0 comment Wednesday, December 3, 2014 | admin
Too much loyalty, or too little?
It seems that loyalty is at the core of much of what is wrong with America today. In some ways we have far too much of it and in some ways we are lacking in it. Or we have the wrong kind of loyalty, to the wrong people, and are deficient in it where it is most needed.
I have been thinking of this in connection with the current political situation, and the woeful choices being presented to us in this election, but this problem is widespread and has a bearing on many aspects of our lives.
The most pressing misapplication of loyalty is of the 'vertical loyalty' in which people seem to look for some kind of charismatic man on a horse to put the world to rights for them. We need only look at the example of Barack Obama and the bizarre cult surrounding him: women swooning at his public appearances, and people reacting as they would at a fervid prayer-meeting or revival instead of at a political rally.
A disturbing number of Republicans are also showing signs of being drawn into the Obama admiration society. Any perceptive and honest person can guess at the reasons for this.
The more common problem among 'conservatives' at this time is not the unthinking 'vertical loyalty' to a slick leader, but to the Republican Party, coupled with the flip side, a rather exaggerated fear of the opposing party. Is this a 'horizontal loyalty', loyalty to a group of people or is it just a loyalty to the brand name of the GOP and what it purports to stand for? I would say it's more the latter.
Lacking on both sides of the political aisle is sufficient horizontal loyalty towards one's people, and I would say our loyalty to our own stretches not just laterally to our contemporaries but backward and forward in time, encompassing our ancestors and our future progeny. We see far too little concern for this; there is too much orientation to the present with little thought for the future. Since we have become a materialistic people with a dwindling belief in things eternal, in the old verities, we naturally tend to neglect the long-range prospects for our people.
Why have we come to have so little 'horizontal loyalty' to our own? There is no simple one-sentence answer but obviously there has been a long-term effort to undermine this natural feeling of kinship. Divide and rule has been an effective strategy and our country with its tradition of welcoming in people from far-flung countries was susceptible to having its very core identity and essence assailed by means of immigration from incompatible peoples.
I think it's too easy to blame 'the liberals' for much of this; in so doing, many Republicans and conservatives absolve themselves of any complicity in it, when in fact they have acquiesced if not actively participated in the divide-and-rule process.
As it stands, we are now divided many ways, based, most obviously, on race and ancestry, then along religious lines (atheists vs. Christians, other religions vs. Christians, Christians among themselves), as well as sex/gender lines, class lines, regional loyalties, and of course politics. The first and the last categories seem to engender the most bitter and intractable conflicts.
Al Gore appears to have been unwittingly accurate when he mistranslated 'E Pluribus Unum' as 'out of one, many.'
So, lacking the normal and healthy quantum of lateral or horizontal loyalty among ourselves, we substitute vertical loyalty, and tend to submit to the powerful at the top, whether a charismatic individual in whom we invest our allegiance, or whether we make The Party the be-all and the end-all and bow our knee to the party powers-that-be.
Some people, of course, devote most of their loyalty to a religious system or hierarchy, with some systems being more authoritarian than others.
As a Christian I believe that God alone merits that kind of total submission, not any human being or system. Any absolute faith in or devotion to a human being or a man-made philosophy or institution is just misplaced and will lead to grief at some point. Patriotism can become a false religion when it crosses the line to unquestioning, blind faith in one's country.
Patriotism, party loyalty, loyalty to a religious system or ideology, all these have to be taught; they are not natural and innate in us, as is the bond to those close to us, to kin and kind.
It becomes a perplexing question: how is it that so many of us are willing or able to forego their "natural affections" in order to follow a leader or a political party or system which is actually inimical and destructive to their kin and kind? What is short-circuiting our natural affections and loyalties that enables this to happen?
Human beings do possess innate instincts for group loyalty and affinity; I am convinced of that. But human beings, being flawed as we are, can circumvent or bypass the natural inclinations in many ways. Maybe part of our fallen condition, in Christian terminology, is that we are malleable and suggestible. That's the whole story of Genesis 3, isn't it? The persuasive serpent in the garden, leading Eve astray -- aided by her cooperation.
