0 comment Wednesday, October 29, 2014 | admin
I realize it's one of life's most futile endeavors to try to understand the sub-species of people called variously "liberals" "Democrats" or "progressives". I am convinced they don't even understand themselves. It is no news to anybody who pays attention that they hold a confused mass of contradictory beliefs and that they refuse even to acknowledge the inherent contradictions in what they profess to believe, especially when their beliefs are compared with their actions.
Examples? I could give you many, and I am sure any of us could come up with different examples. But here's one, discussed recently by Steve Sailer, and discussed in the past on this blog: liberals claim to 'care' about the environment and population issues, yet they ardently advocate for mass immigration. Another: they decry and disparage White people who have large families while championing some of the most overly-fecund groups of people on the planet. You want more? They preach tolerance while shouting down and threatening those whose views are different.
Still, here I am trying to unravel their tangled ideas and make some sense of them.
I realize anecdotes are not proof of anything (unlike liberals, who belief anecdotes alone can prove their points or refute opponents' points) but anecdotes can illustrate patterns.
A friend and I were puzzling over the behavior and statements of two people we know, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom, predictably, voted for the present regime. Both are also women, but one is an elderly lady of 80 or so, while the other is a relative youngster at 50.
The commonality between these women, besides having voted for ''hope and change'', is that they are both White -- and both have some very politically incorrect beliefs on race. The octogenarian lady, understandably, given her age, uses some very politically incorrect language; she tends to be very blunt and salty, and prolifically uses the 'n-word.' The younger woman is a little more steeped in the PC pieties which have saturated our media (and our minds) for the last few decades. Yet recently she surprised me by offering an unsolicited opinion that when it comes to marriage and reproduction, people should 'stay with their own kind.' This rather took me by surprise, knowing that this woman voted as she did, and considering that she and I don't usually discuss these 'controversial' topics. Her burst of candor was provoked by her recently learning that a family friend had married interracially and had two biracial children of the union.
The older lady, I would suspect, would agree with her rather bluntly. Yet both of these women voted not just for a black president, but they support the multicultural/diversity agenda promoted by the political party they've chosen.
How can we explain this?
I've noticed this pattern with other Democrat/liberal people -- usually with women. A past co-worker of mine was quite the Democrat partisan, and a typical dilettante liberal, involved in every sort of hippy-dippy liberal/lefty/New-Age-y cause, but she too would say these very politically incorrect things on race. After returning from a day-long outing to Chinatown, though she loved her 'diversity', she announced it was wonderful to be back among her own kind. She also informed me that she would no longer hire Asians because she had had an Asian immigrant employee who quit without notice.
In my recent post 'Silence gives consent' I discussed how it seems that many people do not really, deep-down, believe in this multicultural, anti-White order that we have. They may give lip service to it, but the multicult propagandists don't seem to have succeeded in completely overwriting all of the innate natural preferences people have, regarding race and ethnicity, or in erasing the traces of the old cultural order, which allowed people to take note of the obvious differences among groups of people -- and to act accordingly. There are still some vestiges of these things even among liberals; whether you believe it is innate or learned, it's still there.
I suppose the FReepers and the rest of the colorblind conservative crowd would seize on the above anecdotes as more proof that 'liberals are the real racists' and 'Democrats are the haters, not Republicans.' No, I don't believe it's that simple, and moreover I think it's high time Republicans stopped trying to outdo the Democrats at currying favor with minorities and proving their lack of 'racism.'
Do these 'racist' liberals realize that their words don't fit their professed beliefs, and that it is bizarre to vote for a party or an ideology that would actually condemn them for even having taboo thoughts about race? Or is it understood somehow that if you vote the correct way, you get a free pass on certain politically incorrect statements because you are not a Republican or 'conservative'? Maybe that's the deal; in much the same way, blacks can freely use the 'n-word' while Whites are raked over the coals for even saying anything that remotely sounds like the n-word -- remember the furore over the word 'niggardly'? And we've all seen examples of lefty celebrities getting a pass on saying taboo things, while a Mel Gibson or a Dr. Laura are pilloried and all but run out of town.
