0 comment Wednesday, September 17, 2014 | admin
The recent events at the Iowa state fair are known to all of you, I'm sure. The attacks by a group of 30 to 40 blacks on White individuals was at first said to be 'unconnected to race,' then 'possibly racially motivated' and today, spokesmen are denying that any real evidence of racial motives is present.
Apparently the report written by a police officer is now being questioned; the victim's account is being discounted, seemingly.
The officer says
"I�m color-blind when it comes to preparing my police reports," Murillo said. "Any and all information that comes from a credible source that I believe may be pertinent or relevant to a follow up investigation of a serious crime is always included in my police reports because that�s the way I�ve been instructed to prepare them for 32 years."
Police Chief Judy Bradshaw stood behind Murillo�s handling of the matter. She said she regrets that some details of the report were misinterpreted and led some to think the information came from the victim, who told police he did not see his attackers and could not provide a description.''
The officer appears to have a Hispanic name so surely he cannot be thought guilty of White bias in reporting what happened. But it is hard not to believe that political correctness is driving the reporting of this case. We know that this happens. We know the media are hopelessly and shamelessly leftist and 'pro-diversity' in their reporting. We know that police departments, too, are under the sway of the 'diversity' dogma, just as our military. Think about the way the Fort Hood massacre was handled by our military, with Gen. Casey's remarks that the worst tragedy would be if our commitment to diversity were sacrificed or words along those lines. As if loss of life is trivial compared to ''diversity.''
Meanwhile, the victim alluded to in this piece is in the hospital, suffering from serious injuries. But heaven forbid that anybody sully the name of holy diversity. We can't have that.
I am going to say that anybody who is so diversity-besotted as to actively try to push it on their area bears some responsibility for any harm that comes to innocent people as a result of their misguided efforts.
I will say right here that the officials in Iowa who pushed and lobbied and pleaded for ''diversity'' in their state should be called to account.
Shouldn't some of the people of Iowa start to question whether there was a 'need', as their pandering officials claimed, to make the state more 'diverse'? Anybody who lives in a diversity-enriched area could tell them that this kind of wanton violence is one of the undiscussed consequences of diversity. Yet every day we are told by our officials and our 'news' media and our academics how 'diversity' is a must in the so-called global marketplace, and that we are in need of enrichment by it.
We could call the victims of these assaults, and so many others like them, 'collateral damage,' in the struggle for sacred diversity.
Sam Francis wrote a piece way back in spring, 2001 about the 'diversity' obsession on the part of Iowa's officials.
''Last September, the state�s Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, was infected with the idea that what Iowa really needs are more immigrants�namely 350,000 of them�to be imported from Third World countries to help poor, backward, white Iowa "diversify." For all the pompous rhetoric about the holy mantra of "diversity," the real reason behind the governor�s plan was much more mundane. Iowa, a mainly rural state, is losing population and needs more people to boost its economy. The governor�s plan had the support of what at the time were called "business and civic leaders"�that is, those who directly profit form the cheap labor that more immigration brings.
But those who don�t so profit�the vast majority of Iowans � didn�t care much for the governor�s plan. Some 58 percent thought Iowa was already diverse enough and expressed opposition to the proposal. A more recent poll, released this month by the pro-immigration Des Moines Register, shows that number hasn�t changed and also that some two-thirds of the citizens of Des Moines think their city "has enough racial, ethnic and cultural diversity for their needs and preferences."
As suggested above, the invocation of "diversity" has become a kind of dogma that is never explained or subjected to scrutiny. It would be interesting to know how one is supposed to decide how much "diversity" is enough and how much is too little. For that matter, it would be nice to know why "diversity" is a good thing at all. How exactly does Iowa suffer from not having more "diversity"? What benefits of civilized life is Iowa lacking today because it is not sufficiently "diverse"? Alas, no one seems to know, or, if they know, don�t say.''
Spring, 2001, seems so very long ago. That was before 9/11, and it was about, oh, 10 or 15 million immigrants and refugees ago. Have we learned nothing since then?
I suppose we can let the Iowan citizens off the hook, and say they were hoodwinked by their elected officials, but then we have to explain away their voting patterns in the 2008 election. Iowa was one of the erstwhile 'lily white' states that embraced The One. It appears the average Iowan must still be infatuated with their new-found diversity.
Maybe they are a microcosm of America, at least of heartland America in the age of political correctness; it remains to be seen whether they or the country at large will learn from experience, or continue to embrace delusion.
