0 comment Wednesday, November 19, 2014 | admin
I've been intending to write something about the Obama candidacy and the cult of personality which has mushroomed around him. But there are already so many good pieces being written that I can do no more than point you to some of the more interesting and perceptive ones I've come across. So for your consideration -- if you haven't already read them:
John S. Bolton at The Open City blog and his brief piece The Obama Followership: Anti-Caucasianism as Holiness and Redemption.
Then, from David Yeagley at BadEagle.com, Jig's Up: The Real Obama
(That's right. The jig's up. Hey, if national news commentators and politicians can freely and repeatedly use the phrase "off the reservation" whenever they present any questionable idea about anything, then I can use an old Southern expression that means some crook's been caught in the act. If the world is blissfully unaware of American Indian feelings, then I am delightfully conscious of their hypocritical reactions to my words--and their inferior polemic. ) UPDATE: Obama tied to William Ayers, anti-American terrorist of the '60s. See Jonah Goldberg, and Politico. More and more news is coming out about Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed). He is not the innocent "nobody," coming out of nowhere, that all the naive people and manipulative media have thought. He is a calculated puppet of larger Third World forces. At least, to all appearances.[...]The point is, Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed) has the kind of close connections to Third World shadow figures that make him totally suspicious--especially since he is marketing his Third World name Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed). His loyalty to the United States of America is utterly untrustworthy--as is that of all socialists, Marxists, Leftists, liberals, and many Democrats. And this point, we even have to question many Republicans about their values as well. Nationhood is up for grabs these days, since most people have no working concept of what a nation is, how it comes about, why it exists, and how to preserve it. With people like George Soros preaching that nationhood is "tribalism," a thing of the past that needs to be eliminated, is there any wonder why so many ignorant, naive Americans 'cathart' their ideological frustrations on a fringe foreigner with an African father, who poses as an American Negro? Obama validates their confusion. Obama focuses their impotence. It's an ancient hunting tactic: confuse the animal, and it is weakened in its own response to your attack. In a way, America is a weakened, crazed animal, confused by competing ideologies, Third World values, one world globalism pawned off as the solution by power hungry men. America is psychologically suffering, and the Third World icon--Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed--inshallah) appears as the savior! What a script. What a fateful coincidence. A convergence of sociological inevitabilities. Read the whole thing at the link above.
Steve Sailer also has an amusing bit about James Watson's support for Obama here.
I have not had anything to say about the passing of William F. Buckley Jr. I came to conservatism late, after a long dalliance with the left like many people of my generation, and I knew of Buckley only what I saw on his TV appearances, such as the famous 'debates' which pitted him against Gore Vidal during the hot summer of 1968, and the riots at the Democrat Convention in Chicago. But by the time I came to conservatism, or came back, truly, to the old American ideals I was brought up with, Buckley had, to all appearances, dropped out of political life and remained at the margins.
Reading the comments on his passing by some who did know him leaves the reader with feelings of confusion: are the glowing tributes such as this one by Taki the 'true' picture of Buckley, or is this one, by Peter Brimelow, a more truthful portrayal? Both men knew him and interacted with him. Isn't it interesting how someone can, wittingly or unwittingly, present such a different face to different people? It's one of those mysteries of life and human nature, seemingly. The truth is probably a composite of the various different perspectives, or perhaps we all leave this world essentially unknown to all but a very few who see our truer selves.
John S. Bolton at The Open City blog and his brief piece The Obama Followership: Anti-Caucasianism as Holiness and Redemption.