I am left with just one plausible explanation as to why certain White people who seem to be somewhat racially aware still side with non-Whites politically, and support a political agenda that is anti-White to the core. The only explanation that might begin to make some sense of it is that the right, whether the Republican Party or conservatives in general or White Christians are portrayed as being so odious and so reprehensible that the only 'decent' thing to do is to vote Democrat. Somebody has done a very good job of villainizing the right, and the traditional order of things in this country.
There are people who voted for the current order of things who are not the brainwashed 'mad-dog liberals', as Cambria Will Not Yield calls them. They are not the true-believer ideologues or the nihilists that make up many of the so-called 'anti-fascist' young radicals. They are just people, often passive or uninformed, who have been persuaded that White 'conservatives' are a bigger danger to this country than any other group of people.
And though the statement I'm about to make may step on some toes, the fact is, the right can at times be its own worst enemy. When I was a liberal I believed, as liberals/leftists universally believe, that the right, including the not-that-conservative Republicans, are the champions of big corporations, big business, globalism, fat cats, and so on. There is something to this; all too often, the Republican Party is dominated by the Country Club 'respectables' who care only about their financial interests and the good opinion of their peers. There is too little regard for the salt-of-the-earth people of this country among many 'conservatives.' Therefore some rather well-intentioned but not very perceptive people have deluded themselves into thinking that the Democrat Party is for ''The People'' or ''the working man.'' Such of course is not the case; they, too, are the party of the elites and the 'fat cats' and the globalist predators, but they have managed to fool many people into buying the notion of their compassion.
I can only think that many people are still Democrats only because they have come to be convinced that the Democrats truly are the lesser of the evils. Whatever negative views they hold about the favored victim groups, their negative opinions of the Republicans are stronger.
Examples? I could give you many, and I am sure any of us could come up with different examples. But here's one, discussed recently by Steve Sailer, and discussed in the past on this blog: liberals claim to 'care' about the environment and population issues, yet they ardently advocate for mass immigration. Another: they decry and disparage White people who have large families while championing some of the most overly-fecund groups of people on the planet. You want more? They preach tolerance while shouting down and threatening those whose views are different.
Still, here I am trying to unravel their tangled ideas and make some sense of them.
I realize anecdotes are not proof of anything (unlike liberals, who belief anecdotes alone can prove their points or refute opponents' points) but anecdotes can illustrate patterns.
A friend and I were puzzling over the behavior and statements of two people we know, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom, predictably, voted for the present regime. Both are also women, but one is an elderly lady of 80 or so, while the other is a relative youngster at 50.
The commonality between these women, besides having voted for ''hope and change'', is that they are both White -- and both have some very politically incorrect beliefs on race. The octogenarian lady, understandably, given her age, uses some very politically incorrect language; she tends to be very blunt and salty, and prolifically uses the 'n-word.' The younger woman is a little more steeped in the PC pieties which have saturated our media (and our minds) for the last few decades. Yet recently she surprised me by offering an unsolicited opinion that when it comes to marriage and reproduction, people should 'stay with their own kind.' This rather took me by surprise, knowing that this woman voted as she did, and considering that she and I don't usually discuss these 'controversial' topics. Her burst of candor was provoked by her recently learning that a family friend had married interracially and had two biracial children of the union.
The older lady, I would suspect, would agree with her rather bluntly. Yet both of these women voted not just for a black president, but they support the multicultural/diversity agenda promoted by the political party they've chosen.
How can we explain this?
I've noticed this pattern with other Democrat/liberal people -- usually with women. A past co-worker of mine was quite the Democrat partisan, and a typical dilettante liberal, involved in every sort of hippy-dippy liberal/lefty/New-Age-y cause, but she too would say these very politically incorrect things on race. After returning from a day-long outing to Chinatown, though she loved her 'diversity', she announced it was wonderful to be back among her own kind. She also informed me that she would no longer hire Asians because she had had an Asian immigrant employee who quit without notice.
