0 comment Sunday, August 10, 2014 | admin
''It is the Devil's cleverest guile to convince us he doesn't exist.'' - Baudelaire
This quote came to mind when I was reading various online discussions pooh-poohing ''conspiracy theories.'' I put the phrase in scare quotes not because I scoff at the idea of conspiracies, but because it seems that the phrase is abused, being deployed to discredit any unpopular or uncomfortable assertion. Just call some idea or bit of information or theory a 'conspiracy theory' and you have marginalized the person who asserts it and derided the idea or information. Or so you hope. The scoffer generally tries only feebly, if at all, to refute the ideas or beliefs factually or by making good counterarguments; the scoffer is just indulging in ad hominem attacks.
And it does work a certain percentage of the time. It works because there are a great many people who are just not that concerned with truth. Some people are scared by the thought of an actual conspiracy being conducted, especially if the purported conspiracy threatens their safety, security, or prosperity. The instinctual response is to hide the head in the sand, and deny the truth of your opponent's words. "It can't be true! How could they hide something like that? We'd all know about it if that were true!"
Then follows the typical response: "you're crazy! You're paranoid. Where'd you hear that? Some right-wing extremist blog? Where's your tinfoil hat? Do you hear voices too?"
There are others who are the know-it-all type, who are sure of all the information they think they know, and who have a ready answer for anything. They like to feel in control, and they seem to hate the idea that there might be many unknowns, or mysteries, or outright conspiracies that might threaten them.
Then there are those (and they may be the majority) who scoff because they are fearful of being ridiculed by somebody else as a 'tinfoil-hat' wearer, a conspiracy kook, an extremist. Oftentimes people of this follower-like nature listen avidly to the popular pundits who jeer at 'birthers' or 'truthers' or 'fearmongers.'
The follower types often have to have one of their favorite personalities or pundits validate some belief or rumor before they will pick up on it. But it takes the seal of approval of some revered authority figure before they will follow along with an idea or belief.
I followed a link somewhere to a blog where the blogger made a blanket statement that 'conspiracy theories' are nonsense, and that he outright rejected anything implying a conspiracy. There is no dearth of people, right or left, shouting down the 'birthers' or eligibility skeptics.
But how can anybody reject the idea of a conspiracy out of hand?
All we have to do is look back through history, and history is rife with chronicles of various conspiracies. How many kings or emperors or popes, for example, were targets of conspiracies against them? How many countries invaded or conquered via conspiracies, often involving a fifth column inside the target country?
If we look back to Rome, there was the Catiline conspiracy, as well as the conspiracy against Julius Caesar. There are more recent examples aplenty, and I won't list them, but obviously there are conspiracies. To argue that such things don't happen in the real world is absurd, considering documented examples down through the centuries.
It may be true that in our age, people are more prone to suspect conspiracies when something shocking happens, something we did not expect. For example, Princess Diana's death, or even Elvis's death. While it may seem outlandish to speculate on whether 9/11 was 'an inside job' as some say, or that it was at least known to be in the planning stages and allowed to happen, the suspicion is understandable, given the circumstances surrounding Pearl Harbor, with the government apparently having cracked the Japanese codes. It's alleged, and believed by quite a few people, that the attack was allowed to happen so as to be a casus belli, a pretext for entering the War. Many Americans had noninterventionist or so-called 'isolationist' sentiments, and were reluctant to go to war.
And I think I can safely say that most ethnonationalists in the Western world, in the historically White countries, believe that there is a broad plan, not acknowledged fully by the 'elites', to create a globalist one-world system where everyone is compelled to blend with everybody else, and the minority White race thereby blended out of existence.
The scoffers and followers say this is conspiracy-mongering, especially if the belief involves a Jewish influence at the heart of the plans. In that case, the idea is not only 'crazy', so they say, but 'anti-Semitic' as well, and therefore taboo.
Now the eligibility skeptics are being branded with the 'racist' label as well as the 'kook' or paranoid label. This is obviously meant to discredit and smear the 'birthers'.
But the debate, if you can call some of the shouting matches a 'debate', is taking some very strange turns. It seems as if the anti-birthers are saying that it is all a trap, that the birth certificate just released is a deliberately blatant forgery meant to lure the right into a trap, and to make the right look crazy. So their idea is that the issue must not be talked about; just be quiet about it and concentrate on ''the real issues'', whatever those are.