Apparently the report written by a police officer is now being questioned; the victim's account is being discounted, seemingly.
The officer says
"I�m color-blind when it comes to preparing my police reports," Murillo said. "Any and all information that comes from a credible source that I believe may be pertinent or relevant to a follow up investigation of a serious crime is always included in my police reports because that�s the way I�ve been instructed to prepare them for 32 years."
Police Chief Judy Bradshaw stood behind Murillo�s handling of the matter. She said she regrets that some details of the report were misinterpreted and led some to think the information came from the victim, who told police he did not see his attackers and could not provide a description.''
The officer appears to have a Hispanic name so surely he cannot be thought guilty of White bias in reporting what happened. But it is hard not to believe that political correctness is driving the reporting of this case. We know that this happens. We know the media are hopelessly and shamelessly leftist and 'pro-diversity' in their reporting. We know that police departments, too, are under the sway of the 'diversity' dogma, just as our military. Think about the way the Fort Hood massacre was handled by our military, with Gen. Casey's remarks that the worst tragedy would be if our commitment to diversity were sacrificed or words along those lines. As if loss of life is trivial compared to ''diversity.''
Meanwhile, the victim alluded to in this piece is in the hospital, suffering from serious injuries. But heaven forbid that anybody sully the name of holy diversity. We can't have that.
I am going to say that anybody who is so diversity-besotted as to actively try to push it on their area bears some responsibility for any harm that comes to innocent people as a result of their misguided efforts.
I will say right here that the officials in Iowa who pushed and lobbied and pleaded for ''diversity'' in their state should be called to account.
Shouldn't some of the people of Iowa start to question whether there was a 'need', as their pandering officials claimed, to make the state more 'diverse'? Anybody who lives in a diversity-enriched area could tell them that this kind of wanton violence is one of the undiscussed consequences of diversity. Yet every day we are told by our officials and our 'news' media and our academics how 'diversity' is a must in the so-called global marketplace, and that we are in need of enrichment by it.
We could call the victims of these assaults, and so many others like them, 'collateral damage,' in the struggle for sacred diversity.
Sam Francis wrote a piece way back in spring, 2001 about the 'diversity' obsession on the part of Iowa's officials.
''Last September, the state�s Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, was infected with the idea that what Iowa really needs are more immigrants�namely 350,000 of them�to be imported from Third World countries to help poor, backward, white Iowa "diversify." For all the pompous rhetoric about the holy mantra of "diversity," the real reason behind the governor�s plan was much more mundane. Iowa, a mainly rural state, is losing population and needs more people to boost its economy. The governor�s plan had the support of what at the time were called "business and civic leaders"�that is, those who directly profit form the cheap labor that more immigration brings.
But those who don�t so profit�the vast majority of Iowans � didn�t care much for the governor�s plan. Some 58 percent thought Iowa was already diverse enough and expressed opposition to the proposal. A more recent poll, released this month by the pro-immigration Des Moines Register, shows that number hasn�t changed and also that some two-thirds of the citizens of Des Moines think their city "has enough racial, ethnic and cultural diversity for their needs and preferences."
As suggested above, the invocation of "diversity" has become a kind of dogma that is never explained or subjected to scrutiny. It would be interesting to know how one is supposed to decide how much "diversity" is enough and how much is too little. For that matter, it would be nice to know why "diversity" is a good thing at all. How exactly does Iowa suffer from not having more "diversity"? What benefits of civilized life is Iowa lacking today because it is not sufficiently "diverse"? Alas, no one seems to know, or, if they know, don�t say.''
Spring, 2001, seems so very long ago. That was before 9/11, and it was about, oh, 10 or 15 million immigrants and refugees ago. Have we learned nothing since then?
I suppose we can let the Iowan citizens off the hook, and say they were hoodwinked by their elected officials, but then we have to explain away their voting patterns in the 2008 election. Iowa was one of the erstwhile 'lily white' states that embraced The One. It appears the average Iowan must still be infatuated with their new-found diversity.
Maybe they are a microcosm of America, at least of heartland America in the age of political correctness; it remains to be seen whether they or the country at large will learn from experience, or continue to embrace delusion.
Labels: Demographics, Diversity, Multicultists, Propaganda
0 comment Saturday, September 13, 2014 | admin
I've been hearing more about the recent trip to Central America by some of our local youth.