In my recent post 'Silence gives consent' I discussed how it seems that many people do not really, deep-down, believe in this multicultural, anti-White order that we have. They may give lip service to it, but the multicult propagandists don't seem to have succeeded in completely overwriting all of the innate natural preferences people have, regarding race and ethnicity, or in erasing the traces of the old cultural order, which allowed people to take note of the obvious differences among groups of people -- and to act accordingly. There are still some vestiges of these things even among liberals; whether you believe it is innate or learned, it's still there.
I suppose the FReepers and the rest of the colorblind conservative crowd would seize on the above anecdotes as more proof that 'liberals are the real racists' and 'Democrats are the haters, not Republicans.' No, I don't believe it's that simple, and moreover I think it's high time Republicans stopped trying to outdo the Democrats at currying favor with minorities and proving their lack of 'racism.'
Do these 'racist' liberals realize that their words don't fit their professed beliefs, and that it is bizarre to vote for a party or an ideology that would actually condemn them for even having taboo thoughts about race? Or is it understood somehow that if you vote the correct way, you get a free pass on certain politically incorrect statements because you are not a Republican or 'conservative'? Maybe that's the deal; in much the same way, blacks can freely use the 'n-word' while Whites are raked over the coals for even saying anything that remotely sounds like the n-word -- remember the furore over the word 'niggardly'? And we've all seen examples of lefty celebrities getting a pass on saying taboo things, while a Mel Gibson or a Dr. Laura are pilloried and all but run out of town.
I am left with just one plausible explanation as to why certain White people who seem to be somewhat racially aware still side with non-Whites politically, and support a political agenda that is anti-White to the core. The only explanation that might begin to make some sense of it is that the right, whether the Republican Party or conservatives in general or White Christians are portrayed as being so odious and so reprehensible that the only 'decent' thing to do is to vote Democrat. Somebody has done a very good job of villainizing the right, and the traditional order of things in this country.
There are people who voted for the current order of things who are not the brainwashed 'mad-dog liberals', as Cambria Will Not Yield calls them. They are not the true-believer ideologues or the nihilists that make up many of the so-called 'anti-fascist' young radicals. They are just people, often passive or uninformed, who have been persuaded that White 'conservatives' are a bigger danger to this country than any other group of people.
And though the statement I'm about to make may step on some toes, the fact is, the right can at times be its own worst enemy. When I was a liberal I believed, as liberals/leftists universally believe, that the right, including the not-that-conservative Republicans, are the champions of big corporations, big business, globalism, fat cats, and so on. There is something to this; all too often, the Republican Party is dominated by the Country Club 'respectables' who care only about their financial interests and the good opinion of their peers. There is too little regard for the salt-of-the-earth people of this country among many 'conservatives.' Therefore some rather well-intentioned but not very perceptive people have deluded themselves into thinking that the Democrat Party is for ''The People'' or ''the working man.'' Such of course is not the case; they, too, are the party of the elites and the 'fat cats' and the globalist predators, but they have managed to fool many people into buying the notion of their compassion.
I can only think that many people are still Democrats only because they have come to be convinced that the Democrats truly are the lesser of the evils. Whatever negative views they hold about the favored victim groups, their negative opinions of the Republicans are stronger.
Labels: Liberal Hypocrisy, Partisanship, Political Correctness, Racial Realism
0 comment Friday, July 4, 2014 | admin
The theme of the "house divided" has been a recurring one on this blog, and as a result of a conversation today, it's been brought home to me once again.
It seems I was talking to a relative, and the subject of the economic crisis came up. Actually I brought it up. After we discussed today's events on Wall Street -- about which neither of us are experts -- I merely said it seems that all those "in charge" have lost their minds. Little did I think that would be an opening for this relative of mine to unload on me, and start shouting "I hate that -- that woman! McCain has lost his mind. I can't stand that woman, that Sarah Palin!" This was said with an explosive vehemence that really caught me off guard, because the conversation to this point had been fairly low-key.