We seem to have lost the discernment and the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, genuine from counterfeit, and when discernment is lacking, people look for a leader they trust and like. This might also be blamed on moral laziness; people seem to find it too demanding these days to discern right and wrong, good and bad, for themselves, so it's tempting to look either for a ready-made guide, some system of thought or ideology, to decide for us what is good or bad, right or wrong. And some declare that there is no wrong or right, merely different 'narratives' and preferences.
But following a charismatic leader is tempting for some people, perhaps the people who are the most emotionally immature, and the people who have nothing else in which they have faith. The leader then becomes their guide and their authority; they need only follow, and follow blindly in too many cases. Then it seems that when a cult develops around an individual, that in-group satisfies their natural need for group identity and belonging, a need which in a normal society would be met by the natural bond of the group one is born into.
In a society which is becoming more fragmented by the day, more lacking in normal attachments, we are on a path to becoming more susceptible to charismatic seducers who then provide the sense of belonging, and the sense of purpose that is lacking.
Thomas Carlyle, who wrote so much about heroes and great men, wrote about the different kinds of heroes or 'great men', including the prophet, the poet, and the 'commander over men.'
Carlyle said of the last type, the King, that "He is practically the summary for us of all the various figures of heroism: Priest, Teacher, whatsoever of earthly or spiritual dignity we can fancy to reside in a man, embodies itself here, to command over us, to furnish us with constant practical teaching to tell us for the day and hour what we are to do."
Is it true of all of us that we need this kind of authoritarian figure to 'command over us' and 'tell us for the day and hour what we are to do'? I like to think this tendency to submit blindly to flesh and blood is a weakness and a flaw that is not common to all human beings, but there may be that tendency in all of us. However it seems to me that Americans are more prone to this kind of submissive followership now than in past eras. Our founding ancestors did not approve of this kind of cravenness in human nature. George Washington (whose birthday just passed, without the honor due) refused the offer to make him a king instead of our first President.
In the past I've lamented the lack of leadership in our day; we seem to live in an age of pygmies and eunuchs who nonetheless have courtiers bowing to them. But in the end maybe it's true that each age gets the leaders it deserves.
If we could rediscover our history and our sense of unity we might be better able to raise up leaders, competent and decent men among us, and above all, to have the discernment to recognize those who are truly fit for leadership. As it is, we are at risk to be exploited by the manipulators and demagogues who dominate our age.
It seems that loyalty is at the core of much of what is wrong with America today. In some ways we have far too much of it and in some ways we are lacking in it. Or we have the wrong kind of loyalty, to the wrong people, and are deficient in it where it is most needed.
I have been thinking of this in connection with the current political situation, and the woeful choices being presented to us in this election, but this problem is widespread and has a bearing on many aspects of our lives.
The most pressing misapplication of loyalty is of the 'vertical loyalty' in which people seem to look for some kind of charismatic man on a horse to put the world to rights for them. We need only look at the example of Barack Obama and the bizarre cult surrounding him: women swooning at his public appearances, and people reacting as they would at a fervid prayer-meeting or revival instead of at a political rally.
A disturbing number of Republicans are also showing signs of being drawn into the Obama admiration society. Any perceptive and honest person can guess at the reasons for this.
The more common problem among 'conservatives' at this time is not the unthinking 'vertical loyalty' to a slick leader, but to the Republican Party, coupled with the flip side, a rather exaggerated fear of the opposing party. Is this a 'horizontal loyalty', loyalty to a group of people or is it just a loyalty to the brand name of the GOP and what it purports to stand for? I would say it's more the latter.
Lacking on both sides of the political aisle is sufficient horizontal loyalty towards one's people, and I would say our loyalty to our own stretches not just laterally to our contemporaries but backward and forward in time, encompassing our ancestors and our future progeny. We see far too little concern for this; there is too much orientation to the present with little thought for the future. Since we have become a materialistic people with a dwindling belief in things eternal, in the old verities, we naturally tend to neglect the long-range prospects for our people.