What I'm hearing and seeing is a deliberate program of making our young people believe that the Third World is our responsibility, and that being a good Christian involves feeling enormous guilt about how prosperous we are. After all, those poor people south of the 'border' have nothing, and we have everything.
Teenagers are emotional creatures, very susceptible to this kind of manipulation. Most are naive and have a tendency to want to help those who seem downtrodden or helpless, at least if those downtrodden people are Third Worlders.
So I don't blame the young people as much as I do their elders, who are just as emotionally vulnerable as the young people are. Is this another manifestation of our national adolescence? There are so many adults who seem to live as perpetual adolescents, with all the soft-headedness and gullibility that characterizes many immature young people.
One such person is a parent of one of the young folks who just came back after the guilt-trip (literally) south of the border. I am now hearing stories of how these youngsters were taken to a prison which is said to be 'controlled by gangs', and which is said to have an area where even the guards will not go, because the prisoners apparently have de facto control over that area.
Would any of you let your sons and daughters go into this prison, accompanied by a Christian chaperon who is as naive as the kids? I certainly wouldn't, especially a daughter. In today's PC climate, that is considered a 'racist' attitude, but a few decades ago it was simple common sense.
I don't hear of any concern or outrage on the part of the parents whose kids were taken into this prison to 'minister' to the criminals. Of course visiting those in prison is part of what Christians are enjoined to do. But surely some common sense should govern who goes to do this kind of thing, and under what conditions. Let grown men do this, not adolescent girls and boys with no clue about reality.
I am 100 percent certain that these parents would not let their sons and especially their daughters enter our state prison with its hardened criminals. But the Third World? They're all just victims there, of course, and we can't judge them, can we?
And another question occurs to me: Latin America was supposedly Christianized centuries ago, was it not? Why are missionaries and assorted other do-gooders, including kids, still having to bring them the Gospel?
That's a rather rhetorical question on my part; I don't believe that many Latin Americans are Christian, their beliefs being a hodgepodge of heathen superstition with various corrupted Catholic practices.
But even so, surely the many missionaries who go down there have spread the Gospel thoroughly? It seems to me that the purpose of going is to minister to the people's material needs, but why do Christians go there on seeming guilt tours? Is this part of the mission to make the young, especially, feel more connected to those who are coming to live among us? To give them more of a 'global consciousness'?
It may be noteworthy that the church sponsoring this is one of those 'seeker-sensitive' Oprah-ized churches. And though they are ostensibly Protestant, they seem to believe in 'earning' salvation by good works.
The kids, bless their idealistic hearts, are champing at the bit to go back and help those poor people 'who have nothing'.
The mother of one of the teens says that she now sees illegal immigration in a different light: these people 'have nothing', so it's understandable that they are entering our country in droves to find a 'better life.'
And just a side note: the woman in question has taken a tough line on illegals heretofore, sounding quite a bit like me at times, on the subject of the invasion. All it took was a few hearts-and-flowers stories about the poor peasants who 'have nothing', and she is suddenly full of sympathy for the illegals.
This encapsulates the average White American's response to the invasion. We are too prone to feel sympathy and pity for the poor illegals -- did you know they 'have nothing' in their countries? -- and to put our own interests last.
Our young people, as I said, are being inculcated with racial guilt, guilt over our supposed wrongs toward the have-nots of the world, and guilt for our prosperity and comfort. Protestants have not traditionally believed in self-flagellation and 'mortification of the flesh' as Catholics once did, but this is the modern equivalent, this racial guilt and a sense of enduring obligation to the downtrodden and the aggrieved have-nots of the world. So these kids will work and save money to go again next year to take care of the perpetual basket-cases of the world and thus do penance for their sin of being born White and born in a prosperous, comfortable country.
Maybe they are much better Christians than I, but then I don't pretend to be an exemplar in that regard.
At times I struggle with the question of whether I am a bad Christian or a bad human being because I am not inclined to such self-sacrifice and I don't believe we are compelled as Christians to embrace self-immolation, giving our home away to aliens, or sending our children into harm's way to make ourselves feel more virtuous.
This sending of our young to these dangerous and crime-ridden countries seems to me rather like the Old Testament stories of 'passing children through the fire', sacrificing them to the idol Moloch. That these local kids came back without having been physically harmed is beside the point; they are being indoctrinated into the multicult, which is Moloch in 21st century guise.