The anger and contempt in her voice shocked and annoyed me, I confess. I have been reading wall-to-wall bashing of Sarah Palin on many blogs and forums, both left and (especially) right, and I am worn out with it.
At any rate, I merely asked this relative: "what is it exactly that you hate so much about her?" She merely said "Everything! Everything." I said: give me some rational reasons.
She struggled and finally said ''she has no experience. She's stupid. She HAS FIVE KIDS!" I calmly said, "my mother had five kids." She said, "Well, I mean Palin wants to be leader of the free world, and she ought to be at home with those kids." This, mind you, from a feminist who taught her own daughters to shun marriage and family commitments.
And besides, as I pointed out, it's McCain who is running for President, not Palin.
But she answered 'McCain is old. He may not last long, then SHE'LL be President.''
I told her that she should be more afraid of Obama being elected than Palin. By this time hysteria was creeping into her voice, and she said, ''well, I'm not! I'm not!"
I simply don't understand the intense anger this relative of mine displayed, and even less do I understand why many ''conservatives'' show the same kind of anger and disgust towards Sarah Palin.
So now I have this relative with whom I have had a falling-out (she hung up on me, after some harsh words) and I begin to see how it was back in the days leading up to the War Between the States, during which it is always said that it was, in some households, brother against brother. It seems to me that the rhetoric is ratcheting up and feelings are running inexplicably high. It seems that for some people politics is thicker than blood, and it seems we in this country, as a national family, are becoming about as polarized as this angry relative and I. And if we think that our liberal counterparts are already, by their choice, no longer part of our national family, it seems that the ''conservative'' family is about to break apart, too, as people are willing to fight and separate rather than give up their particular viewpoints.
And maybe it's a good thing in the long run, this sifting. Sometimes any unity is illusory, and rifts -- or schisms -- like this one merely show the split that already exists, below the surface. When the dust clears we will see who is who and who is where.
I don't know how to mend this spat with my relative; we don't live in the same town and we don't see each other often, so for now I am letting it lie. I am not quick to apologize when I do not feel in the wrong, but if we are to reconcile, I know it will take an apology on my part, along with a large helping of humble pie, before I will be 'forgiven.' Still, since this relative of mine has such irreconcilably different views of life and of values and of what the future should be, I see little common ground between us, which is sad. I believe that family ties are just about the most important bonds we have in this life, and I don't take things like this lightly. I am a loyal person.
Along the same lines, I have a good friend since college days that is a political and religious liberal, and that fact has strained our friendship. It has certainly put a damper on our spontaneity in speaking our minds to each other. And yet if we cannot speak freely and honestly among friends, much less family, there is not much of a bond there. We can't have much of a relationship if we are afraid to speak our minds and to be open about what we believe and what we value.
It seems when people are so at odds about the important matters, any relationship between them can only be of the most superficial nature in order to avoid open clashes, and that is surely not what family relationships and friendships are supposed to be.
My impulse today, and maybe this will pass, is to shun all things political until this horrible election cycle from Hell is over, and then we shall see what we shall see.
I would love to think that my relative will learn from her mistakes, and see that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for majority America, but do you know, I don't think anything will cause her to have a change of heart, or say ''you were right; I was wrong. Now I see." No, liberals don't do that. No matter how bad things become, there will be a way to blame it on the Republicans or the 'racists' or whoever else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't see now will likely never see. Worse is better? No, people find a way to explain away the 'worse' and to blame it on the wrong people, 90 percent of the time.
I have no faith in the possibility of mass awakenings on either side of the aisle, in the event Obama is elected.
And I'm having to work hard at mustering up some faith in my brethren right at this moment, and without that faith, as I said, we stand in danger of becoming embittered or alienated from each other.