Why have we come to have so little 'horizontal loyalty' to our own? There is no simple one-sentence answer but obviously there has been a long-term effort to undermine this natural feeling of kinship. Divide and rule has been an effective strategy and our country with its tradition of welcoming in people from far-flung countries was susceptible to having its very core identity and essence assailed by means of immigration from incompatible peoples.
I think it's too easy to blame 'the liberals' for much of this; in so doing, many Republicans and conservatives absolve themselves of any complicity in it, when in fact they have acquiesced if not actively participated in the divide-and-rule process.
As it stands, we are now divided many ways, based, most obviously, on race and ancestry, then along religious lines (atheists vs. Christians, other religions vs. Christians, Christians among themselves), as well as sex/gender lines, class lines, regional loyalties, and of course politics. The first and the last categories seem to engender the most bitter and intractable conflicts.
Al Gore appears to have been unwittingly accurate when he mistranslated 'E Pluribus Unum' as 'out of one, many.'
So, lacking the normal and healthy quantum of lateral or horizontal loyalty among ourselves, we substitute vertical loyalty, and tend to submit to the powerful at the top, whether a charismatic individual in whom we invest our allegiance, or whether we make The Party the be-all and the end-all and bow our knee to the party powers-that-be.
Some people, of course, devote most of their loyalty to a religious system or hierarchy, with some systems being more authoritarian than others.
As a Christian I believe that God alone merits that kind of total submission, not any human being or system. Any absolute faith in or devotion to a human being or a man-made philosophy or institution is just misplaced and will lead to grief at some point. Patriotism can become a false religion when it crosses the line to unquestioning, blind faith in one's country.
Patriotism, party loyalty, loyalty to a religious system or ideology, all these have to be taught; they are not natural and innate in us, as is the bond to those close to us, to kin and kind.
It becomes a perplexing question: how is it that so many of us are willing or able to forego their "natural affections" in order to follow a leader or a political party or system which is actually inimical and destructive to their kin and kind? What is short-circuiting our natural affections and loyalties that enables this to happen?
Human beings do possess innate instincts for group loyalty and affinity; I am convinced of that. But human beings, being flawed as we are, can circumvent or bypass the natural inclinations in many ways. Maybe part of our fallen condition, in Christian terminology, is that we are malleable and suggestible. That's the whole story of Genesis 3, isn't it? The persuasive serpent in the garden, leading Eve astray -- aided by her cooperation.
We seem to have lost the discernment and the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, genuine from counterfeit, and when discernment is lacking, people look for a leader they trust and like. This might also be blamed on moral laziness; people seem to find it too demanding these days to discern right and wrong, good and bad, for themselves, so it's tempting to look either for a ready-made guide, some system of thought or ideology, to decide for us what is good or bad, right or wrong. And some declare that there is no wrong or right, merely different 'narratives' and preferences.
But following a charismatic leader is tempting for some people, perhaps the people who are the most emotionally immature, and the people who have nothing else in which they have faith. The leader then becomes their guide and their authority; they need only follow, and follow blindly in too many cases. Then it seems that when a cult develops around an individual, that in-group satisfies their natural need for group identity and belonging, a need which in a normal society would be met by the natural bond of the group one is born into.
In a society which is becoming more fragmented by the day, more lacking in normal attachments, we are on a path to becoming more susceptible to charismatic seducers who then provide the sense of belonging, and the sense of purpose that is lacking.
Thomas Carlyle, who wrote so much about heroes and great men, wrote about the different kinds of heroes or 'great men', including the prophet, the poet, and the 'commander over men.'
Carlyle said of the last type, the King, that "He is practically the summary for us of all the various figures of heroism: Priest, Teacher, whatsoever of earthly or spiritual dignity we can fancy to reside in a man, embodies itself here, to command over us, to furnish us with constant practical teaching to tell us for the day and hour what we are to do."
