certain kinds of people are not as good as others � displaying class, ethnic, national or sexual prejudices, according to their studies.''
Interestingly, researchers who have attributed women's support of social welfare programs to self-interest have not made the same accusation about men's greater support of military and defense programs," she says.
[...]
"Self-interest doesn't explain, for example, why white women are more concerned about racial equality than white men are, and it doesn't explain why women are less opposed to immigration or gay and lesbian rights than men."
[Emphasis mine]
I have noticed this tendency of women to be more liberal on issues like racial equality and immigration, as well as on homosexuality, than men. In conversations I've noticed, too, that even women who can sound very tough and very conservative on issues like illegal immigration might, a short while later, say something very liberal on these issues. I've learned via experience that a woman might sound very conservative one moment and yet the next moment be lamenting 'racism' or 'hate', talking about how horrible we have been to minorities. I have met more than my share of women who are self-contradictory on these issues. I've learned that I have to tread very carefully with the truth when I am talking to such women. I can truly say that it's no wonder that men have tended to accuse women of being inconsistent or illogical; some women seem to waver considerably depending on the circumstances.
I know plenty of Christian women who hold very liberal positions on homosexuality, and who think that it's hateful to call homosexuality a sin. The best I can manage in trying to understand this is to say that it seems that women place a very high premium on being empathetic, and they empathize with the poor homosexuals and believe they are entitled to our compassion and understanding. Similarly with immigrants and ''others'' in general; they tend to feel sorry for the illegals and immigrants generally, and they are quick to believe all the sob stories about the travails and the persecutions of the illegals.
Some women may say something very negative about illegal immigrants, for example, and then a moment later, perhaps thinking better of what they said, will tut-tut about 'hate' towards immigrants, and say that we mustn't give in to 'hate.'
I find such a conversation a hard one to navigate. What does one say in response to that? What can we say that will not sound like a defense of ''hate'' or ''racism''? Nobody wants to defend either of those things.
I would like to find a way to get across to people that it isn't about ''hate'' but about a zeal for defending what is ours: our people, our kin, our neighbors, our homes, our way of life, our heritage. It's about loving and protecting and preserving all those things. It's about wanting the best we can provide for our own, and sometimes, like it or not, that has to come at the expense of others, others who are trying to wrest away what we are trying to hold on to. We can't all have what we want. Sometimes, it is a zero-sum game. It isn't about hate or ''racism''; it's about justice and about boundaries and about protecting and defending and preserving. Ultimately it's about love, love for those nearest to us, and about placing them in the favored position. Maybe most women don't have these protective instincts in the same way that men tend to, or perhaps women tend to want to nurture and help everybody indiscriminately. And it's true, conversely, that there are far too many effeminate men these days who are like the women in that respect. The blurring of gender roles affects all of us.
And yet there are women who think as I do, and who are more hard-line, women who ''get it.'' However I think they are rather few and far between; many women vacillate between defending their own and empathizing with the 'stranger' and the perceived underdog. But what makes some women less prone to that? Maybe I and women like me are some kind of aberration, but then I know there were many more women like me in past centuries. Plenty of colonist and settler women had to be strong, and had to even take up arms to defend the homestead if danger threatened when the menfolk were away. Had women of the past been as wimpy and as promiscuous in their empathy as many of today's women, we simply would not be here today. Women once had more of that 'territorial' instinct that is getting rarer these days among both sexes, it seems.
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I keep looking for signs that things are turning around, and that the old 'tribalism' which enabled us to survive and prevail in the past is resurgent. We have to hope that it is.
Labels: Conservatives, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Solidarity, Gender, Group Cohesion, Liberals
0 comment Friday, September 12, 2014 | admin
23 of 55 Republicans voted yes on S 2611, the amnesty bill:
Republicans who voted Yes (23):
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Think about this: members of the political party which has the reputation of being 'conservative', and which constantly claims to be the 'patriotic' party, voted for this abomination of a bill which would utterly transform America as we have known it.
How can members of a party which claims to be fiscally responsible vote in favor of a plan which is guaranteed to cost billions of dollars, minimum, vote for this proposal?