I don't even know if I would call myself a ''conservative'' since there are so many varieties of belief and opinion under that label now. I am opposed to what is called liberalism or socialism or leftism, and that is about all I seem to have in common with those who are called 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists.' And I don't know if being anti-liberal or anti-leftist or anti-multiculturalist is enough to bring us all together, if we disagree on so many basic themes. There has to be more agreement among us if this house is to be kept standing.
It seems I was talking to a relative, and the subject of the economic crisis came up. Actually I brought it up. After we discussed today's events on Wall Street -- about which neither of us are experts -- I merely said it seems that all those "in charge" have lost their minds. Little did I think that would be an opening for this relative of mine to unload on me, and start shouting "I hate that -- that woman! McCain has lost his mind. I can't stand that woman, that Sarah Palin!" This was said with an explosive vehemence that really caught me off guard, because the conversation to this point had been fairly low-key.
The anger and contempt in her voice shocked and annoyed me, I confess. I have been reading wall-to-wall bashing of Sarah Palin on many blogs and forums, both left and (especially) right, and I am worn out with it.
At any rate, I merely asked this relative: "what is it exactly that you hate so much about her?" She merely said "Everything! Everything." I said: give me some rational reasons.
She struggled and finally said ''she has no experience. She's stupid. She HAS FIVE KIDS!" I calmly said, "my mother had five kids." She said, "Well, I mean Palin wants to be leader of the free world, and she ought to be at home with those kids." This, mind you, from a feminist who taught her own daughters to shun marriage and family commitments.
And besides, as I pointed out, it's McCain who is running for President, not Palin.
But she answered 'McCain is old. He may not last long, then SHE'LL be President.''
I told her that she should be more afraid of Obama being elected than Palin. By this time hysteria was creeping into her voice, and she said, ''well, I'm not! I'm not!"
I simply don't understand the intense anger this relative of mine displayed, and even less do I understand why many ''conservatives'' show the same kind of anger and disgust towards Sarah Palin.
So now I have this relative with whom I have had a falling-out (she hung up on me, after some harsh words) and I begin to see how it was back in the days leading up to the War Between the States, during which it is always said that it was, in some households, brother against brother. It seems to me that the rhetoric is ratcheting up and feelings are running inexplicably high. It seems that for some people politics is thicker than blood, and it seems we in this country, as a national family, are becoming about as polarized as this angry relative and I. And if we think that our liberal counterparts are already, by their choice, no longer part of our national family, it seems that the ''conservative'' family is about to break apart, too, as people are willing to fight and separate rather than give up their particular viewpoints.
And maybe it's a good thing in the long run, this sifting. Sometimes any unity is illusory, and rifts -- or schisms -- like this one merely show the split that already exists, below the surface. When the dust clears we will see who is who and who is where.
I don't know how to mend this spat with my relative; we don't live in the same town and we don't see each other often, so for now I am letting it lie. I am not quick to apologize when I do not feel in the wrong, but if we are to reconcile, I know it will take an apology on my part, along with a large helping of humble pie, before I will be 'forgiven.' Still, since this relative of mine has such irreconcilably different views of life and of values and of what the future should be, I see little common ground between us, which is sad. I believe that family ties are just about the most important bonds we have in this life, and I don't take things like this lightly. I am a loyal person.
Along the same lines, I have a good friend since college days that is a political and religious liberal, and that fact has strained our friendship. It has certainly put a damper on our spontaneity in speaking our minds to each other. And yet if we cannot speak freely and honestly among friends, much less family, there is not much of a bond there. We can't have much of a relationship if we are afraid to speak our minds and to be open about what we believe and what we value.
It seems when people are so at odds about the important matters, any relationship between them can only be of the most superficial nature in order to avoid open clashes, and that is surely not what family relationships and friendships are supposed to be.
My impulse today, and maybe this will pass, is to shun all things political until this horrible election cycle from Hell is over, and then we shall see what we shall see.
