“The ancient feeling of brotherhood carries obligations of which equality knows nothing. It calls for respect and protection, for brotherhood is status in family, and family is by nature hierarchical… It is eloquent of that loss of respect for logic to which we owe so many disasters that the French Revolution made equality and fraternity co-ordinates… How much of the frustration of the modern world proceeds from starting with the assumption that all are equal, finding that this cannot be so, and then having to realize that one can no longer fall back on the bond of fraternity!… Nothing is more manifest than that as this social distance has diminished and all groups have moved nearer equality, suspicion and hostility have increased. In the present world there is little of trust and less of loyalty. People do not know what to expect of one another. Leaders will not lead, and servants will not serve…” – Richard Weaver, excerpted from Ideas Have Consequences
Surprisingly — or maybe not — there’s been very sparse coverage of the shootings in Tennessee recently. Now, it’s a cliche to say it, and it’s painfully obvious, that if/when a White man shoots up a black church, the media go into overdrive with coverage and ‘analysis’ by the usual politically correct shills. But as the murderer this time was from Africa, and an immigrant, the story is being hushed up, it seems, as it’s all but disappeared from the news, even from the right-wing blogs.
I can see how some of the more PC Republicans don’t like to discuss this kind of story; they may make some feeble protestations about our lax immigration policies, but this shooter was, by the accounts I’ve read, apparently here legally. If he were here illegally, the liberal ‘castrated conservatives’ would be denouncing illegal immigration and in the next sentence, saying ‘I’m not against immigration, just illegal immigration!’ Yes, even now some of those liberal Republicans cling to the old trope about how ‘legal immigrants play by the rules; they get in line and go through the correct procedures, and they make good Americans!‘
And then there’s this trope, or some variation thereof, which gets passed around the various ‘pro-White’ or mainstream GOP blogs: ”The African immigrants are much more intelligent than the American-born ones; they are well-educated, polite, and well spoken, and they have a good work ethic.” If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read that over the past couple of decades…and why do so many White Americans cling to pollyannaish ideas like that about various kinds of nonwhites? The same thing is said about Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Caribbean blacks.
I’ve speculated that it’s another formula whereby Whites with some kind of guilty conscience or fear of being called the ‘r-word’, or whites who just want to reassure themselves that they are not ”racist” try to nullify the stigma of saying something vaguely un-PC. So they grasp at such straws, and search diligently to find the ‘good ones’ that they can say flattering things about: African blacks with “conservative values” or pious Latin Americans who work harder than lazy Whites, or Asians who zealously promote academic excellence in their children.
So when an Emanuel Kidega Samson shoots some White people in a Tennessee church, a lot of people on the fake right are strangely silent. There are, if people are willing to consider the uncomfortable truths, many examples of people’s favorite nonwhites and immigrants committing crimes of this nature.
Maybe, in an ideal world, it should be a positive trait, this desire to find ‘the good ones’ or to praise some out-group as a way of trying to be ‘fair-minded’ or understanding. However, judging by history and the current news headlines, it’s evident that some wariness, at the very least, is warranted in dealing with those who are not-us, who don’t share our genetics and culture, and consequently hold grudges against us, fear or hate us, whose violent tendencies are a danger to us.
The rosy-colored glasses have to go. Reality has to be accepted and dealt with, regardless of whose ‘feelings’ are hurt by the truth.
…with ‘refugees’ and assorted third-world immigrants.
You Tube blogger Brit Girl explains why this is happening, and according to her, it is the result of something called the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, which took effect at the end of 2010. But if you watch her video (it’s around 6-7 minutes) she explains it. I leave it to you to discern how valid this information is, but it does appear plausible to me — at least as one piece of the puzzle.
Sorry I can’t embed the video, but it’s here.
[H/T Col. B. Bunny at Intergalactic Source of Truth]
At least if you are a mere human being; I think it is safe to say that nobody in this world really has the ability to love ‘everybody’. In this universe, only God is capable of that, and even he has those he hates. Some of my Christian acquaintances don’t believe this; the God they believe in loves absolutely everybody. But as I’ve often said, love is not love if it’s not exclusive and particularistic. Love is bias. We prefer some individuals when we love them, and we care about their well-being whereas we are indifferent to the multitudes out there, the billions of people we will never meet. Love means we pick and choose, and some people have our attention and our affection while others don’t, and can’t.