Is it true of all of us that we need this kind of authoritarian figure to 'command over us' and 'tell us for the day and hour what we are to do'? I like to think this tendency to submit blindly to flesh and blood is a weakness and a flaw that is not common to all human beings, but there may be that tendency in all of us. However it seems to me that Americans are more prone to this kind of submissive followership now than in past eras. Our founding ancestors did not approve of this kind of cravenness in human nature. George Washington (whose birthday just passed, without the honor due) refused the offer to make him a king instead of our first President.
In the past I've lamented the lack of leadership in our day; we seem to live in an age of pygmies and eunuchs who nonetheless have courtiers bowing to them. But in the end maybe it's true that each age gets the leaders it deserves.
If we could rediscover our history and our sense of unity we might be better able to raise up leaders, competent and decent men among us, and above all, to have the discernment to recognize those who are truly fit for leadership. As it is, we are at risk to be exploited by the manipulators and demagogues who dominate our age.
Labels: Identity Politics, Leadership, Loyalty, Politics, Societal Decay
0 comment Wednesday, September 17, 2014 | admin
I was just reading some blogs wherein the usual infighting and general contentiousness prevailed, with very little response from either other, more reasonable commenters or the blogger(s) in question.
Often I wonder why this curious detachment. I think I have finally realized something, which may be obvious to my readers, though I was slow in grasping it.
Some of the bloggers who are ostensibly champions of our side seem to have only an intellectual commitment to it. I keep noticing more and more the absence of emotion on the subject.
Perhaps I am the anomaly or the oddity, if you want to put it that way, in that this subject is emotional and visceral to me. It is not just an intellectual exercise or a game in which I want my 'side' to 'win'. This is deeply serious business to me, and it's the future of our posterity, our children and grandchildren. It's our way of life. It's all we hold dear. It's home and family. It's the life's blood of our ancestors, who made great sacrifices to come here and establish a homeland for all of us, their descendants.
It's about honor. It's about truth, and about what is just and right. It's survival. It's about not letting the heretofore unbroken chain be broken irrevocably. It's about preserving the best of what our forefathers lived for.
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead", as Scott said.
Yet apparently there are those who don't feel this emotionally. The love and the loyalty and the fierce attachment are not there. The lights may be on upstairs but nobody is home down where the hearth-fire should be burning.
The missing piece for some of those who are supposedly our compatriots is the feeling, the emotion, the "all-or-nothing, this is it," sense of urgency.
That missing piece is only the most important one of all.
Often I wonder why this curious detachment. I think I have finally realized something, which may be obvious to my readers, though I was slow in grasping it.
Some of the bloggers who are ostensibly champions of our side seem to have only an intellectual commitment to it. I keep noticing more and more the absence of emotion on the subject.
Perhaps I am the anomaly or the oddity, if you want to put it that way, in that this subject is emotional and visceral to me. It is not just an intellectual exercise or a game in which I want my 'side' to 'win'. This is deeply serious business to me, and it's the future of our posterity, our children and grandchildren. It's our way of life. It's all we hold dear. It's home and family. It's the life's blood of our ancestors, who made great sacrifices to come here and establish a homeland for all of us, their descendants.
It's about honor. It's about truth, and about what is just and right. It's survival. It's about not letting the heretofore unbroken chain be broken irrevocably. It's about preserving the best of what our forefathers lived for.
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead", as Scott said.
Yet apparently there are those who don't feel this emotionally. The love and the loyalty and the fierce attachment are not there. The lights may be on upstairs but nobody is home down where the hearth-fire should be burning.
The missing piece for some of those who are supposedly our compatriots is the feeling, the emotion, the "all-or-nothing, this is it," sense of urgency.
That missing piece is only the most important one of all.
Labels: Ethnopatriotism, Kinship, Loyalty
0 comment Tuesday, April 29, 2014 | admin
Over at a certain Republican forum, the mostly 'colorblind' regulars are finding great amusement in the YouTube video here, where you can see the Reverend Father Michael Pfleger, at Obama's church, mocking Hillary Clinton. Of course the politically correct Republicans see Hillary Clinton as the greatest threat to America, ever, and so they don't mind that Father Pfleger's slams against Hillary also are directed at them, as Whites.