Then, from David Yeagley at BadEagle.com, Jig's Up: The Real Obama
(That's right. The jig's up. Hey, if national news commentators and politicians can freely and repeatedly use the phrase "off the reservation" whenever they present any questionable idea about anything, then I can use an old Southern expression that means some crook's been caught in the act. If the world is blissfully unaware of American Indian feelings, then I am delightfully conscious of their hypocritical reactions to my words--and their inferior polemic. ) UPDATE: Obama tied to William Ayers, anti-American terrorist of the '60s. See Jonah Goldberg, and Politico. More and more news is coming out about Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed). He is not the innocent "nobody," coming out of nowhere, that all the naive people and manipulative media have thought. He is a calculated puppet of larger Third World forces. At least, to all appearances.[...]The point is, Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed) has the kind of close connections to Third World shadow figures that make him totally suspicious--especially since he is marketing his Third World name Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed). His loyalty to the United States of America is utterly untrustworthy--as is that of all socialists, Marxists, Leftists, liberals, and many Democrats. And this point, we even have to question many Republicans about their values as well. Nationhood is up for grabs these days, since most people have no working concept of what a nation is, how it comes about, why it exists, and how to preserve it. With people like George Soros preaching that nationhood is "tribalism," a thing of the past that needs to be eliminated, is there any wonder why so many ignorant, naive Americans 'cathart' their ideological frustrations on a fringe foreigner with an African father, who poses as an American Negro? Obama validates their confusion. Obama focuses their impotence. It's an ancient hunting tactic: confuse the animal, and it is weakened in its own response to your attack. In a way, America is a weakened, crazed animal, confused by competing ideologies, Third World values, one world globalism pawned off as the solution by power hungry men. America is psychologically suffering, and the Third World icon--Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed--inshallah) appears as the savior! What a script. What a fateful coincidence. A convergence of sociological inevitabilities. Read the whole thing at the link above.
Steve Sailer also has an amusing bit about James Watson's support for Obama here.
I have not had anything to say about the passing of William F. Buckley Jr. I came to conservatism late, after a long dalliance with the left like many people of my generation, and I knew of Buckley only what I saw on his TV appearances, such as the famous 'debates' which pitted him against Gore Vidal during the hot summer of 1968, and the riots at the Democrat Convention in Chicago. But by the time I came to conservatism, or came back, truly, to the old American ideals I was brought up with, Buckley had, to all appearances, dropped out of political life and remained at the margins.
Reading the comments on his passing by some who did know him leaves the reader with feelings of confusion: are the glowing tributes such as this one by Taki the 'true' picture of Buckley, or is this one, by Peter Brimelow, a more truthful portrayal? Both men knew him and interacted with him. Isn't it interesting how someone can, wittingly or unwittingly, present such a different face to different people? It's one of those mysteries of life and human nature, seemingly. The truth is probably a composite of the various different perspectives, or perhaps we all leave this world essentially unknown to all but a very few who see our truer selves.
Labels: Celebrity Culture, Politicians, Politics
0 comment Thursday, September 4, 2014 | admin
Can any of us imagine an American equivalent of Hannan saying similar things to our president?
Hannan's blog is here, and I see from a quick perusal of it that he opposes multiculturalism but is also pro-Obama. Still, I have to admire his plain-spokenness and his forthright tone. Our politicians, by contrast, must be trained to be mealy-mouthed forked-tongue con men.
Labels: Britain, Europe, Government Spending, Politicians, United Kingdom
0 comment Friday, June 20, 2014 | admin
It's going to be a long four years with the current regime in office, holding the bully pulpit from which to hector and goad us about the all-important, all-consuming subject of race. Race -- you know, that social construct thing that really doesn't exist? Well, our attorney-general wants 'us' to have a 'dialogue' about that non-existent subject -- although it's really nothing more than superficial skin color of course.
We've heard this kind of disingenuous prattle before, about how 'we' need a 'dialogue' on race. But it's ratcheting up now, with Mr. Holder taunting Americans (presumably White Americans) as 'cowards.' We are, he judges, a 'nation of cowards'.
Now, I heard this while watching part of Lou Dobbs' hour on CNN this evening, and I have not read the reaction around the blogosphere or from the 'conservative' pundits as yet, so I will just offer my honest, blue-sky reaction.But perhaps the response from the 'name' bloggers and pundits will give us some indication of how true the 'cowardly' characterization is.