Again, I keep coming back to this idea of post-modern 'Christianity' as a cult of niceness, a mere empty shell of its former self.
Too many Christians today have no concept of goodness, knowing only 'niceness', which is an anemic, simpering caricature of Christian goodness. Niceness wishes only to think only good of everyone, even those who are evil, and those who are enemies of God. Niceness does not want to offend or exclude anyone. Niceness will tell flattering lies rather than unflattering truths. Niceness does not hold truth in high regard, as goodness does.
Niceness will not make tough decisions, or execute justice when needed; niceness wants only to accommodate everyone, please everyone, and make everyone 'equal', even though that flies in the face of justice. Niceness is a stranger to justice, and prefers it that way.
Niceness thinks that it is virtuous to give preference to those who least merit it, or least deserve it. Niceness seeks recognition for being self-abnegating and for appeasing evil -- in fact, niceness does not acknowledge that evil exists -- except in the case of those who violate political correctness.
In fact, political correctness is one of the most recognizable faces worn by 'niceness'; the emphasis is on falsehoods and obfuscation in the name of being 'sensitive.'
May the Lord preserve us from 'nice' people. Nice people are seldom good people.
Goodness includes within itself hardness when appropriate; true goodness is not weak and feeble, but strong and fearless, willing to actively oppose evil, to confront it.
Goodness recognizes evil where it exists, and calls it by its name. Niceness refrains from judging or confronting, except when condemning those who speak unflattering and uncomfortable truths.
Goodness takes a stand, discerning and judging. Niceness takes a neutral position, so as not to judge, much less to 'condemn.' Even worse, sometimes niceness aids and abets evil, and expects praise and approbation for its 'tolerance' and 'broadmindedness' or 'compassion.'
If goodness were like the impostor, niceness, it would long ago have been extinguished altogether from lack of willingness to oppose evil.
Niceness is held in higher regard, sadly, by most Christians today, than goodness and righteousness.
It seems niceness is at bottom a part of pride: the desire to be seen by all as tolerant and accepting. It's a kind of conspicuous display of 'virtue', the kind of public posturing which caused the Pharisees to be condemned for their pride and hypocrisy.
I do understand the exasperation expressed by so many people who see the role played by this counterfeit Christianity in the destruction of the West. I suppose it's understandable that there is dismay, given the way much of Christianity has gone off the rails, adopting a psychology-based, pop-culture-ized, universalistic, one-world, no-borders belief system while continuing to call it Christianity.
This 'new and improved' Christianity knows nothing of the God of the Bible, having created a god in their image, a god who does not condemn, and does not punish, but instead is an indulgent, tolerant, all-accepting friend and buddy. Their 'god' is unfailingly nice, always the lamb and never a lion. The god of niceness is not the 'consuming fire' or the Just Judge of the Bible. That was the God of our Fathers, who was not only perfectly good but perfectly just. 'Goodness and severity' combined. As we believed in that God, our society then embodied 'goodness and severity', at least to the extent that any flawed human society can. Now we have lost the 'severity' or strength, and have thus exchanged goodness for its useless counterfeit, niceness.
God, according to the Bible, commands that we not only cleave to the good, but abhor evil. Abhor. That is a strong word, but it is not in the vocabulary of the 'niceness' cultists, hence their bland and vapid response to evil
The Christianity which has become the fad of today, with its show business style and its feel-good trappings and catchphrases, is another gospel, and it preaches a god who is only half a god, a god of bland niceness, all mercy and forgiveness and no justice.
And even many non-Christians or outright atheists actually worship this hollow idol of niceness, so it can't be blamed on Christians alone.
Whoever is ultimately to blame, and we can point fingers everywhere, the niceness will surely be the end of us; it's what brought us to where we are now, surrounded in our own country, like Gulliver bound by the Lilliputians.
Speaking of that analogy, Pat Boone's recent article about immigration used that same metaphor, which I've also used here on the blog.
I suppose it's an obvious metaphor; we are Gulliver, tied down by the Lilliputians surrounding us. And it may be that we simply don't know our own strength. It's our own false perceptions that are tying us down, including our false ideas about niceness and the real article, goodness.
We need only to look through the fog of our present era back to earlier times, when we knew and thought and believed with more clarity and strength than we do in our present bound, helpless condition.
The old strengths are still available to us, if we can only break free of our mental and spiritual bonds.
