0 comment Tuesday, October 21, 2014 | admin
From what I have seen in the video here, there is hardly a dime's worth of difference between these young people and the ones who storm the stage to harass and silence politically incorrect speakers on campuses. The only difference might be that these people are better-groomed and better-dressed, but still knee-deep in PC.
At the link there is a lengthy discussion going on around the video from CPAC, with the young ''conservatives'' rebuffing Jamie Kelso, and displaying an incredible level of ignorance in their 'arguments' against him.
There seems to be a consensus among many pro-White Americans that the Republican Party, and what is roughly called the 'conservative movement' is either useless or is in effect on the opposing side, along with their Democrat soul mates in political correctness.
However there is still a persistent idea that we can use the GOP as a vehicle for advancing our interests. I think everybody who has read this blog for any length of time knows where I stand. I started out as a more-or-less mainstream 'conservative' or Republican, although I had lost the veneer of political correctness long ago. My 'old American' realist upbringing kicked in and I began to wonder how and why American Whites seemed to have so little in common with our near ancestors. Even my parents generation, and maybe yours, dear readers, held what we now call 'racial realist' attitudes. So why did the 'conservatives' stop conserving, and start mimicking the liberal left, whom they claim to reject wholeheartedly?
Conservatives who don't want to conserve their own people, their own ethnicity, and don't consider their progeny or the future, are no conservatives by any definition I understand.
The Republican Party seems to want to preserve the material goods of life only, and all the hue and cry about 'smaller government' is only to that end. American conservatism has long since lost its soul, or sold its soul.
The 'Tea Party' candidates have proven to be as easily compromised as any other Republican, despite their pandering to the populist sentiments that have surfaced recently.
Personally I think the GOP is impervious to any efforts of White citizens to influence it away from its present policies.
Right now the party is busy recruiting 'diversity', and enlarging the 'big tent' so that one and all may be included, regardless.
Come one, come all, and bring your political correctness and ethnic grievances along.
Some say that this CPAC gathering was not representative of the party as a whole. Some social conservatives in the GOP objected to the pro-gay slant, but in general this seems to be the direction the party is going. Social conservatives are being marginalized, and seem to be fewer in number every year, as the older generations die.
But if you spend enough time on Republican forums on the internet you will see how very politically correct most 'mainstream' Republicans and conservatives have become, especially on racial issues. Most of the FReepers cling to the idea that 'legal immigration: good' while only illegal immigration is bad. Why? Because to state that all immigration should be halted, if only temporarily, is to invite a charge of racism. Some of those on these Republican forums and blogs will become like a pack of baying hounds when they scent anything that resembles 'racism' or anti-Semitism.
We see the behavior of these young people, who are likely from fairly prosperous backgrounds; they have been conditioned to attack when certain taboos are violated. Carleton Putnam in his 'Race and Reality' referred to 'hypnotism' in this connection, and watching some of these PC-saturated people in action makes one think they are under some kind of post-hypnotic suggestion, so quickly do they react to certain triggers. In any case, these are not thinking young people, but knee-jerk liberals, despite their Republican patter.
I don't believe it's an either/or situation, where we must choose between working with these indoctrinated liberal Republicans or simply accepting our demise. Those are not the only two choices.
And if we are in such a dire state that we are forced to try to work with people to whom we are anathema, then we are in such a desperate state that it's far too late for the gradual approach. And in fact I think we really don't have the leisure to use the gradual subtle approach, from within.
This is a subject that has come up before, and I will say the same thing I said to my readers of an earlier time: the point that must be understood is that we don't need to 'win over the masses' or attain a majority of people who agree with us. No great movement of history was ever driven by a majority. It has always been a relatively small group of people, highly-motivated, that has been behind the great movements and causes.
Unfortunately we seem to have a very highly-motivated group of people opposing us, and most unfortunate is the fact that they have enormous amounts of money and the media on their side, as their lackeys. It is hard for a few people to go up against this group of mostly unknown elites and the masses who follow their lead. But numbers don't always guarantee a win; there are any number of times in history in which the few have prevailed over a formidable many.