Whichever way you look at that, it seems to me that this approach is in fact letting the left control us; we are reacting to their propaganda, rather than trying to uncover the facts.
There seem to be many 'conservatives' today who are paralyzed by what their enemies say or think about them. The same people who are running from the eligibility issue are those who are always trying to prove they are not 'racists'. They are dancing to the left's tune on cue, and they don't realize that.
Do they really believe that conspiracies don't happen, and that things are just what they seem, always? I doubt it; I think they are just whistling in the dark, like the people who don't believe that a devil exists. To oppose evil, we first have to acknowledge its existence. Closing our eyes doesn't make the evil disappear.
This quote came to mind when I was reading various online discussions pooh-poohing ''conspiracy theories.'' I put the phrase in scare quotes not because I scoff at the idea of conspiracies, but because it seems that the phrase is abused, being deployed to discredit any unpopular or uncomfortable assertion. Just call some idea or bit of information or theory a 'conspiracy theory' and you have marginalized the person who asserts it and derided the idea or information. Or so you hope. The scoffer generally tries only feebly, if at all, to refute the ideas or beliefs factually or by making good counterarguments; the scoffer is just indulging in ad hominem attacks.
And it does work a certain percentage of the time. It works because there are a great many people who are just not that concerned with truth. Some people are scared by the thought of an actual conspiracy being conducted, especially if the purported conspiracy threatens their safety, security, or prosperity. The instinctual response is to hide the head in the sand, and deny the truth of your opponent's words. "It can't be true! How could they hide something like that? We'd all know about it if that were true!"
Then follows the typical response: "you're crazy! You're paranoid. Where'd you hear that? Some right-wing extremist blog? Where's your tinfoil hat? Do you hear voices too?"
There are others who are the know-it-all type, who are sure of all the information they think they know, and who have a ready answer for anything. They like to feel in control, and they seem to hate the idea that there might be many unknowns, or mysteries, or outright conspiracies that might threaten them.
Then there are those (and they may be the majority) who scoff because they are fearful of being ridiculed by somebody else as a 'tinfoil-hat' wearer, a conspiracy kook, an extremist. Oftentimes people of this follower-like nature listen avidly to the popular pundits who jeer at 'birthers' or 'truthers' or 'fearmongers.'
The follower types often have to have one of their favorite personalities or pundits validate some belief or rumor before they will pick up on it. But it takes the seal of approval of some revered authority figure before they will follow along with an idea or belief.
I followed a link somewhere to a blog where the blogger made a blanket statement that 'conspiracy theories' are nonsense, and that he outright rejected anything implying a conspiracy. There is no dearth of people, right or left, shouting down the 'birthers' or eligibility skeptics.
But how can anybody reject the idea of a conspiracy out of hand?
All we have to do is look back through history, and history is rife with chronicles of various conspiracies. How many kings or emperors or popes, for example, were targets of conspiracies against them? How many countries invaded or conquered via conspiracies, often involving a fifth column inside the target country?
If we look back to Rome, there was the Catiline conspiracy, as well as the conspiracy against Julius Caesar. There are more recent examples aplenty, and I won't list them, but obviously there are conspiracies. To argue that such things don't happen in the real world is absurd, considering documented examples down through the centuries.
It may be true that in our age, people are more prone to suspect conspiracies when something shocking happens, something we did not expect. For example, Princess Diana's death, or even Elvis's death. While it may seem outlandish to speculate on whether 9/11 was 'an inside job' as some say, or that it was at least known to be in the planning stages and allowed to happen, the suspicion is understandable, given the circumstances surrounding Pearl Harbor, with the government apparently having cracked the Japanese codes. It's alleged, and believed by quite a few people, that the attack was allowed to happen so as to be a casus belli, a pretext for entering the War. Many Americans had noninterventionist or so-called 'isolationist' sentiments, and were reluctant to go to war.
And I think I can safely say that most ethnonationalists in the Western world, in the historically White countries, believe that there is a broad plan, not acknowledged fully by the 'elites', to create a globalist one-world system where everyone is compelled to blend with everybody else, and the minority White race thereby blended out of existence.
The scoffers and followers say this is conspiracy-mongering, especially if the belief involves a Jewish influence at the heart of the plans. In that case, the idea is not only 'crazy', so they say, but 'anti-Semitic' as well, and therefore taboo.
