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 Sunday, August 10, 2014 | admin
I've been spending some hours visiting various right-wing/conservative blogs to get a feel for what people are saying about these latest instances of violence in the news. I'd like to be able to say that I see movement towards some kind of realism, or an 'awakening'. According to the still-extant ''worse is better'' philosophy, there ought to be a mass awakening to reality by now, or very soon. I don't see much of it.
I do see that there is a lot of blunt, even harsh rhetoric on the part of many mainstream 'conventional conservatives.' But I think the bluntness somewhat belies the fact that underneath some of the tough talk, there survives much of the 'colorblind' memes.
For example, a lot of the comments express the creaky old idea that the violence is due to 'liberalism'. The liberal welfare state and the media and school propaganda have kept blacks down, held them back, and made them dysfunctional. Had it not been for the Great Society or the New Frontier, and the myriad liberal programs since then, blacks would by now have blended in seamlessly with the rest of us, and enmity between or amongst the different races would not exist.
Occasionally, even on this blog from time to time, somebody will say that before the 60s, there was no problem, with black dysfunction or crime. Apparently they were all well-behaved and docile. There is a grain of truth here; things have gotten worse since the 60s, but there were problems before. Read old books and histories; there are indications that things were not as orderly in the past as some Republicans want to believe.
This idea dies hard.
In my post last night, I blamed the media to some extent for fomenting conflict, actively stoking the flames of hatred towards Whites. But in saying that, I was by no means excusing the people who commit violence. The media did not create the very real animosity, nor did 'liberalism' or The Democrat Plantation nor any of the other handy scapegoats so favored by the aracial right. The media exacerbate the existing bad blood; they egg it on, goad those who are already prone to acting out violently. They are instigators and spectators gleefully observing the mayhem from the stadium seats. I do believe some leftists, too wimpy to act out themselves except verbally, use minorities as surrogates to carry out the deeds they would do, if they were not to cowardly to do so themselves.
You could also say that the media are like those arsonists who set fires, then call the firemen, and skulk in the shadows watching the conflagration with excitement. Then they can boast that they did their part to curtail the damage, when in fact they lit the match.
But again, they are sparking a situation which is already combustible.
But how do we answer the conservatives who say that 'liberalism' and the Democrats are to blame? One obvious answer is to point to the violence endemic to many countries where there are no Democrats or American-style liberals to blame. Look at Haiti, and various African countries. The pattern holds true there.
But the liberal-conservative Republican type will not acknowledge this; they have their story and they're sticking to it, facts notwithstanding.
The other fall-back argument that stubborn 'colorblinds' use is the 'Thomas Sowell' argument, or the Walter Williams argument, or Herman Cain, or whoever the current paragon of black conservative virtue. This is a variation of the ''they're not all like that!' argument, which is one that exasperates me. In other words, until every individual, every last one, of a given group is actively attacking you, then there is no problem. Generalizations can't be made, even if 99 percent fit the stereotype.
And as always, liberal Republicans are just as likely as liberal Democrats to pull out the old, frayed race card: ''you're a racist'' or a ''supremacist'' or an extremist. A hater. A bigot.
This of course is not an argument at all, just verbal abuse, but it's the best they have, or so they think.
I am always looking for the half-full glass, but optimism is not the same as pollyannaism or denial. I would love to see some movement towards common sense, self-respect, confidence, and a spirit of unity amongst our people, but as of this moment, it seems a long way off.
It is easier to teach those who realize they don't have all the answers than to teach or persuade those who have an ironclad certainty that they know it all. So until something or someone shakes the know-it-all attitude of the smug conservative who is up on his PC moral high horse, I am afraid we won't see the ''hope and change'' that we need.
I do see that there is a lot of blunt, even harsh rhetoric on the part of many mainstream 'conventional conservatives.' But I think the bluntness somewhat belies the fact that underneath some of the tough talk, there survives much of the 'colorblind' memes.
For example, a lot of the comments express the creaky old idea that the violence is due to 'liberalism'. The liberal welfare state and the media and school propaganda have kept blacks down, held them back, and made them dysfunctional. Had it not been for the Great Society or the New Frontier, and the myriad liberal programs since then, blacks would by now have blended in seamlessly with the rest of us, and enmity between or amongst the different races would not exist.
Occasionally, even on this blog from time to time, somebody will say that before the 60s, there was no problem, with black dysfunction or crime. Apparently they were all well-behaved and docile. There is a grain of truth here; things have gotten worse since the 60s, but there were problems before. Read old books and histories; there are indications that things were not as orderly in the past as some Republicans want to believe.
This idea dies hard.
In my post last night, I blamed the media to some extent for fomenting conflict, actively stoking the flames of hatred towards Whites. But in saying that, I was by no means excusing the people who commit violence. The media did not create the very real animosity, nor did 'liberalism' or The Democrat Plantation nor any of the other handy scapegoats so favored by the aracial right. The media exacerbate the existing bad blood; they egg it on, goad those who are already prone to acting out violently. They are instigators and spectators gleefully observing the mayhem from the stadium seats. I do believe some leftists, too wimpy to act out themselves except verbally, use minorities as surrogates to carry out the deeds they would do, if they were not to cowardly to do so themselves.
You could also say that the media are like those arsonists who set fires, then call the firemen, and skulk in the shadows watching the conflagration with excitement. Then they can boast that they did their part to curtail the damage, when in fact they lit the match.
But again, they are sparking a situation which is already combustible.
But how do we answer the conservatives who say that 'liberalism' and the Democrats are to blame? One obvious answer is to point to the violence endemic to many countries where there are no Democrats or American-style liberals to blame. Look at Haiti, and various African countries. The pattern holds true there.
But the liberal-conservative Republican type will not acknowledge this; they have their story and they're sticking to it, facts notwithstanding.
The other fall-back argument that stubborn 'colorblinds' use is the 'Thomas Sowell' argument, or the Walter Williams argument, or Herman Cain, or whoever the current paragon of black conservative virtue. This is a variation of the ''they're not all like that!' argument, which is one that exasperates me. In other words, until every individual, every last one, of a given group is actively attacking you, then there is no problem. Generalizations can't be made, even if 99 percent fit the stereotype.
And as always, liberal Republicans are just as likely as liberal Democrats to pull out the old, frayed race card: ''you're a racist'' or a ''supremacist'' or an extremist. A hater. A bigot.
This of course is not an argument at all, just verbal abuse, but it's the best they have, or so they think.
I am always looking for the half-full glass, but optimism is not the same as pollyannaism or denial. I would love to see some movement towards common sense, self-respect, confidence, and a spirit of unity amongst our people, but as of this moment, it seems a long way off.
It is easier to teach those who realize they don't have all the answers than to teach or persuade those who have an ironclad certainty that they know it all. So until something or someone shakes the know-it-all attitude of the smug conservative who is up on his PC moral high horse, I am afraid we won't see the ''hope and change'' that we need.
Labels: Political Correctness, Race Denial, Racial Realism