Sad to say, I think the response will probably bear out the accusation of cowardice on our part, as the politically corrected, 'castrated conservatives' (as Carelton Putnam called them) scurry to exonerate themselves, saying 'I have no problems with blacks! I love Tom Sowell and Walter Williams. I don't care whether you're black, white, red, yellow or polka-dot, I judge you as an individual!' The usual stuff. And then there will be the 'conservatives' who point the finger at somebody else (on the right or the left) as being the problem, rather than to express any solidarity with their own people as they would if they were honest, natural men.
But do any of these people truly believe that all that is needed is for us to be able to sit down and have a 'frank conversation' about race, after which everything will be rosy? I don't think even the most politically correct can possibly be that delusional.
As others have noted, when this call for 'dialogue' sounds from some black demagogue, 'dialogue' always seems to mean that Whites must sit silent and humbled while blacks and/or other minorities accuse, insult, browbeat, and demand. We simply have to sit and nod or acknowledge our purported guilt, and take our medicine, or be labeled 'racist' and 'hater' if we defend ourselves or (heaven forbid) offer counter-accusations. So a dialogue is not what is wanted by those who keep asking for it. Dialogue implies a two-way, give-and-take exchange of thoughts and ideas and information. The other side wants no dialogue, now or ever, but rather another chance to verbally abuse and to make further demands, which they expect will meet with acquiescence.
And that acquiescence is what our 'cowardice' amounts to: our cowardice, insofar as it exists, lies in our willingness to accept 110 percent of the blame for interracial conflicts and frictions, and our passive acceptance of the perpetual guilt trip that has been placed on our shoulders for the last half-century or more. So while Mr. Holder berates us as 'cowards', he is in fact counting on our continued 'cowardice'. In fact, our cowardice is what has given us 'leaders' like him to rule over us. He decries the very thing upon which he relies.
Am I saying White Americans are in fact cowards? My first reaction to the word was anger and indignation. But on reflection, I sadly have to agree that there is some degree of truth to the allegation, though I think it is true only of some of us, not all. What our enemies perceive as 'cowardice' or weakness is nothing more in many cases than an effort to be fair-minded, to see the 'other side' in a dispute, to yield ground in hopes of avoiding unnecessary conflict, or a vain hope of obtaining a reciprocation of our fair-mindedness. However, after our centuries of interracial friction and conflict, it should be evident to all but the most obtuse that it just isn't working, this conciliatory approach. Many people who put on a show of being oh-so-fair and unbigoted may secretly be feeling a resentment and a simmering impatience with this situation. But some people are not even aware of their real feelings. Suppression is part of our everyday repertoire of behavior when dealing with outsiders; we have learned we have to try to pacify and mollify our antagonists, and some of us are so skilled at repressing our honest reactions that we lose touch ourselves.
There are some real cowards out there who will sell out their own people in order to pacify those they fear, deep-down. Most Whites learn very early on, when in contact with blacks and other minorities, that they tend to be unpredictable and touchy, and they can possibly lash out verbally or physically if not handled with kid gloves. So most of us have to learn to adopt an amiable, easygoing, yet cautious attitude with them so as not to spark some kind of scene. In an employment setting, there's always the threat of lawsuits and court cases if a wrong word is said, or if a minority perceives mistreatment.
Blacks often inspire fear in a physical sense, and often adopt verbally or physically intimidating behaviors to maintain the upper hand in a situation. Many Whites would never admit to feeling fear towards random blacks in public -- because even stating such a thing brings cries of 'racism.'
And yes, there are cowards who are afraid of words -- like 'racist', or 'bigot', whether these word-weapons are employed by their fellow cowardly Whites or by minorities. As children, we often used to answer schoolyard taunts by chanting 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.' But evidently names can hurt people so much that they are prepared to risk almost anything to avoid being called names. And that is, I'm afraid, cowardice.
It's that kind of cowardice that enables the race-hustlers and the demagogues and the affirmative-action mediocrities to hold us hostage for half a century and counting. It's that kind of cowardice that puts the current regime (including their White collaborators) in power and makes them all-but-invulnerable to real criticism and accountability.