Now the eligibility skeptics are being branded with the 'racist' label as well as the 'kook' or paranoid label. This is obviously meant to discredit and smear the 'birthers'.
But the debate, if you can call some of the shouting matches a 'debate', is taking some very strange turns. It seems as if the anti-birthers are saying that it is all a trap, that the birth certificate just released is a deliberately blatant forgery meant to lure the right into a trap, and to make the right look crazy. So their idea is that the issue must not be talked about; just be quiet about it and concentrate on ''the real issues'', whatever those are.
Whichever way you look at that, it seems to me that this approach is in fact letting the left control us; we are reacting to their propaganda, rather than trying to uncover the facts.
There seem to be many 'conservatives' today who are paralyzed by what their enemies say or think about them. The same people who are running from the eligibility issue are those who are always trying to prove they are not 'racists'. They are dancing to the left's tune on cue, and they don't realize that.
Do they really believe that conspiracies don't happen, and that things are just what they seem, always? I doubt it; I think they are just whistling in the dark, like the people who don't believe that a devil exists. To oppose evil, we first have to acknowledge its existence. Closing our eyes doesn't make the evil disappear.
Labels: Conservatives, Conspiracy Theories, History, Partisan Politics
0 comment Sunday, June 22, 2014 | admin
It used to be conventional wisdom that a politician's character was reflected in all areas of life, and that a man who was an adulterer was not to be trusted. In this postmodern, post-Christian America -- or more appropriately, post-Clinton America, adultery is to be winked at, and not condemned in a politician. Clinton and his supporters argued that adultery by an elected official was 'just about sex' and 'between two spouses, and none of the public's business.' And this is the default view even among 'conservatives' now. Social conservatism is moribund in the New, post-American America.
I don't particularly care to dwell on Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal life, but it seems the Republicans or 'conservatives' who backed him have buyer's remorse, and feel 'betrayed', rather like Maria, I suppose.
Some comments around the web say that Maria knew what she was in for when she married him, so she deserves no sympathy. I would say the same about the betrayed 'conservatives' who were such loud supporters of Schwarzenegger during the 2003 election campaign.
Back then, I was still a sort of standard conservative, and frequented Republican forums. Those of us who weren't Californians, who warned that Arnold was no conservative and not very qualified to be governor were told by Californians we should shut up because we had no right to express opinions about the race. There was a candidate named Tom McClintock who was far better qualified, and far more conservative than Arnold, but the Arnie groupies derided McClintock because of his appearance, said he couldn't win, he wasn't electable, and above all, he was a 'right-wing extremist.' Arnold himself made disparaging remarks about 'right-wing crazies' during the campaign, and the smitten Republican mainstream swooned over him. Love is blind, I suppose; I think the people who voted for Arnold were just as lovestruck as Maria evidently was when she said yes. I might be able, if I try, to muster up some sympathy for Maria, though I loathe her family's politics and the harm they have done to this nation (think: the 1965 Immigration Act). I have no sympathy, however, for the 'betrayed' Republicans who asked for this guy. More fools they.
Over the years, Schwarzenegger gradually showed his true colors. Back in 2005 he occasionally made conservative-sounding noises about amnesty, but his tough talk was just that -- just talk.
Years later he denies that the millions of illegals in California contribute to the budget crisis, and even says he is ''happy'' they are able to get state services.
And just recently, we read that Schwarzenegger pardoned the son of Fabian Nunez, former speaker of the California State Assembly, who was serving time for manslaughter in the stabbing of another young man.
As to why he did this, here is his nonchalant reply in a Newsweek interview:
"Well, hello! I mean, of course you help a friend."
Helping a friend? By thwarting justice? That's corruption, not helping a friend.
Noting the ethnicity of Arnold's paramour, it's hard not to wonder if his intimate involvement, including having a child by a Hispanic, colored his politics and the decisions he made, not only on amnesty and services for illegals, but in the Nunez case. I would think that having a half-Hispanic child could affect someone's objective judgement about Hispanics as a group. This is one more reason why liaisons with out-groups corrupt and weaken our society; there are more and more people with some kind of ties, marital or romantic or whatever, outside their own people, and those people invariably become double-minded.
And though it may be 'mean-spirited' to say this, his choice of a paramour shows that he is, well, an equal opportunity adulterer. No racist, looks-ist, or age-ist, he.