And again, this politically correct multicultural tower of Babel is an edifice that is built on lies, and is buttressed by lies upon lies. It is in conflict with human nature; it requires constant effort to keep it from collapsing of its own weight.
It takes the expenditure of a lot of energy to keep it standing. It apparently takes a lot of conditioning via the media and via peer pressure to maintain it. The fact that these people who are the power behind the scenes seem to feel the need to double down on the propaganda may mean that they are feeling uncertain of their success.
One more thing: this multicult monstrosity is very costly in terms of money; imagine how much has been spent and is being spent to construct it and to keep up the false façade.
To think that we have to hitch our wagon to the Republican Party is folly; as if that party is not decaying and crumbling along with the system of which it is a part.
I have hopes for the A3P, but we will see where that goes. And before somebody pipes up to tell us that 'no third party will ever succeed' -- I say that is the kind of thing that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if it is accepted as some kind of certainty. The future is not known; there is a first time for everything. And again, the Republican Party (the party of Reconstruction, by the way) began as an upstart third party.
And those of us who are Christian know that there is one other factor to be taken into consideration when pondering the future: God. Atheists and 'halfway-house Christians' as CWNY calls them may scoff, but God is not dead 'nor doth he sleep', as Longfellow wrote. He will have something to say about all this before it is over. In fact, Christians know that we have a glimpse of the direction of the future, and we know what the ultimate outcome will be. It's hubris to imagine that we hold everything in our hands.
Still, we are not to be passive observers, but active doers of what is right, and speakers of the truth.
At the link there is a lengthy discussion going on around the video from CPAC, with the young ''conservatives'' rebuffing Jamie Kelso, and displaying an incredible level of ignorance in their 'arguments' against him.
There seems to be a consensus among many pro-White Americans that the Republican Party, and what is roughly called the 'conservative movement' is either useless or is in effect on the opposing side, along with their Democrat soul mates in political correctness.
However there is still a persistent idea that we can use the GOP as a vehicle for advancing our interests. I think everybody who has read this blog for any length of time knows where I stand. I started out as a more-or-less mainstream 'conservative' or Republican, although I had lost the veneer of political correctness long ago. My 'old American' realist upbringing kicked in and I began to wonder how and why American Whites seemed to have so little in common with our near ancestors. Even my parents generation, and maybe yours, dear readers, held what we now call 'racial realist' attitudes. So why did the 'conservatives' stop conserving, and start mimicking the liberal left, whom they claim to reject wholeheartedly?
Conservatives who don't want to conserve their own people, their own ethnicity, and don't consider their progeny or the future, are no conservatives by any definition I understand.
The Republican Party seems to want to preserve the material goods of life only, and all the hue and cry about 'smaller government' is only to that end. American conservatism has long since lost its soul, or sold its soul.
The 'Tea Party' candidates have proven to be as easily compromised as any other Republican, despite their pandering to the populist sentiments that have surfaced recently.
Personally I think the GOP is impervious to any efforts of White citizens to influence it away from its present policies.
Right now the party is busy recruiting 'diversity', and enlarging the 'big tent' so that one and all may be included, regardless.
Come one, come all, and bring your political correctness and ethnic grievances along.
Some say that this CPAC gathering was not representative of the party as a whole. Some social conservatives in the GOP objected to the pro-gay slant, but in general this seems to be the direction the party is going. Social conservatives are being marginalized, and seem to be fewer in number every year, as the older generations die.
But if you spend enough time on Republican forums on the internet you will see how very politically correct most 'mainstream' Republicans and conservatives have become, especially on racial issues. Most of the FReepers cling to the idea that 'legal immigration: good' while only illegal immigration is bad. Why? Because to state that all immigration should be halted, if only temporarily, is to invite a charge of racism. Some of those on these Republican forums and blogs will become like a pack of baying hounds when they scent anything that resembles 'racism' or anti-Semitism.