How can a party which claims to care about 'the American people' and to stand for the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the founding principles of this country, support in any way a measure which would defy the will of the American people, undermine the rule of law, and fly in the face of the principles of our Founding Fathers?
We completely expect the Democrats to be in favor of radical measures, since they style themselves 'progressive' or 'liberal', and they unfailingly side with special-interest groups against the American majority. And they, of course, have traditionally been the party which believes in big government and in a paternalistic government which saves the downtrodden of the world. So their support for open borders and amnesty is a given.
But what is wrong with Republicans? The only possible conclusion is that they are just what their opponents caricature them to be: the capitalist's party, the party of the rich and the privileged, the party of exploitation. Many people who agree with many of the Republican positions on various issues are driven away because they have heard that the GOP is not for the 'common man' or the 'little guy' , and for Republicans to side with illegal immigrants supports the impression that they are simply enabling exploitive employers to have plenty of cheap labor.
Another explanation for the illogical votes of these Republican traitors is that they are to some extent captives of Political Correctness.
Again, traditionally the Democrats have been the promoters and enforcers ot the Pharisaical code of Political Correctness; it's they who usually race-bait, and bully everyone who does not toe the liberal line, accusing them of 'racism', 'bigotry', 'hate', and lately, of 'xenophobia' and 'nativism' if they dare to oppose the PC open-borders dogma.
But now the PC plague has become endemic on the so-called 'right', also; we have no shortage of Republicans who have become fluent in the cant of Political Correctness, and who publicly denounce those who deviate from the PC pieties. Case in point: Condoleezza Rice and President Bush calling skeptics of democratization in Iraq 'racist'. Or, more recently, John McCain and his race-baiting remarks on the immigration issue.
Even those who are considered farther to the right than these admittedly liberal-leaning Republicans are guilty of toeing the PC line. Just read any column by a conservative pundit or commentator, or any 'conservative' message board online: many Republicans and independent conservatives are unthinkingly repeating the PC party line; it is seeping into our discourse on the right end of the political spectrum. Look and listen; liberalism and its various dogmas are now the dominant ideas in our society, even among those who style themselves conservatives. It has now reached the point where varying shades of liberalism are the only 'respectable' opinions in our public sphere. Anyone who is a conservative of a more traditional stripe is discredited as an 'extremist'.
Some of this liberalizing tendency is simply osmosis; we are so inundated with liberal/leftist ideas that we absorb them without realizing it. But some of this liberalizing is engineered. There is a widespread campaign by GOP political operatives on the internet, for example, to marginalize old-fashioned conservatism (not just 'paleoconservatives', so-called, but traditionalists as well). There is an effort to spread the liberalized variety of 'conservatism', and to contain the debate within acceptable liberal standards.
But the backlash from this latest travesty in the Senate, which is coming from people of both parties and both ends of the spectrum, reflects an awakening of many otherwise apathetic people. Many of us are now suddenly aware of how disconnected our 'representatives' and elected officials are from the average citizen's point of view. We are newly awake to the fact that though they purport to represent us, they in fact do not; they are serving other masters. And we are aware, painfully so, that traditional America as we have known it is now 'Politically Incorrect' according to the liberal dogmas which both Democrats and Republicans seem to embrace.
Our treasonous officials apparently have pledged their allegiance to this borderless world, and to some kind of abstract universalism which has nothing in common with the America our ancestors created and passed down to us.
If our representative system of government is to survive, and to truly align with the will of the majority as it was intended to, then we need a whole new set of leaders who share our beliefs and our views, and who have our interests at heart. This present crop of opportunists and venal sellouts must be replaced. The political parties as they now stand should also be replaced, because they both appear to be tainted, not only by the corruption and the lobbying scandals which are now in the news. but because they are frauds; they are simply two sides of the same liberal coin. There is little real choice between them.
Republicans who voted Yes (23):
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Think about this: members of the political party which has the reputation of being 'conservative', and which constantly claims to be the 'patriotic' party, voted for this abomination of a bill which would utterly transform America as we have known it.