Of course, who are Schwarzenegger's people? I mean, to whom does his allegiance belong? I wonder if he really considers American Whites his people? Does he have his primary loyalties to us? I can only doubt it, based on the evidence.
Our Founding Fathers were emphatic that we must elect only native-born Americans to high office. The loyalties of the American-born are assumed to be undivided, and their experiences and worldview are more likely to be at one with the majority of Americans. And please remember that in the early days of this Republic, citizens were to be free-born White people. Racist? It's just the way it was then.
I have wondered, over the years, if Arnold's being chosen by the GOP hierarchy was a kind of warm-up or test run for a foreign-born candidate. There was talk among party honchos early on about whether or not he might be able to run, if the Constitution could be amended to allow non-native born Americans to be President. Maybe it was groundwork for our present situation. Just a thought.
I don't particularly care to dwell on Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal life, but it seems the Republicans or 'conservatives' who backed him have buyer's remorse, and feel 'betrayed', rather like Maria, I suppose.
Some comments around the web say that Maria knew what she was in for when she married him, so she deserves no sympathy. I would say the same about the betrayed 'conservatives' who were such loud supporters of Schwarzenegger during the 2003 election campaign.
Back then, I was still a sort of standard conservative, and frequented Republican forums. Those of us who weren't Californians, who warned that Arnold was no conservative and not very qualified to be governor were told by Californians we should shut up because we had no right to express opinions about the race. There was a candidate named Tom McClintock who was far better qualified, and far more conservative than Arnold, but the Arnie groupies derided McClintock because of his appearance, said he couldn't win, he wasn't electable, and above all, he was a 'right-wing extremist.' Arnold himself made disparaging remarks about 'right-wing crazies' during the campaign, and the smitten Republican mainstream swooned over him. Love is blind, I suppose; I think the people who voted for Arnold were just as lovestruck as Maria evidently was when she said yes. I might be able, if I try, to muster up some sympathy for Maria, though I loathe her family's politics and the harm they have done to this nation (think: the 1965 Immigration Act). I have no sympathy, however, for the 'betrayed' Republicans who asked for this guy. More fools they.
Over the years, Schwarzenegger gradually showed his true colors. Back in 2005 he occasionally made conservative-sounding noises about amnesty, but his tough talk was just that -- just talk.
Years later he denies that the millions of illegals in California contribute to the budget crisis, and even says he is ''happy'' they are able to get state services.
And just recently, we read that Schwarzenegger pardoned the son of Fabian Nunez, former speaker of the California State Assembly, who was serving time for manslaughter in the stabbing of another young man.
As to why he did this, here is his nonchalant reply in a Newsweek interview:
"Well, hello! I mean, of course you help a friend."
Helping a friend? By thwarting justice? That's corruption, not helping a friend.
Noting the ethnicity of Arnold's paramour, it's hard not to wonder if his intimate involvement, including having a child by a Hispanic, colored his politics and the decisions he made, not only on amnesty and services for illegals, but in the Nunez case. I would think that having a half-Hispanic child could affect someone's objective judgement about Hispanics as a group. This is one more reason why liaisons with out-groups corrupt and weaken our society; there are more and more people with some kind of ties, marital or romantic or whatever, outside their own people, and those people invariably become double-minded.
And though it may be 'mean-spirited' to say this, his choice of a paramour shows that he is, well, an equal opportunity adulterer. No racist, looks-ist, or age-ist, he.
Of course, who are Schwarzenegger's people? I mean, to whom does his allegiance belong? I wonder if he really considers American Whites his people? Does he have his primary loyalties to us? I can only doubt it, based on the evidence.
Our Founding Fathers were emphatic that we must elect only native-born Americans to high office. The loyalties of the American-born are assumed to be undivided, and their experiences and worldview are more likely to be at one with the majority of Americans. And please remember that in the early days of this Republic, citizens were to be free-born White people. Racist? It's just the way it was then.
I have wondered, over the years, if Arnold's being chosen by the GOP hierarchy was a kind of warm-up or test run for a foreign-born candidate. There was talk among party honchos early on about whether or not he might be able to run, if the Constitution could be amended to allow non-native born Americans to be President. Maybe it was groundwork for our present situation. Just a thought.
Labels: Gop, Natural-Born Citizens, Partisan Politics, Respectable Conservatives