Sooner or later, we have to realize our own strength and realize that the 'minorities' are just that: minorities, meaning the few, as opposed to the many. Why do the few rule over the many? There's another old saying: there's strength in numbers. And there's some other phrases we've forgottenn about 'the will of the majority'. Why have we forgotten that? Why do we run from our own shadows?
I'm wondering, though: do these demagogues really want 'dialogue' on race? Surely they have an inkling that if people really, truly spoke frankly and freely, without fear of having some 'hate speech' laws invoked, they might say a great many things that would not be welcome and that would not be flattering. I don't think they truly want dialogue or even conversation. They want us to sit down, shut up, and submit, and meanwhile, continue to pony up the money.
Why, then, are they always demanding 'dialogue'? I have noticed that lately there seems to be, as I've said, a ratcheting up of the rhetoric, and a trend towards more naked aggression in the form of articles like 'The End of White America' and other such undisguised expressions of their intentions. Why? Are they feeling that overconfident? Or are they taunting and goading us? In my more suspicious moments, I wonder if they are not trying to bait and goad us into real hostility -- to draw us out, as it were, so that they can then crack down on our free speech and other liberties. If they goad us into speech and actions that they can paint as 'hate' or 'extremism' then here come the hate crime and hate speech laws which they are itching to pass, and the curtailing of our rights.
I don't counsel rashness in the face of this baiting and goading. I do think we have to speak up firmly and reasonably, but discarding all the political correctness and the truckling and mealy-mouthing. If enough of us spoke up and continued to do so, ignoring the epithets, we might find enough collective strength and confidence to turn the tide, which some haven't noticed is bearing down on us like a tsunami.
We've heard this kind of disingenuous prattle before, about how 'we' need a 'dialogue' on race. But it's ratcheting up now, with Mr. Holder taunting Americans (presumably White Americans) as 'cowards.' We are, he judges, a 'nation of cowards'.
Now, I heard this while watching part of Lou Dobbs' hour on CNN this evening, and I have not read the reaction around the blogosphere or from the 'conservative' pundits as yet, so I will just offer my honest, blue-sky reaction.But perhaps the response from the 'name' bloggers and pundits will give us some indication of how true the 'cowardly' characterization is.
Sad to say, I think the response will probably bear out the accusation of cowardice on our part, as the politically corrected, 'castrated conservatives' (as Carelton Putnam called them) scurry to exonerate themselves, saying 'I have no problems with blacks! I love Tom Sowell and Walter Williams. I don't care whether you're black, white, red, yellow or polka-dot, I judge you as an individual!' The usual stuff. And then there will be the 'conservatives' who point the finger at somebody else (on the right or the left) as being the problem, rather than to express any solidarity with their own people as they would if they were honest, natural men.
But do any of these people truly believe that all that is needed is for us to be able to sit down and have a 'frank conversation' about race, after which everything will be rosy? I don't think even the most politically correct can possibly be that delusional.
As others have noted, when this call for 'dialogue' sounds from some black demagogue, 'dialogue' always seems to mean that Whites must sit silent and humbled while blacks and/or other minorities accuse, insult, browbeat, and demand. We simply have to sit and nod or acknowledge our purported guilt, and take our medicine, or be labeled 'racist' and 'hater' if we defend ourselves or (heaven forbid) offer counter-accusations. So a dialogue is not what is wanted by those who keep asking for it. Dialogue implies a two-way, give-and-take exchange of thoughts and ideas and information. The other side wants no dialogue, now or ever, but rather another chance to verbally abuse and to make further demands, which they expect will meet with acquiescence.
And that acquiescence is what our 'cowardice' amounts to: our cowardice, insofar as it exists, lies in our willingness to accept 110 percent of the blame for interracial conflicts and frictions, and our passive acceptance of the perpetual guilt trip that has been placed on our shoulders for the last half-century or more. So while Mr. Holder berates us as 'cowards', he is in fact counting on our continued 'cowardice'. In fact, our cowardice is what has given us 'leaders' like him to rule over us. He decries the very thing upon which he relies.