Pfleger is one of those ideologues who believes that there is such a thing as 'White privilege', which is shared equally by all those of European ancestry, regardless of their circumstances. He thinks that this 'White privilege' is something which was acquired by oppressing non-Whites, mostly blacks. He also seems to believe in generational guilt, because in his warped view, everything a White has or possesses is an ill-gotten gain, even your 401k. He apparently does not recognize any hard work, ingenuity, or planning on the part of Whites as being the source of any of their possessions.
Can any of us watch this video without discomfort of some kind? When I say 'discomfort' I don't mean guilt. I mean, the sheer embarrassment of seeing an ostensibly 'White' man making such a buffoon of himself in front of a church full of black folks who apparently harbor considerable hostility towards him or at least, toward those who 'look like' him. I always squirm at the sight and sound of this kind of sycophantic, craven, unnatural behavior. I speculate about what in the world goes on in the minds of people like this cleric. Even in my most deludedly liberal days, I don't think I could have resorted to this kind of truckling, or such open disloyalty to my own. Pfleger's pathetic attempt at some kind of 'dialect' is downright cringe-inducing. Hillary herself is not above this kind of thing, as we've seen in her past appearances at black churches, but he outdoes even Hillary.
I have to wonder if there isn't perhaps an isolated liberal or two out there who might have his or her eyes opened by this kind of thing. Do they not, just once, think something like 'wow, if even the most pro-black liberals can be skewered for being racist and for benefiting from white privilege, we're all fair game, no matter what our politics, no matter how servile towards minorities we are.'
But I suspect only one in a million would dare to think that; I suspect the vast majority will only redouble their efforts at being tolerant and anti-racist.
Back in the naive old days of the Civil Rights revolution, also known as the 'Civil Rights Movement', most white people thought that if only we guaranteed equal access, the right to vote, the right to attend any school, to be served by any business owner, and so on, then all the grievances of blacks would evaporate, and we'd all coexist in harmony. Being 'non-prejudiced' was all that was required, so they thought. Now, we've learned that mere lack of prejudice and 'colorblindness' won't get you anywhere; you are still part of the problem unless you are emphatically anti-racist -- which in effect means anti-White. And that includes denouncing your own mother, if necessary, condemning yourself if need be, confessing your own sins and your own disgraceful acceptance of ''White privilege." It certainly demands that you turn viciously on your own racial kin who display any tendencies toward 'racism.' We see this at work in many an Internet discussion, where rabid 'anti-racist' Whites attack any of their brethren who step outside PC boundaries.
And we see it in excruciating performances like that of Pfleger pandering and preening before blacks.
Are these people trying to work out their own guilt by projecting all their self-hatred onto their fellow Whites? Do they think they are buying leniency from those they have 'wronged', or those they believe their ancestors wronged a couple of centuries or more ago? Do they believe they will be spared in case worst comes to worst and open hostilities break out? Do they think they are establishing their moral superiority, or gaining points with the Almighty by displaying their good intentions and good works publicly, like the Pharisee praying loudly in the Gospel accounts?
Last night I was watching some videos about the South on YouTube, and one of them was nothing more than a video of music from the War Between the States. But even music has to be made a fighting issue, thanks to political correctness. Every video comment section on You Tube, having to do with the South, is defaced by ranting liberal 'anti-racists' frothing at the mouth over 'slavery' and 'rape' and racism. This thread was no exception.
We really and truly are a badly divided and fragmented country, and I am not optimistic about any reconciliation -- not only between blacks and Whites, but among Whites. We are sharply divided among those of the old values, and the anti-racist haters of the old values.
I read the ugly anti-White, anti-South comments on YouTube, and I see videos like the one of Pfleger, and I am more convinced that there is no healing the divisions in this country. Obama, in a stroke of extreme irony, is running as some kind of 'healer' of racial divisions. Nothing could be further from the truth; anybody with eyes to see can see that he is only exacerbating the divisions in this country, and he is doing nothing but focusing an already race-obsessed country even more on race.