We see the behavior of these young people, who are likely from fairly prosperous backgrounds; they have been conditioned to attack when certain taboos are violated. Carleton Putnam in his 'Race and Reality' referred to 'hypnotism' in this connection, and watching some of these PC-saturated people in action makes one think they are under some kind of post-hypnotic suggestion, so quickly do they react to certain triggers. In any case, these are not thinking young people, but knee-jerk liberals, despite their Republican patter.
I don't believe it's an either/or situation, where we must choose between working with these indoctrinated liberal Republicans or simply accepting our demise. Those are not the only two choices.
And if we are in such a dire state that we are forced to try to work with people to whom we are anathema, then we are in such a desperate state that it's far too late for the gradual approach. And in fact I think we really don't have the leisure to use the gradual subtle approach, from within.
This is a subject that has come up before, and I will say the same thing I said to my readers of an earlier time: the point that must be understood is that we don't need to 'win over the masses' or attain a majority of people who agree with us. No great movement of history was ever driven by a majority. It has always been a relatively small group of people, highly-motivated, that has been behind the great movements and causes.
Unfortunately we seem to have a very highly-motivated group of people opposing us, and most unfortunate is the fact that they have enormous amounts of money and the media on their side, as their lackeys. It is hard for a few people to go up against this group of mostly unknown elites and the masses who follow their lead. But numbers don't always guarantee a win; there are any number of times in history in which the few have prevailed over a formidable many.
And again, this politically correct multicultural tower of Babel is an edifice that is built on lies, and is buttressed by lies upon lies. It is in conflict with human nature; it requires constant effort to keep it from collapsing of its own weight.
It takes the expenditure of a lot of energy to keep it standing. It apparently takes a lot of conditioning via the media and via peer pressure to maintain it. The fact that these people who are the power behind the scenes seem to feel the need to double down on the propaganda may mean that they are feeling uncertain of their success.
One more thing: this multicult monstrosity is very costly in terms of money; imagine how much has been spent and is being spent to construct it and to keep up the false façade.
To think that we have to hitch our wagon to the Republican Party is folly; as if that party is not decaying and crumbling along with the system of which it is a part.
I have hopes for the A3P, but we will see where that goes. And before somebody pipes up to tell us that 'no third party will ever succeed' -- I say that is the kind of thing that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if it is accepted as some kind of certainty. The future is not known; there is a first time for everything. And again, the Republican Party (the party of Reconstruction, by the way) began as an upstart third party.
And those of us who are Christian know that there is one other factor to be taken into consideration when pondering the future: God. Atheists and 'halfway-house Christians' as CWNY calls them may scoff, but God is not dead 'nor doth he sleep', as Longfellow wrote. He will have something to say about all this before it is over. In fact, Christians know that we have a glimpse of the direction of the future, and we know what the ultimate outcome will be. It's hubris to imagine that we hold everything in our hands.
Still, we are not to be passive observers, but active doers of what is right, and speakers of the truth.
Labels: Ethnopatriots, Free Speech, Party Politics, Pc, Republicans, Third Parties
0 comment Wednesday, July 9, 2014 | admin
From an ABC News story, linked at the Free Republic forum, we read that civil rights leaders are up in arms because Glenn Beck has planned a rally on the anniversary of MLK's famous speech.
When will Beck learn that it does not pay to kowtow and pander? I can only take a perverse satisfaction in the criticism coming his way.
Read the FReeper thread; it will make you discouraged, at least if you agree with me that the FReepers, like many Republicans, have gone way off the PC deep-end since, oh, say January 2009.
As to Beck, I've blogged a little about him in the past, and for a very brief time I caught his show when he was still on about the Founding Fathers. But I noticed that he included MLK amongst the Founding Fathers, and that he constantly harped on the 'inclusive' theme.
The FReepers' comments show that most of them now accept MLK as some kind of hero to us all; I wonder what they would say if reminded about the attitude of Ronald Reagan, another hero of theirs, when the MLK holiday was proposed. He at first opposed it although he cited 'cost concerns' in doing so, and later he reversed himself and spoke glowingly of MLK, as you will read in the linked article.