In his article “Love of All is Love of None” Huntley Haverstock writes about this, and also discusses the recent research about the role played by the hormone oxytocin in bonding us to others.
“Studies have discovered that mice which are genetically engineered to be incapable of responding to oxytocin lose the ability to distinguish between mice from their own group and outsiders. Guess what science discovered in 2010? Here’s an interesting study title:“Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. After an injection of oxytocin, participants became less likely to sacrifice the life of an individual in order to save the lives of a group in the classical trolley problem—if and only if that individual was a member of the same race.”
Of course the politically correct crowd find this unacceptable, because in their view, preference for our own must indicate that we ”hate” others, and I remember when the first reports came out on that research, some on the right speculated that the PC establishment would look for ‘antidotes’ to oxytocin as a way of ‘curing’ people of love for their own. It seems that decades of propaganda have had some effect in creating all these ‘global citizens’ that the article refers to, and the [Judeo]Christians who claim to, or aspire to, love everybody in the entire world. But the fact that there are any people left who still have some love for kin and kind is alarming to the globalist/universalist “lefties and luvvies“, as my English acquaintances call them.
I remember an old Charles Schulz cartoon depicting Lucy saying ”I love mankind; it’s people I can’t stand.” That’s the average lefty; they profess to love ‘mankind’ universally but they can’t stand actual human individuals — especially those of their own ethnicity and culture — unless those people mirror their own preferences and ideology. Everyone else is The Enemy.
Nobody can love an abstraction or a disembodied idealized human, not in any real sense. But our natural affinities should be for kin and kind, spouses and families. As for ‘love’, that word has been so cheapened and overused that it has lost much of its power. Love is by nature something that is rare and which belongs rightly to those few people with whom we have a truly strong bond.
These words seemed to be the message I was needing when I came across them.
I hope they speak to others out there who may be dispirited or pessimistic now. Sometimes just “a word in due season” is what is needed.
On Steve Sailer’s blog, following a piece about ‘Silicon Valley’s most boring adventuress’ (and the significance of White Shoes), this comment appeared:
The commenter deserves some points for imagination in deftly shoehorning Boomers into the discussion but I don’t understand how it can be imagined that feminism began in the mid-1960s or even much later, when ‘The Boomer Women’ were old enough to be passing myths on to anybody. Nevertheless some law apparently exists that stipulates that all evil has ‘boomers’ as its source, and I won’t try to resume that battle just now.
Do people really believe that feminism began only in the mid-20th century or later? First of all, the ‘battle of the sexes’ goes back to Adam and Eve, I suppose, but feminism as we know it dates back at least to the 19th century, with women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and events like the Seneca Falls Conference. But then in 1792 there had been Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, which was an influential book, and which encouraged women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton to agitate for “equality” for women.
Then in the 20th century there were successive ‘waves’ of feminism, with women in the U.S. being given the vote in 1920. The two world wars, however, were a big factor in women entering in substantial numbers into the work force. Some of this was by necessity, as many of the younger and able-bodied men were fighting the wars, and women stepped into some traditionally male-dominated jobs, or at least entered the work force for the first time. When the men returned from the wars (of course many men, sadly, didn’t return) some women found they wanted to continue working and earning a paycheck, or they wanted the ‘independence’ of having a career or even a mere job, rather than returning to the ‘drab’ domestic sphere where their abilities would be wasted.
‘Liberal’ philosophies and political systems appeal to human weaknesses and what the Christian Bible calls sins: pride, vanity, and greed, mainly, and these leftist systems entice people with the promise of ‘equality’, teaching that everybody is as good as anybody else; hierarchy is bad because ‘unfair’, and that nobody should assume an ‘inferior’ role or a humble role in life. Women were taught that their great gifts and talents were squandered in the domestic sphere; the world was being deprived of the female sex’s nobler qualities and talents, and it was demeaning to be a helpmeet to a husband or to do domestic chores, which are menial and degrading. I’ve heard career women say that their own mothers ”didn’t do anything with their own lives” because they stayed at home as homemakers and mothers. Only a paying job, or a job with considerable prestige and income, would suffice for a feminist-minded women.