On the other hand, every cloud has some silver lining, so the saying goes, and if there is any good that might come out of the situation, it's that it is making clear who stands where. The animosities simmering below the surface are coming out in the open.
We will see for ourselves how very many Pflegers there are in this country: people who are somehow stunted in their very identity, who are 'without natural affections', who in some twisted way, despise those of their own race and yearn to be accepted and approved by a hostile group of people. These people are some kind of willing martyrs to racial restitution; by immolating themselves they think they can make a statement or win the love of those who hate them. Some of these people will genetically immolate themselves by literally joining the race they idealize, and rejecting membership in the race they were born to. If that's their choice, so be it; it would strengthen us if they removed themselves from us.
However they seem to have no desire to; far better, they think, to torment and harass the rest of us who want nothing more than to be left to our time-honored ways and allegiances. Despite their pious cant about 'tolerance' they will not tolerate this; they see themselves as some kind of agents of racial vengeance, and they will continue to harry us and hunt us down, leaving us no peace.
Most peoples in the world hold renegades to be the lowest of the low, those who would sell out their own in order to win some benefit for themselves -- or who would betray their own simply out of malice.
The word 'renegade' originally meant one who had forsaken the Christian faith, or a knight without a master.
In our day, it seems to take the form of those who identify with the outsider, even when that outsider is openly contemptuous of them. We seem to be plagued with such people today.
Blacks call those they perceive as too friendly to whites as 'Uncle Toms'. Mexicans condemn 'Tio Tacos' or 'vendidos' -- sellouts.
What name do we have for our equivalents? Just calling them 'liberals' isn't strong enough. We need to be as censorious towards our renegades as everybody else is toward theirs.
Instead, we are too prone to turn on those who are less politically correct, rather than directing our opprobrium where it is deserved.
Even the 'conservatives' over at Free Republic are prone to castigate each other for political incorrectness. We can't just blame it on 'the liberals' meaning the Democrats; it's a Republican plague too.
Pfleger is one of those ideologues who believes that there is such a thing as 'White privilege', which is shared equally by all those of European ancestry, regardless of their circumstances. He thinks that this 'White privilege' is something which was acquired by oppressing non-Whites, mostly blacks. He also seems to believe in generational guilt, because in his warped view, everything a White has or possesses is an ill-gotten gain, even your 401k. He apparently does not recognize any hard work, ingenuity, or planning on the part of Whites as being the source of any of their possessions.
Can any of us watch this video without discomfort of some kind? When I say 'discomfort' I don't mean guilt. I mean, the sheer embarrassment of seeing an ostensibly 'White' man making such a buffoon of himself in front of a church full of black folks who apparently harbor considerable hostility towards him or at least, toward those who 'look like' him. I always squirm at the sight and sound of this kind of sycophantic, craven, unnatural behavior. I speculate about what in the world goes on in the minds of people like this cleric. Even in my most deludedly liberal days, I don't think I could have resorted to this kind of truckling, or such open disloyalty to my own. Pfleger's pathetic attempt at some kind of 'dialect' is downright cringe-inducing. Hillary herself is not above this kind of thing, as we've seen in her past appearances at black churches, but he outdoes even Hillary.
I have to wonder if there isn't perhaps an isolated liberal or two out there who might have his or her eyes opened by this kind of thing. Do they not, just once, think something like 'wow, if even the most pro-black liberals can be skewered for being racist and for benefiting from white privilege, we're all fair game, no matter what our politics, no matter how servile towards minorities we are.'
But I suspect only one in a million would dare to think that; I suspect the vast majority will only redouble their efforts at being tolerant and anti-racist.