There was, as I recall, considerable opposition to the holiday, with the late Sen. Jesse Helms, (so hated by the left even today) being the foremost critic. But I remember that even mainstream newspapers published letters which were vehemently critical of the proposed honor, citing MLK's Communist affiliations and divisive activities as the reasons. This, of course, is scarcely remembered by todays 'colorblind conservatives.'
But now, as you see, the FReepers hail MLK as an icon and a hero of 'freedom and equality', apparently not cognizant of the obvious fact that his activism increased 'freedom' only for, say, 12 percent of the population at the expense of the other 88 percent. Similarly with Rosa Parks; she, too, has joined the FReeper pantheon of American heroes.
Beck is the most prominent voice these days exhorting 'patriotic Americans' to the belief that 'liberals are the real racists' and that 'patriotic Americans' should honor black advocates alongside the real founders of our nation. Beck is leading more and more gullible people along the politically correct path, while pretending to speak the language of the so-called 'far right'.
From an AmRen thread, there was this remark about Beck:
He says some pretty harshly liberal things when it comes to racial matters. For example, a couple of nights ago on the O�Reilly Factor he was going on about how much blacks suffered during the "Civil Rights" era, yada yada yada� But maybe its just that thinly-veiled facade he puts on to avoid scaring mainstream-thinking Americans off the first time they hear him. You know, people who are really racists but don�t know it hear him and think "Oh, he says some really great things! But, he�s kinda racist, isn�t he?" So he says some liberal racial nonsense to calm their fears, but perhaps deep down he really thinks like us?''
And another:
''I appreciate the comments that are critical of Beck. One minute he can be right on, Truth roaring through him, and then, voila, look again�he�s kowtowing to the "noble savage." How childish are his mood swings and effusive breakdowns.
Moreover, will Beck be pointing out that the "I Have a Dream" speech is largely plagiarized, even though it appears in every damned high school and college English textbook in this country? Google Archibald Carey�s 1952 RNC Convention speech.
Lastly, maybe Beck will have the backbone to question why King�s wife has had FBI surveillance tapes of MLK sealed till 2027, nearly sixty years after the phoney�s death. I feel sorry for Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart. They put themselves out on the front lines, and when they catch fire from the left (especially minorities), they instantly turn into Darkies� Best Friend. They are childish and weak.''
One more comment
''Before people start trashing Glen Beck they need to realize that this man has single-handedly brought the Obama administration to it�s knees exposing all the corruption, anti-white and anti-American Marxist garbage that has infested the white house and the Democratic party like some plague.
Beck took a lot of heat for saying "Obama hates white people" on one of his shows. The first time I saw the video of King Samir Shabazz shouting out to kill all white crackers and white cracker babies was on the Glen Beck show and he showed that video at least four times during the program, after which the Black Panther Party threatened to see him at the 8/28/10 rally. So nobody is going to tell me he has no courage. They need to look at themselves and ask the question "what have I done lately?".
I�m not crazy about the way Glen has been sucking up to MLK and has joined in the "poor black plight" thing either but he has a reason for doing so and it will be all clear to us down the road. In the meantime we need to look at and appreciate what he has done so far to open people�s eyes.''
The last AmRen comment, as well as the first, illustrate the one school of thought regarding Beck: the notion that he is 'really one of us' but that he just has to 'play the game to keep his job' or that he is pulling a fast one on his Fox News bosses, toeing the PC line while secretly giving a wink to the 'racial right' listening out there in the audience.
The last comment exhorts us to, essentially 'trust' Beck, to put our faith in him, knowing that whatever he is doing, it is for our good, the good of our cause, ultimately.
For one thing, the idea that some media figure (whether it's Beck, or Pat Buchanan, or whoever) ''has to'' say politically correct things is irksome to me; if they ''have to'' say certain things and they ''can't say'' other things which are too impolitic -- then they are pretty useless to our cause. The one thing that is needed is the ability to speak the truth, and not be cowed by PC.