How can members of a party which claims to be fiscally responsible vote in favor of a plan which is guaranteed to cost billions of dollars, minimum, vote for this proposal?
How can a party which claims to care about 'the American people' and to stand for the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the founding principles of this country, support in any way a measure which would defy the will of the American people, undermine the rule of law, and fly in the face of the principles of our Founding Fathers?
We completely expect the Democrats to be in favor of radical measures, since they style themselves 'progressive' or 'liberal', and they unfailingly side with special-interest groups against the American majority. And they, of course, have traditionally been the party which believes in big government and in a paternalistic government which saves the downtrodden of the world. So their support for open borders and amnesty is a given.
But what is wrong with Republicans? The only possible conclusion is that they are just what their opponents caricature them to be: the capitalist's party, the party of the rich and the privileged, the party of exploitation. Many people who agree with many of the Republican positions on various issues are driven away because they have heard that the GOP is not for the 'common man' or the 'little guy' , and for Republicans to side with illegal immigrants supports the impression that they are simply enabling exploitive employers to have plenty of cheap labor.
Another explanation for the illogical votes of these Republican traitors is that they are to some extent captives of Political Correctness.
Again, traditionally the Democrats have been the promoters and enforcers ot the Pharisaical code of Political Correctness; it's they who usually race-bait, and bully everyone who does not toe the liberal line, accusing them of 'racism', 'bigotry', 'hate', and lately, of 'xenophobia' and 'nativism' if they dare to oppose the PC open-borders dogma.
But now the PC plague has become endemic on the so-called 'right', also; we have no shortage of Republicans who have become fluent in the cant of Political Correctness, and who publicly denounce those who deviate from the PC pieties. Case in point: Condoleezza Rice and President Bush calling skeptics of democratization in Iraq 'racist'. Or, more recently, John McCain and his race-baiting remarks on the immigration issue.
Even those who are considered farther to the right than these admittedly liberal-leaning Republicans are guilty of toeing the PC line. Just read any column by a conservative pundit or commentator, or any 'conservative' message board online: many Republicans and independent conservatives are unthinkingly repeating the PC party line; it is seeping into our discourse on the right end of the political spectrum. Look and listen; liberalism and its various dogmas are now the dominant ideas in our society, even among those who style themselves conservatives. It has now reached the point where varying shades of liberalism are the only 'respectable' opinions in our public sphere. Anyone who is a conservative of a more traditional stripe is discredited as an 'extremist'.
Some of this liberalizing tendency is simply osmosis; we are so inundated with liberal/leftist ideas that we absorb them without realizing it. But some of this liberalizing is engineered. There is a widespread campaign by GOP political operatives on the internet, for example, to marginalize old-fashioned conservatism (not just 'paleoconservatives', so-called, but traditionalists as well). There is an effort to spread the liberalized variety of 'conservatism', and to contain the debate within acceptable liberal standards.
But the backlash from this latest travesty in the Senate, which is coming from people of both parties and both ends of the spectrum, reflects an awakening of many otherwise apathetic people. Many of us are now suddenly aware of how disconnected our 'representatives' and elected officials are from the average citizen's point of view. We are newly awake to the fact that though they purport to represent us, they in fact do not; they are serving other masters. And we are aware, painfully so, that traditional America as we have known it is now 'Politically Incorrect' according to the liberal dogmas which both Democrats and Republicans seem to embrace.
Our treasonous officials apparently have pledged their allegiance to this borderless world, and to some kind of abstract universalism which has nothing in common with the America our ancestors created and passed down to us.
If our representative system of government is to survive, and to truly align with the will of the majority as it was intended to, then we need a whole new set of leaders who share our beliefs and our views, and who have our interests at heart. This present crop of opportunists and venal sellouts must be replaced. The political parties as they now stand should also be replaced, because they both appear to be tainted, not only by the corruption and the lobbying scandals which are now in the news. but because they are frauds; they are simply two sides of the same liberal coin. There is little real choice between them.
Labels: Hall Of Shame, Liberals, Scamnesty
0 comment Friday, July 4, 2014 | admin
The theme of the "house divided" has been a recurring one on this blog, and as a result of a conversation today, it's been brought home to me once again.