Back in the naive old days of the Civil Rights revolution, also known as the 'Civil Rights Movement', most white people thought that if only we guaranteed equal access, the right to vote, the right to attend any school, to be served by any business owner, and so on, then all the grievances of blacks would evaporate, and we'd all coexist in harmony. Being 'non-prejudiced' was all that was required, so they thought. Now, we've learned that mere lack of prejudice and 'colorblindness' won't get you anywhere; you are still part of the problem unless you are emphatically anti-racist -- which in effect means anti-White. And that includes denouncing your own mother, if necessary, condemning yourself if need be, confessing your own sins and your own disgraceful acceptance of ''White privilege." It certainly demands that you turn viciously on your own racial kin who display any tendencies toward 'racism.' We see this at work in many an Internet discussion, where rabid 'anti-racist' Whites attack any of their brethren who step outside PC boundaries.
And we see it in excruciating performances like that of Pfleger pandering and preening before blacks.
Are these people trying to work out their own guilt by projecting all their self-hatred onto their fellow Whites? Do they think they are buying leniency from those they have 'wronged', or those they believe their ancestors wronged a couple of centuries or more ago? Do they believe they will be spared in case worst comes to worst and open hostilities break out? Do they think they are establishing their moral superiority, or gaining points with the Almighty by displaying their good intentions and good works publicly, like the Pharisee praying loudly in the Gospel accounts?
Last night I was watching some videos about the South on YouTube, and one of them was nothing more than a video of music from the War Between the States. But even music has to be made a fighting issue, thanks to political correctness. Every video comment section on You Tube, having to do with the South, is defaced by ranting liberal 'anti-racists' frothing at the mouth over 'slavery' and 'rape' and racism. This thread was no exception.
We really and truly are a badly divided and fragmented country, and I am not optimistic about any reconciliation -- not only between blacks and Whites, but among Whites. We are sharply divided among those of the old values, and the anti-racist haters of the old values.
I read the ugly anti-White, anti-South comments on YouTube, and I see videos like the one of Pfleger, and I am more convinced that there is no healing the divisions in this country. Obama, in a stroke of extreme irony, is running as some kind of 'healer' of racial divisions. Nothing could be further from the truth; anybody with eyes to see can see that he is only exacerbating the divisions in this country, and he is doing nothing but focusing an already race-obsessed country even more on race.
On the other hand, every cloud has some silver lining, so the saying goes, and if there is any good that might come out of the situation, it's that it is making clear who stands where. The animosities simmering below the surface are coming out in the open.
We will see for ourselves how very many Pflegers there are in this country: people who are somehow stunted in their very identity, who are 'without natural affections', who in some twisted way, despise those of their own race and yearn to be accepted and approved by a hostile group of people. These people are some kind of willing martyrs to racial restitution; by immolating themselves they think they can make a statement or win the love of those who hate them. Some of these people will genetically immolate themselves by literally joining the race they idealize, and rejecting membership in the race they were born to. If that's their choice, so be it; it would strengthen us if they removed themselves from us.
However they seem to have no desire to; far better, they think, to torment and harass the rest of us who want nothing more than to be left to our time-honored ways and allegiances. Despite their pious cant about 'tolerance' they will not tolerate this; they see themselves as some kind of agents of racial vengeance, and they will continue to harry us and hunt us down, leaving us no peace.
Most peoples in the world hold renegades to be the lowest of the low, those who would sell out their own in order to win some benefit for themselves -- or who would betray their own simply out of malice.
The word 'renegade' originally meant one who had forsaken the Christian faith, or a knight without a master.
In our day, it seems to take the form of those who identify with the outsider, even when that outsider is openly contemptuous of them. We seem to be plagued with such people today.
Blacks call those they perceive as too friendly to whites as 'Uncle Toms'. Mexicans condemn 'Tio Tacos' or 'vendidos' -- sellouts.
What name do we have for our equivalents? Just calling them 'liberals' isn't strong enough. We need to be as censorious towards our renegades as everybody else is toward theirs.
Instead, we are too prone to turn on those who are less politically correct, rather than directing our opprobrium where it is deserved.
Even the 'conservatives' over at Free Republic are prone to castigate each other for political incorrectness. We can't just blame it on 'the liberals' meaning the Democrats; it's a Republican plague too.
Labels: Ethnic Division, Ethnic Solidarity, Loyalty, Political Correctness, Renegades, Treason