Has Beck ''opened people's eyes''? Has he really brought the regime to its knees, as the first comment says? I've seen no sign of that.
I have serious doubts about his 'opening people's eyes'; I haven't noticed any great stampede away from political correctness since Beck started his FoxNews show. Incidentally, he had a very different tack when he was with Headline News; he was all about counterjihad then, always truckling to 'moderate Muslims' and so forth. It was only with his move to Fox that he suddenly became some kind of born-again patriot/champion of Middle America.
Although a lot of people have noted the increase in politically incorrect comments on newspaper articles regarding racial issues, it's a little foolish to credit Beck with any epiphanies that have taken place. If anything, he is only attempting to draw more minorities into the GOP, or towards his brand of 'conservatism', while at the same time, probably carrying out a mission of keeping White conservatives on the GOP reservation, and keeping them within acceptable bounds. It's all right to be a Tea Party conservative, the message seems to be, as long as you make obeisance to MLK and be sure to be 'inclusive' towards blacks and other minorities. It's all right to be a 'patriot' and honor our Founding Fathers as long as you bow towards the altar of MLK or Parks.
Somebody commented here once that Beck represented 'controlled opposition', and another commenter called him a 'Judas Goat.' Maybe those labels are too strong, maybe not. I tend to think that at best, he is a guy doing a job, reading from a script, and wanting to keep his position in the compromised media. I don't know how much of a believer he is in political correctness but he is not 'one of us', an ethnopatriot or ethnoconservative. I think it's rather wishful thinking to believe he is on 'our side.'
When will Beck learn that it does not pay to kowtow and pander? I can only take a perverse satisfaction in the criticism coming his way.
Read the FReeper thread; it will make you discouraged, at least if you agree with me that the FReepers, like many Republicans, have gone way off the PC deep-end since, oh, say January 2009.
As to Beck, I've blogged a little about him in the past, and for a very brief time I caught his show when he was still on about the Founding Fathers. But I noticed that he included MLK amongst the Founding Fathers, and that he constantly harped on the 'inclusive' theme.
The FReepers' comments show that most of them now accept MLK as some kind of hero to us all; I wonder what they would say if reminded about the attitude of Ronald Reagan, another hero of theirs, when the MLK holiday was proposed. He at first opposed it although he cited 'cost concerns' in doing so, and later he reversed himself and spoke glowingly of MLK, as you will read in the linked article.
There was, as I recall, considerable opposition to the holiday, with the late Sen. Jesse Helms, (so hated by the left even today) being the foremost critic. But I remember that even mainstream newspapers published letters which were vehemently critical of the proposed honor, citing MLK's Communist affiliations and divisive activities as the reasons. This, of course, is scarcely remembered by todays 'colorblind conservatives.'
But now, as you see, the FReepers hail MLK as an icon and a hero of 'freedom and equality', apparently not cognizant of the obvious fact that his activism increased 'freedom' only for, say, 12 percent of the population at the expense of the other 88 percent. Similarly with Rosa Parks; she, too, has joined the FReeper pantheon of American heroes.
Beck is the most prominent voice these days exhorting 'patriotic Americans' to the belief that 'liberals are the real racists' and that 'patriotic Americans' should honor black advocates alongside the real founders of our nation. Beck is leading more and more gullible people along the politically correct path, while pretending to speak the language of the so-called 'far right'.
From an AmRen thread, there was this remark about Beck:
He says some pretty harshly liberal things when it comes to racial matters. For example, a couple of nights ago on the O�Reilly Factor he was going on about how much blacks suffered during the "Civil Rights" era, yada yada yada� But maybe its just that thinly-veiled facade he puts on to avoid scaring mainstream-thinking Americans off the first time they hear him. You know, people who are really racists but don�t know it hear him and think "Oh, he says some really great things! But, he�s kinda racist, isn�t he?" So he says some liberal racial nonsense to calm their fears, but perhaps deep down he really thinks like us?''