Am I saying White Americans are in fact cowards? My first reaction to the word was anger and indignation. But on reflection, I sadly have to agree that there is some degree of truth to the allegation, though I think it is true only of some of us, not all. What our enemies perceive as 'cowardice' or weakness is nothing more in many cases than an effort to be fair-minded, to see the 'other side' in a dispute, to yield ground in hopes of avoiding unnecessary conflict, or a vain hope of obtaining a reciprocation of our fair-mindedness. However, after our centuries of interracial friction and conflict, it should be evident to all but the most obtuse that it just isn't working, this conciliatory approach. Many people who put on a show of being oh-so-fair and unbigoted may secretly be feeling a resentment and a simmering impatience with this situation. But some people are not even aware of their real feelings. Suppression is part of our everyday repertoire of behavior when dealing with outsiders; we have learned we have to try to pacify and mollify our antagonists, and some of us are so skilled at repressing our honest reactions that we lose touch ourselves.
There are some real cowards out there who will sell out their own people in order to pacify those they fear, deep-down. Most Whites learn very early on, when in contact with blacks and other minorities, that they tend to be unpredictable and touchy, and they can possibly lash out verbally or physically if not handled with kid gloves. So most of us have to learn to adopt an amiable, easygoing, yet cautious attitude with them so as not to spark some kind of scene. In an employment setting, there's always the threat of lawsuits and court cases if a wrong word is said, or if a minority perceives mistreatment.
Blacks often inspire fear in a physical sense, and often adopt verbally or physically intimidating behaviors to maintain the upper hand in a situation. Many Whites would never admit to feeling fear towards random blacks in public -- because even stating such a thing brings cries of 'racism.'
And yes, there are cowards who are afraid of words -- like 'racist', or 'bigot', whether these word-weapons are employed by their fellow cowardly Whites or by minorities. As children, we often used to answer schoolyard taunts by chanting 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.' But evidently names can hurt people so much that they are prepared to risk almost anything to avoid being called names. And that is, I'm afraid, cowardice.
It's that kind of cowardice that enables the race-hustlers and the demagogues and the affirmative-action mediocrities to hold us hostage for half a century and counting. It's that kind of cowardice that puts the current regime (including their White collaborators) in power and makes them all-but-invulnerable to real criticism and accountability.
Sooner or later, we have to realize our own strength and realize that the 'minorities' are just that: minorities, meaning the few, as opposed to the many. Why do the few rule over the many? There's another old saying: there's strength in numbers. And there's some other phrases we've forgottenn about 'the will of the majority'. Why have we forgotten that? Why do we run from our own shadows?
I'm wondering, though: do these demagogues really want 'dialogue' on race? Surely they have an inkling that if people really, truly spoke frankly and freely, without fear of having some 'hate speech' laws invoked, they might say a great many things that would not be welcome and that would not be flattering. I don't think they truly want dialogue or even conversation. They want us to sit down, shut up, and submit, and meanwhile, continue to pony up the money.
Why, then, are they always demanding 'dialogue'? I have noticed that lately there seems to be, as I've said, a ratcheting up of the rhetoric, and a trend towards more naked aggression in the form of articles like 'The End of White America' and other such undisguised expressions of their intentions. Why? Are they feeling that overconfident? Or are they taunting and goading us? In my more suspicious moments, I wonder if they are not trying to bait and goad us into real hostility -- to draw us out, as it were, so that they can then crack down on our free speech and other liberties. If they goad us into speech and actions that they can paint as 'hate' or 'extremism' then here come the hate crime and hate speech laws which they are itching to pass, and the curtailing of our rights.
I don't counsel rashness in the face of this baiting and goading. I do think we have to speak up firmly and reasonably, but discarding all the political correctness and the truckling and mealy-mouthing. If enough of us spoke up and continued to do so, ignoring the epithets, we might find enough collective strength and confidence to turn the tide, which some haven't noticed is bearing down on us like a tsunami.
Labels: Anti White Racism, Cultural Marxism, Demagoguery, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Politicians, Racial Division