It seems I was talking to a relative, and the subject of the economic crisis came up. Actually I brought it up. After we discussed today's events on Wall Street -- about which neither of us are experts -- I merely said it seems that all those "in charge" have lost their minds. Little did I think that would be an opening for this relative of mine to unload on me, and start shouting "I hate that -- that woman! McCain has lost his mind. I can't stand that woman, that Sarah Palin!" This was said with an explosive vehemence that really caught me off guard, because the conversation to this point had been fairly low-key.
The anger and contempt in her voice shocked and annoyed me, I confess. I have been reading wall-to-wall bashing of Sarah Palin on many blogs and forums, both left and (especially) right, and I am worn out with it.
At any rate, I merely asked this relative: "what is it exactly that you hate so much about her?" She merely said "Everything! Everything." I said: give me some rational reasons.
She struggled and finally said ''she has no experience. She's stupid. She HAS FIVE KIDS!" I calmly said, "my mother had five kids." She said, "Well, I mean Palin wants to be leader of the free world, and she ought to be at home with those kids." This, mind you, from a feminist who taught her own daughters to shun marriage and family commitments.
And besides, as I pointed out, it's McCain who is running for President, not Palin.
But she answered 'McCain is old. He may not last long, then SHE'LL be President.''
I told her that she should be more afraid of Obama being elected than Palin. By this time hysteria was creeping into her voice, and she said, ''well, I'm not! I'm not!"
I simply don't understand the intense anger this relative of mine displayed, and even less do I understand why many ''conservatives'' show the same kind of anger and disgust towards Sarah Palin.
So now I have this relative with whom I have had a falling-out (she hung up on me, after some harsh words) and I begin to see how it was back in the days leading up to the War Between the States, during which it is always said that it was, in some households, brother against brother. It seems to me that the rhetoric is ratcheting up and feelings are running inexplicably high. It seems that for some people politics is thicker than blood, and it seems we in this country, as a national family, are becoming about as polarized as this angry relative and I. And if we think that our liberal counterparts are already, by their choice, no longer part of our national family, it seems that the ''conservative'' family is about to break apart, too, as people are willing to fight and separate rather than give up their particular viewpoints.
And maybe it's a good thing in the long run, this sifting. Sometimes any unity is illusory, and rifts -- or schisms -- like this one merely show the split that already exists, below the surface. When the dust clears we will see who is who and who is where.
I don't know how to mend this spat with my relative; we don't live in the same town and we don't see each other often, so for now I am letting it lie. I am not quick to apologize when I do not feel in the wrong, but if we are to reconcile, I know it will take an apology on my part, along with a large helping of humble pie, before I will be 'forgiven.' Still, since this relative of mine has such irreconcilably different views of life and of values and of what the future should be, I see little common ground between us, which is sad. I believe that family ties are just about the most important bonds we have in this life, and I don't take things like this lightly. I am a loyal person.
Along the same lines, I have a good friend since college days that is a political and religious liberal, and that fact has strained our friendship. It has certainly put a damper on our spontaneity in speaking our minds to each other. And yet if we cannot speak freely and honestly among friends, much less family, there is not much of a bond there. We can't have much of a relationship if we are afraid to speak our minds and to be open about what we believe and what we value.
It seems when people are so at odds about the important matters, any relationship between them can only be of the most superficial nature in order to avoid open clashes, and that is surely not what family relationships and friendships are supposed to be.
My impulse today, and maybe this will pass, is to shun all things political until this horrible election cycle from Hell is over, and then we shall see what we shall see.
I would love to think that my relative will learn from her mistakes, and see that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for majority America, but do you know, I don't think anything will cause her to have a change of heart, or say ''you were right; I was wrong. Now I see." No, liberals don't do that. No matter how bad things become, there will be a way to blame it on the Republicans or the 'racists' or whoever else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't see now will likely never see. Worse is better? No, people find a way to explain away the 'worse' and to blame it on the wrong people, 90 percent of the time.