And another:
''I appreciate the comments that are critical of Beck. One minute he can be right on, Truth roaring through him, and then, voila, look again�he�s kowtowing to the "noble savage." How childish are his mood swings and effusive breakdowns.
Moreover, will Beck be pointing out that the "I Have a Dream" speech is largely plagiarized, even though it appears in every damned high school and college English textbook in this country? Google Archibald Carey�s 1952 RNC Convention speech.
Lastly, maybe Beck will have the backbone to question why King�s wife has had FBI surveillance tapes of MLK sealed till 2027, nearly sixty years after the phoney�s death. I feel sorry for Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart. They put themselves out on the front lines, and when they catch fire from the left (especially minorities), they instantly turn into Darkies� Best Friend. They are childish and weak.''
One more comment
''Before people start trashing Glen Beck they need to realize that this man has single-handedly brought the Obama administration to it�s knees exposing all the corruption, anti-white and anti-American Marxist garbage that has infested the white house and the Democratic party like some plague.
Beck took a lot of heat for saying "Obama hates white people" on one of his shows. The first time I saw the video of King Samir Shabazz shouting out to kill all white crackers and white cracker babies was on the Glen Beck show and he showed that video at least four times during the program, after which the Black Panther Party threatened to see him at the 8/28/10 rally. So nobody is going to tell me he has no courage. They need to look at themselves and ask the question "what have I done lately?".
I�m not crazy about the way Glen has been sucking up to MLK and has joined in the "poor black plight" thing either but he has a reason for doing so and it will be all clear to us down the road. In the meantime we need to look at and appreciate what he has done so far to open people�s eyes.''
The last AmRen comment, as well as the first, illustrate the one school of thought regarding Beck: the notion that he is 'really one of us' but that he just has to 'play the game to keep his job' or that he is pulling a fast one on his Fox News bosses, toeing the PC line while secretly giving a wink to the 'racial right' listening out there in the audience.
The last comment exhorts us to, essentially 'trust' Beck, to put our faith in him, knowing that whatever he is doing, it is for our good, the good of our cause, ultimately.
For one thing, the idea that some media figure (whether it's Beck, or Pat Buchanan, or whoever) ''has to'' say politically correct things is irksome to me; if they ''have to'' say certain things and they ''can't say'' other things which are too impolitic -- then they are pretty useless to our cause. The one thing that is needed is the ability to speak the truth, and not be cowed by PC.
Has Beck ''opened people's eyes''? Has he really brought the regime to its knees, as the first comment says? I've seen no sign of that.
I have serious doubts about his 'opening people's eyes'; I haven't noticed any great stampede away from political correctness since Beck started his FoxNews show. Incidentally, he had a very different tack when he was with Headline News; he was all about counterjihad then, always truckling to 'moderate Muslims' and so forth. It was only with his move to Fox that he suddenly became some kind of born-again patriot/champion of Middle America.
Although a lot of people have noted the increase in politically incorrect comments on newspaper articles regarding racial issues, it's a little foolish to credit Beck with any epiphanies that have taken place. If anything, he is only attempting to draw more minorities into the GOP, or towards his brand of 'conservatism', while at the same time, probably carrying out a mission of keeping White conservatives on the GOP reservation, and keeping them within acceptable bounds. It's all right to be a Tea Party conservative, the message seems to be, as long as you make obeisance to MLK and be sure to be 'inclusive' towards blacks and other minorities. It's all right to be a 'patriot' and honor our Founding Fathers as long as you bow towards the altar of MLK or Parks.
Somebody commented here once that Beck represented 'controlled opposition', and another commenter called him a 'Judas Goat.' Maybe those labels are too strong, maybe not. I tend to think that at best, he is a guy doing a job, reading from a script, and wanting to keep his position in the compromised media. I don't know how much of a believer he is in political correctness but he is not 'one of us', an ethnopatriot or ethnoconservative. I think it's rather wishful thinking to believe he is on 'our side.'
Labels: Media Bias, Pc, Pc Censorship, Political Correctness, Propaganda