I would love to think that my relative will learn from her mistakes, and see that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for majority America, but do you know, I don't think anything will cause her to have a change of heart, or say ''you were right; I was wrong. Now I see." No, liberals don't do that. No matter how bad things become, there will be a way to blame it on the Republicans or the 'racists' or whoever else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't see now will likely never see. Worse is better? No, people find a way to explain away the 'worse' and to blame it on the wrong people, 90 percent of the time.
I have no faith in the possibility of mass awakenings on either side of the aisle, in the event Obama is elected.
And I'm having to work hard at mustering up some faith in my brethren right at this moment, and without that faith, as I said, we stand in danger of becoming embittered or alienated from each other.
I don't even know if I would call myself a ''conservative'' since there are so many varieties of belief and opinion under that label now. I am opposed to what is called liberalism or socialism or leftism, and that is about all I seem to have in common with those who are called 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists.' And I don't know if being anti-liberal or anti-leftist or anti-multiculturalist is enough to bring us all together, if we disagree on so many basic themes. There has to be more agreement among us if this house is to be kept standing.
Labels: Conservatives, Disunity, Divisiveness, Liberals, Partisanship, Party Politics
0 comment Monday, June 23, 2014 | admin
The British media commentators have been writing more perceptively on the election in some cases than have our homegrown 'news' media. Here is another example (H/T David Thompson)
...Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.
In this, American liberals are no different from the politically committed the world over. David Cameron knew that he would never be Prime Minister until he had killed the urgent hatred of the Conservative party in liberal England. A measure of his success is that hardly anyone now is caught up by the once ubiquitous feeling that no compromise is too great if it stops the Tories regaining power. Hate can sell better than hope.''
I haven't read the comments following the article; judging by the discussion at Thompson's blog, the commenters at the original article became predictably ugly; after all, we are talking about rabid leftists here.
'Hate' is an overused word, particularly by the left, but it isn't too strong a word for much of the liberal/leftist reaction to Mrs. Palin. She represents everything they seethe with loathing for: rural White people, small-town people, 'right-wing' Christians, large families, traditional American values. They would obliterate all these things if they could flip a switch and do so, and it angers them that they cannot.
I notice the latest attack against her is because of her church's stance on homosexuality.
Now it will be open season on conservative Christians, and I am sure the left is thrilled that Mrs. Palin attends a 'homophobic' church so that they may bash her in furtherance of their pro-homosexual agenda.
Even those of you who have taken a dislike to Mrs. Palin should see that she is going to stand in for the rest of us in being the target of these attacks. She represents most of the aspects of the old America that are anathema to the left, and they won't spare her.
We ain't seen nothin' yet.
...Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.
In this, American liberals are no different from the politically committed the world over. David Cameron knew that he would never be Prime Minister until he had killed the urgent hatred of the Conservative party in liberal England. A measure of his success is that hardly anyone now is caught up by the once ubiquitous feeling that no compromise is too great if it stops the Tories regaining power. Hate can sell better than hope.''
I haven't read the comments following the article; judging by the discussion at Thompson's blog, the commenters at the original article became predictably ugly; after all, we are talking about rabid leftists here.
'Hate' is an overused word, particularly by the left, but it isn't too strong a word for much of the liberal/leftist reaction to Mrs. Palin. She represents everything they seethe with loathing for: rural White people, small-town people, 'right-wing' Christians, large families, traditional American values. They would obliterate all these things if they could flip a switch and do so, and it angers them that they cannot.
I notice the latest attack against her is because of her church's stance on homosexuality.
Now it will be open season on conservative Christians, and I am sure the left is thrilled that Mrs. Palin attends a 'homophobic' church so that they may bash her in furtherance of their pro-homosexual agenda.
Even those of you who have taken a dislike to Mrs. Palin should see that she is going to stand in for the rest of us in being the target of these attacks. She represents most of the aspects of the old America that are anathema to the left, and they won't spare her.
We ain't seen nothin' yet.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Leftists, Liberals, Partisanship, Party Politics