I have no faith in the possibility of mass awakenings on either side of the aisle, in the event Obama is elected.
And I'm having to work hard at mustering up some faith in my brethren right at this moment, and without that faith, as I said, we stand in danger of becoming embittered or alienated from each other.
I don't even know if I would call myself a ''conservative'' since there are so many varieties of belief and opinion under that label now. I am opposed to what is called liberalism or socialism or leftism, and that is about all I seem to have in common with those who are called 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists.' And I don't know if being anti-liberal or anti-leftist or anti-multiculturalist is enough to bring us all together, if we disagree on so many basic themes. There has to be more agreement among us if this house is to be kept standing.
It seems I was talking to a relative, and the subject of the economic crisis came up. Actually I brought it up. After we discussed today's events on Wall Street -- about which neither of us are experts -- I merely said it seems that all those "in charge" have lost their minds. Little did I think that would be an opening for this relative of mine to unload on me, and start shouting "I hate that -- that woman! McCain has lost his mind. I can't stand that woman, that Sarah Palin!" This was said with an explosive vehemence that really caught me off guard, because the conversation to this point had been fairly low-key.
The anger and contempt in her voice shocked and annoyed me, I confess. I have been reading wall-to-wall bashing of Sarah Palin on many blogs and forums, both left and (especially) right, and I am worn out with it.
At any rate, I merely asked this relative: "what is it exactly that you hate so much about her?" She merely said "Everything! Everything." I said: give me some rational reasons.
She struggled and finally said ''she has no experience. She's stupid. She HAS FIVE KIDS!" I calmly said, "my mother had five kids." She said, "Well, I mean Palin wants to be leader of the free world, and she ought to be at home with those kids." This, mind you, from a feminist who taught her own daughters to shun marriage and family commitments.
And besides, as I pointed out, it's McCain who is running for President, not Palin.
But she answered 'McCain is old. He may not last long, then SHE'LL be President.''
I told her that she should be more afraid of Obama being elected than Palin. By this time hysteria was creeping into her voice, and she said, ''well, I'm not! I'm not!"
I simply don't understand the intense anger this relative of mine displayed, and even less do I understand why many ''conservatives'' show the same kind of anger and disgust towards Sarah Palin.
So now I have this relative with whom I have had a falling-out (she hung up on me, after some harsh words) and I begin to see how it was back in the days leading up to the War Between the States, during which it is always said that it was, in some households, brother against brother. It seems to me that the rhetoric is ratcheting up and feelings are running inexplicably high. It seems that for some people politics is thicker than blood, and it seems we in this country, as a national family, are becoming about as polarized as this angry relative and I. And if we think that our liberal counterparts are already, by their choice, no longer part of our national family, it seems that the ''conservative'' family is about to break apart, too, as people are willing to fight and separate rather than give up their particular viewpoints.
And maybe it's a good thing in the long run, this sifting. Sometimes any unity is illusory, and rifts -- or schisms -- like this one merely show the split that already exists, below the surface. When the dust clears we will see who is who and who is where.
I don't know how to mend this spat with my relative; we don't live in the same town and we don't see each other often, so for now I am letting it lie. I am not quick to apologize when I do not feel in the wrong, but if we are to reconcile, I know it will take an apology on my part, along with a large helping of humble pie, before I will be 'forgiven.' Still, since this relative of mine has such irreconcilably different views of life and of values and of what the future should be, I see little common ground between us, which is sad. I believe that family ties are just about the most important bonds we have in this life, and I don't take things like this lightly. I am a loyal person.
Along the same lines, I have a good friend since college days that is a political and religious liberal, and that fact has strained our friendship. It has certainly put a damper on our spontaneity in speaking our minds to each other. And yet if we cannot speak freely and honestly among friends, much less family, there is not much of a bond there. We can't have much of a relationship if we are afraid to speak our minds and to be open about what we believe and what we value.
It seems when people are so at odds about the important matters, any relationship between them can only be of the most superficial nature in order to avoid open clashes, and that is surely not what family relationships and friendships are supposed to be.