What I'm hearing and seeing is a deliberate program of making our young people believe that the Third World is our responsibility, and that being a good Christian involves feeling enormous guilt about how prosperous we are. After all, those poor people south of the 'border' have nothing, and we have everything.
Teenagers are emotional creatures, very susceptible to this kind of manipulation. Most are naive and have a tendency to want to help those who seem downtrodden or helpless, at least if those downtrodden people are Third Worlders.
So I don't blame the young people as much as I do their elders, who are just as emotionally vulnerable as the young people are. Is this another manifestation of our national adolescence? There are so many adults who seem to live as perpetual adolescents, with all the soft-headedness and gullibility that characterizes many immature young people.
One such person is a parent of one of the young folks who just came back after the guilt-trip (literally) south of the border. I am now hearing stories of how these youngsters were taken to a prison which is said to be 'controlled by gangs', and which is said to have an area where even the guards will not go, because the prisoners apparently have de facto control over that area.
Would any of you let your sons and daughters go into this prison, accompanied by a Christian chaperon who is as naive as the kids? I certainly wouldn't, especially a daughter. In today's PC climate, that is considered a 'racist' attitude, but a few decades ago it was simple common sense.
I don't hear of any concern or outrage on the part of the parents whose kids were taken into this prison to 'minister' to the criminals. Of course visiting those in prison is part of what Christians are enjoined to do. But surely some common sense should govern who goes to do this kind of thing, and under what conditions. Let grown men do this, not adolescent girls and boys with no clue about reality.
I am 100 percent certain that these parents would not let their sons and especially their daughters enter our state prison with its hardened criminals. But the Third World? They're all just victims there, of course, and we can't judge them, can we?
And another question occurs to me: Latin America was supposedly Christianized centuries ago, was it not? Why are missionaries and assorted other do-gooders, including kids, still having to bring them the Gospel?
That's a rather rhetorical question on my part; I don't believe that many Latin Americans are Christian, their beliefs being a hodgepodge of heathen superstition with various corrupted Catholic practices.
But even so, surely the many missionaries who go down there have spread the Gospel thoroughly? It seems to me that the purpose of going is to minister to the people's material needs, but why do Christians go there on seeming guilt tours? Is this part of the mission to make the young, especially, feel more connected to those who are coming to live among us? To give them more of a 'global consciousness'?
It may be noteworthy that the church sponsoring this is one of those 'seeker-sensitive' Oprah-ized churches. And though they are ostensibly Protestant, they seem to believe in 'earning' salvation by good works.
The kids, bless their idealistic hearts, are champing at the bit to go back and help those poor people 'who have nothing'.
The mother of one of the teens says that she now sees illegal immigration in a different light: these people 'have nothing', so it's understandable that they are entering our country in droves to find a 'better life.'
And just a side note: the woman in question has taken a tough line on illegals heretofore, sounding quite a bit like me at times, on the subject of the invasion. All it took was a few hearts-and-flowers stories about the poor peasants who 'have nothing', and she is suddenly full of sympathy for the illegals.
This encapsulates the average White American's response to the invasion. We are too prone to feel sympathy and pity for the poor illegals -- did you know they 'have nothing' in their countries? -- and to put our own interests last.
Our young people, as I said, are being inculcated with racial guilt, guilt over our supposed wrongs toward the have-nots of the world, and guilt for our prosperity and comfort. Protestants have not traditionally believed in self-flagellation and 'mortification of the flesh' as Catholics once did, but this is the modern equivalent, this racial guilt and a sense of enduring obligation to the downtrodden and the aggrieved have-nots of the world. So these kids will work and save money to go again next year to take care of the perpetual basket-cases of the world and thus do penance for their sin of being born White and born in a prosperous, comfortable country.
Maybe they are much better Christians than I, but then I don't pretend to be an exemplar in that regard.
At times I struggle with the question of whether I am a bad Christian or a bad human being because I am not inclined to such self-sacrifice and I don't believe we are compelled as Christians to embrace self-immolation, giving our home away to aliens, or sending our children into harm's way to make ourselves feel more virtuous.
This sending of our young to these dangerous and crime-ridden countries seems to me rather like the Old Testament stories of 'passing children through the fire', sacrificing them to the idol Moloch. That these local kids came back without having been physically harmed is beside the point; they are being indoctrinated into the multicult, which is Moloch in 21st century guise.