My impulse today, and maybe this will pass, is to shun all things political until this horrible election cycle from Hell is over, and then we shall see what we shall see.
I would love to think that my relative will learn from her mistakes, and see that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for majority America, but do you know, I don't think anything will cause her to have a change of heart, or say ''you were right; I was wrong. Now I see." No, liberals don't do that. No matter how bad things become, there will be a way to blame it on the Republicans or the 'racists' or whoever else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't see now will likely never see. Worse is better? No, people find a way to explain away the 'worse' and to blame it on the wrong people, 90 percent of the time.
I have no faith in the possibility of mass awakenings on either side of the aisle, in the event Obama is elected.
And I'm having to work hard at mustering up some faith in my brethren right at this moment, and without that faith, as I said, we stand in danger of becoming embittered or alienated from each other.
I don't even know if I would call myself a ''conservative'' since there are so many varieties of belief and opinion under that label now. I am opposed to what is called liberalism or socialism or leftism, and that is about all I seem to have in common with those who are called 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists.' And I don't know if being anti-liberal or anti-leftist or anti-multiculturalist is enough to bring us all together, if we disagree on so many basic themes. There has to be more agreement among us if this house is to be kept standing.
Labels: Conservatives, Disunity, Divisiveness, Liberals, Partisanship, Party Politics
0 comment Monday, June 23, 2014 | admin
The British media commentators have been writing more perceptively on the election in some cases than have our homegrown 'news' media. Here is another example (H/T David Thompson)
...Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.
In this, American liberals are no different from the politically committed the world over. David Cameron knew that he would never be Prime Minister until he had killed the urgent hatred of the Conservative party in liberal England. A measure of his success is that hardly anyone now is caught up by the once ubiquitous feeling that no compromise is too great if it stops the Tories regaining power. Hate can sell better than hope.''
I haven't read the comments following the article; judging by the discussion at Thompson's blog, the commenters at the original article became predictably ugly; after all, we are talking about rabid leftists here.
'Hate' is an overused word, particularly by the left, but it isn't too strong a word for much of the liberal/leftist reaction to Mrs. Palin. She represents everything they seethe with loathing for: rural White people, small-town people, 'right-wing' Christians, large families, traditional American values. They would obliterate all these things if they could flip a switch and do so, and it angers them that they cannot.
I notice the latest attack against her is because of her church's stance on homosexuality.
Now it will be open season on conservative Christians, and I am sure the left is thrilled that Mrs. Palin attends a 'homophobic' church so that they may bash her in furtherance of their pro-homosexual agenda.
Even those of you who have taken a dislike to Mrs. Palin should see that she is going to stand in for the rest of us in being the target of these attacks. She represents most of the aspects of the old America that are anathema to the left, and they won't spare her.
We ain't seen nothin' yet.
...Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.
In this, American liberals are no different from the politically committed the world over. David Cameron knew that he would never be Prime Minister until he had killed the urgent hatred of the Conservative party in liberal England. A measure of his success is that hardly anyone now is caught up by the once ubiquitous feeling that no compromise is too great if it stops the Tories regaining power. Hate can sell better than hope.''
I haven't read the comments following the article; judging by the discussion at Thompson's blog, the commenters at the original article became predictably ugly; after all, we are talking about rabid leftists here.
'Hate' is an overused word, particularly by the left, but it isn't too strong a word for much of the liberal/leftist reaction to Mrs. Palin. She represents everything they seethe with loathing for: rural White people, small-town people, 'right-wing' Christians, large families, traditional American values. They would obliterate all these things if they could flip a switch and do so, and it angers them that they cannot.
I notice the latest attack against her is because of her church's stance on homosexuality.
Now it will be open season on conservative Christians, and I am sure the left is thrilled that Mrs. Palin attends a 'homophobic' church so that they may bash her in furtherance of their pro-homosexual agenda.
Even those of you who have taken a dislike to Mrs. Palin should see that she is going to stand in for the rest of us in being the target of these attacks. She represents most of the aspects of the old America that are anathema to the left, and they won't spare her.
We ain't seen nothin' yet.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Leftists, Liberals, Partisanship, Party Politics