Again, I keep coming back to this idea of post-modern 'Christianity' as a cult of niceness, a mere empty shell of its former self.
Too many Christians today have no concept of goodness, knowing only 'niceness', which is an anemic, simpering caricature of Christian goodness. Niceness wishes only to think only good of everyone, even those who are evil, and those who are enemies of God. Niceness does not want to offend or exclude anyone. Niceness will tell flattering lies rather than unflattering truths. Niceness does not hold truth in high regard, as goodness does.
Niceness will not make tough decisions, or execute justice when needed; niceness wants only to accommodate everyone, please everyone, and make everyone 'equal', even though that flies in the face of justice. Niceness is a stranger to justice, and prefers it that way.
Niceness thinks that it is virtuous to give preference to those who least merit it, or least deserve it. Niceness seeks recognition for being self-abnegating and for appeasing evil -- in fact, niceness does not acknowledge that evil exists -- except in the case of those who violate political correctness.
In fact, political correctness is one of the most recognizable faces worn by 'niceness'; the emphasis is on falsehoods and obfuscation in the name of being 'sensitive.'
May the Lord preserve us from 'nice' people. Nice people are seldom good people.
Goodness includes within itself hardness when appropriate; true goodness is not weak and feeble, but strong and fearless, willing to actively oppose evil, to confront it.
Goodness recognizes evil where it exists, and calls it by its name. Niceness refrains from judging or confronting, except when condemning those who speak unflattering and uncomfortable truths.
Goodness takes a stand, discerning and judging. Niceness takes a neutral position, so as not to judge, much less to 'condemn.' Even worse, sometimes niceness aids and abets evil, and expects praise and approbation for its 'tolerance' and 'broadmindedness' or 'compassion.'
If goodness were like the impostor, niceness, it would long ago have been extinguished altogether from lack of willingness to oppose evil.
Niceness is held in higher regard, sadly, by most Christians today, than goodness and righteousness.
It seems niceness is at bottom a part of pride: the desire to be seen by all as tolerant and accepting. It's a kind of conspicuous display of 'virtue', the kind of public posturing which caused the Pharisees to be condemned for their pride and hypocrisy.
I do understand the exasperation expressed by so many people who see the role played by this counterfeit Christianity in the destruction of the West. I suppose it's understandable that there is dismay, given the way much of Christianity has gone off the rails, adopting a psychology-based, pop-culture-ized, universalistic, one-world, no-borders belief system while continuing to call it Christianity.
This 'new and improved' Christianity knows nothing of the God of the Bible, having created a god in their image, a god who does not condemn, and does not punish, but instead is an indulgent, tolerant, all-accepting friend and buddy. Their 'god' is unfailingly nice, always the lamb and never a lion. The god of niceness is not the 'consuming fire' or the Just Judge of the Bible. That was the God of our Fathers, who was not only perfectly good but perfectly just. 'Goodness and severity' combined. As we believed in that God, our society then embodied 'goodness and severity', at least to the extent that any flawed human society can. Now we have lost the 'severity' or strength, and have thus exchanged goodness for its useless counterfeit, niceness.
God, according to the Bible, commands that we not only cleave to the good, but abhor evil. Abhor. That is a strong word, but it is not in the vocabulary of the 'niceness' cultists, hence their bland and vapid response to evil
The Christianity which has become the fad of today, with its show business style and its feel-good trappings and catchphrases, is another gospel, and it preaches a god who is only half a god, a god of bland niceness, all mercy and forgiveness and no justice.
And even many non-Christians or outright atheists actually worship this hollow idol of niceness, so it can't be blamed on Christians alone.
Whoever is ultimately to blame, and we can point fingers everywhere, the niceness will surely be the end of us; it's what brought us to where we are now, surrounded in our own country, like Gulliver bound by the Lilliputians.
Speaking of that analogy, Pat Boone's recent article about immigration used that same metaphor, which I've also used here on the blog.
I suppose it's an obvious metaphor; we are Gulliver, tied down by the Lilliputians surrounding us. And it may be that we simply don't know our own strength. It's our own false perceptions that are tying us down, including our false ideas about niceness and the real article, goodness.
We need only to look through the fog of our present era back to earlier times, when we knew and thought and believed with more clarity and strength than we do in our present bound, helpless condition.
The old strengths are still available to us, if we can only break free of our mental and spiritual bonds.
Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Hypocrisy, Multicultists, Political Correctness
0 comment Saturday, June 7, 2014 | admin
Via Western Voices World News, a story about a California town which is being demographically changed by an engineered influx of Section 8 tenants.
'In 2006, as the influx reached its peak, the police department formed a special crime-fighting unit to deal with the complaints, and authorities began cracking down on tenants in federally subsidized housing.
Now that police unit is the focus of lawsuits by black families who allege the city of 100,000 is orchestrating a campaign to drive them out.
Across the country, similar tensions have simmered when federally subsidized renters escaped run-down housing projects and violent neighborhoods by moving to nicer communities in suburban Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles.
But the friction in Antioch is "hotter than elsewhere," said U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development spokesman Larry Bush.
An increasing number of poor families receiving federal rental assistance have been moving here in recent years, partly because of the housing crisis.''
Oddly, the link to the original story at MSNBC does not work; nor did another link which I found on another site, so it may well be that the story has been taken down by MSNBC. I wonder why? When a story as politically incorrect as this one appears, it usually draws many heated comments from both sides, and this sometimes results in the comments being closed, and/or the story being removed.
The officials quoted in the story that I read speak about trying to diffuse the poverty, and to end the segregation by income levels. It could also be seen as a typical deluded liberal attempt to 'raise' the level of the poor by planting them among more successful people, as if they can learn successful habits by osmosis. No, what happens is that they drag down the level of the neighborhood, putting their stamp on it, so that it becomes unlivable for the existing residents, and they flee, abandoning the now-decaying neighborhood to the newcomers.
Some people have suggested that this may be an effort to create the need for more housing to be built, as neighborhoods are destroyed and the displaced people have to seek homes elsewhere. This kind of slow-motion demolition can be very profitable for some.
But I suspect that the government, caught up in their 'diversity' mania, wants to ensure that there are no homogeneous White neighborhoods or towns left. We can run, but we can't hide. Diversity will find us wherever we go.
And we could also see mass immigration as another project along these lines, but on an international scale. If White neighborhoods are now considered forbidden, similarly will majority White countries be considered unacceptable and 'racist.'
If the answer to domestic poverty is to redistribute the poor throughout society as a whole, the same would apply to global poverty. The idea seems to be to bring the 'tired and poor' to our doorsteps like foundlings left on the church steps to be cared for. And the idea is to dismantle all semblances of neighborhood, kinship, and nationality.
As long as the soulless PC bureaucrats keep on with their mad schemes, they will have to step up the propaganda in order to quell the growing discontent, as people begin to realize what is being done to them and to their country. The social engineers are in a race against time. If they continue at too fast a pace, they risk provoking an enormous backlash. If they proceed too slowly, that gives dissenters more time to build awareness and sound the alarm. I think they are going for the accelerated approach.
'In 2006, as the influx reached its peak, the police department formed a special crime-fighting unit to deal with the complaints, and authorities began cracking down on tenants in federally subsidized housing.
Now that police unit is the focus of lawsuits by black families who allege the city of 100,000 is orchestrating a campaign to drive them out.
Across the country, similar tensions have simmered when federally subsidized renters escaped run-down housing projects and violent neighborhoods by moving to nicer communities in suburban Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles.
But the friction in Antioch is "hotter than elsewhere," said U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development spokesman Larry Bush.
An increasing number of poor families receiving federal rental assistance have been moving here in recent years, partly because of the housing crisis.''
Oddly, the link to the original story at MSNBC does not work; nor did another link which I found on another site, so it may well be that the story has been taken down by MSNBC. I wonder why? When a story as politically incorrect as this one appears, it usually draws many heated comments from both sides, and this sometimes results in the comments being closed, and/or the story being removed.
The officials quoted in the story that I read speak about trying to diffuse the poverty, and to end the segregation by income levels. It could also be seen as a typical deluded liberal attempt to 'raise' the level of the poor by planting them among more successful people, as if they can learn successful habits by osmosis. No, what happens is that they drag down the level of the neighborhood, putting their stamp on it, so that it becomes unlivable for the existing residents, and they flee, abandoning the now-decaying neighborhood to the newcomers.
Some people have suggested that this may be an effort to create the need for more housing to be built, as neighborhoods are destroyed and the displaced people have to seek homes elsewhere. This kind of slow-motion demolition can be very profitable for some.
But I suspect that the government, caught up in their 'diversity' mania, wants to ensure that there are no homogeneous White neighborhoods or towns left. We can run, but we can't hide. Diversity will find us wherever we go.
And we could also see mass immigration as another project along these lines, but on an international scale. If White neighborhoods are now considered forbidden, similarly will majority White countries be considered unacceptable and 'racist.'
If the answer to domestic poverty is to redistribute the poor throughout society as a whole, the same would apply to global poverty. The idea seems to be to bring the 'tired and poor' to our doorsteps like foundlings left on the church steps to be cared for. And the idea is to dismantle all semblances of neighborhood, kinship, and nationality.
As long as the soulless PC bureaucrats keep on with their mad schemes, they will have to step up the propaganda in order to quell the growing discontent, as people begin to realize what is being done to them and to their country. The social engineers are in a race against time. If they continue at too fast a pace, they risk provoking an enormous backlash. If they proceed too slowly, that gives dissenters more time to build awareness and sound the alarm. I think they are going for the accelerated approach.
Labels: Demographics, Diversity, Leftism, Liberalism, Multicultists
0 comment Saturday, May 31, 2014 | admin
Often among ethnonationalists, Russia is cited as the only hope for the future. I am always wary of this romanticizing of Russia. I realize many people are disenchanted with, if not downright bitter towards, the United States, and are prone to glamorize Russia. Beware; this is what the old lefties used to do, in their disillusionment with their country, and some eventually learned to their chagrin that the USSR was not the people's utopia they wanted desperately to have it be.
A few months ago, Medvedev and Putin mad statements condemning what they termed 'xenophobia'. So it is not surprising that now, Medvedev has made a speech praising multiculturalism and slamming nationalism.
''The president also said those linked to igniting interethnic hatred will be banned from educating youths.[...]
National accord starts from school, he believes, being the place where 'the basics of a person's view of the world' are laid.
[...]
Illiteracy is the basis of almost all conflicts, and especially interethnic ones, he says.
[...]
Multiculturalism not a failure
The president has pointed out the example of the United States.
'Nobody can insult anyone for their ethnicity, a punishment will follow inevitably. Sometimes people laugh at it, but I think it is better this way than to allow insults', he said. 'Tolerance can't be excessive,' he added."
Reuters quotes him as saying "If we talk about the failure of multiculturalism, then entire cultures can be destroyed, which is a dangerous thing...'
I don't think Russia is any kind of promised land, or a last bastion of 'Western White culture.' I think it is still true to say, as Churchill did decades ago:
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma..."
To most of us non-Russians, it is. Culturally they are very unlike us in most respects. I haven't been to that country but I have had considerable contact with people from that country.
It may be that things will change, but I don't believe we can count on that. However, to complete the quotation from Churchill,
"... perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Do the ordinary Russian people perceive that multiculturalism is not in their 'national interest'? I am not informed enough to answer that, but it is obvious that their current regime is on board with the globalist agenda, like most of the 'leaders'.
A few months ago, Medvedev and Putin mad statements condemning what they termed 'xenophobia'. So it is not surprising that now, Medvedev has made a speech praising multiculturalism and slamming nationalism.
''The president also said those linked to igniting interethnic hatred will be banned from educating youths.[...]
National accord starts from school, he believes, being the place where 'the basics of a person's view of the world' are laid.
[...]
Illiteracy is the basis of almost all conflicts, and especially interethnic ones, he says.
[...]
Multiculturalism not a failure
The president has pointed out the example of the United States.
'Nobody can insult anyone for their ethnicity, a punishment will follow inevitably. Sometimes people laugh at it, but I think it is better this way than to allow insults', he said. 'Tolerance can't be excessive,' he added."
Reuters quotes him as saying "If we talk about the failure of multiculturalism, then entire cultures can be destroyed, which is a dangerous thing...'
I don't think Russia is any kind of promised land, or a last bastion of 'Western White culture.' I think it is still true to say, as Churchill did decades ago:
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma..."
To most of us non-Russians, it is. Culturally they are very unlike us in most respects. I haven't been to that country but I have had considerable contact with people from that country.
It may be that things will change, but I don't believe we can count on that. However, to complete the quotation from Churchill,
"... perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Do the ordinary Russian people perceive that multiculturalism is not in their 'national interest'? I am not informed enough to answer that, but it is obvious that their current regime is on board with the globalist agenda, like most of the 'leaders'.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnonationalism, Globalism, Multicultists, Nativism, One World