So where did all this start? It’s at least as old as Jacobinism and Marxism, and older than that if we look back through history. Aristophanes’ play Lysistrata has the women rebelling against the men. Women have always seemingly had the temptation to believe that they are the equals of men in every way, if not the superiors.
To bring this back to the 20th century, I read somewhere on another blog (I read a lot of blogs, and I lose track of where I read what sometimes) the charge was made that GenXers had a hard upbringing as ‘latchkey kids’, presumably with working parents or single mothers, yet many children from earlier in the century likewise had working mothers, especially children of those women who had gone to work in ‘defense’ jobs during WWII or in WWI. Working mothers were not just a late-20th century phenomenon. And there have always been widows who were compelled to go to work to support families and who did not have parents or close relatives to care for their children. Many of those children ended up in foster care or the old-fashioned orphanages when their single parent couldn’t cope with caring for them.
Feminism or female supremacy, as it really is in its current incarnation, is not something that was dreamed up 50 or so years ago. It’s been with us a long time, as have all forms of egalitarianism. And no generation has a monopoly on ‘victimhood’ because they were children of single parents, or neglectful parents. Those have been with us always, too.
And suppose your parents did steer you wrong, or teach you unsound ideas? We are all responsible for evaluating, as we mature, what is true and good and what is not. Blaming others for our problems, our elders or whoever else, is neither mature nor healthy. We all have agency to make our own choices as we become adults, to accept or reject what we were taught, and to bear the consequences.
At the Iron Ink blog, Bret McAtee has a very timely and apposite blog piece called ‘On out-enemying the enemy’. It’s actually Part II, a follow-up to an earlier post.
The title of this post is from the Iron Ink piece, and it’s from a Russian proverb which Pastor Bret quotes: “One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.”
We live in a truth-starved time, a time which I have called ‘The Age of the Lie’, and I’ve noticed that others have also used similar terms to describe the age we live in. And when the very air we breathe is saturated with the lies of the ‘propaganda machine’ we need to hear the truth, as well as to speak it, though the latter is carrying considerable risks these days.
The blog piece at Iron Ink emphasizes that though we have to combat the many lies which are fed to us daily, we must not resort to lying as a way of countering the propaganda. The old saying ‘fight fire with fire’ does not work here; The truth alone is sufficient to combat the lies.
“Christians don’t need to rely on deception, misdirection or spin. All they need to do is tell the truth. Telling the truth can happen in many ways. It can happen in the context of a logical well structured rational argument but let’s face it… in the age of social engineering and sociological techniques logical and well-structured arguments are typically not going to get it done.”
This is something which I find useful to remember myself, because my preferred method is to rely on rational argument, but I’ve concluded that most people are not so much moved by that kind of approach. Sad to say, many people have not been taught how to think logically or to follow a reasoned argument. Facts and data in our postmodern age are not as effective for a great number of people, especially the young. As Bret McAtee says, emotive approaches seem to speak to more people, and it seems that the left specializes in manipulating emotions, generating fear, indignation and rage (though they accuse us of appealing to fear or ‘hate’, they actually stir up and exploit those feelings themselves). By their use of the complicit media’s dishonest fear-mongering they use images especially to provoke feelings which they then use: think of the image of the drowned refugee child. Or the constant images of the ‘Dreamers’ and their families, and the sob stories about ‘families being torn apart.’ See the image in this story. How is this to be countered? Do we really ‘tear families apart’ by sending parents home to their native land and keeping the ‘anchor babies’ here as hostages or something? Do people really believe that, or is that just part of the lies? Yet people seem unable to question the message.
I agree that we should use images and memes where possible to counter the lies, but lacking a powerful media ally to present
our side the truth, we are at a disadvantage. Still, as the old saying goes, one plus God is a majority. We have to start somewhere.
Letting the constant tsunami of lies go unanswered is not the thing to do. Though as the Iron Ink piece points out, we can’t emulate our enemies’ dishonest tactics but we can’t let their lies go unchallenged, and be passive when we are presented with nonstop lies and false witness.
On Archive.org, you can read Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s book, The Totalitarian State Against Man. It’s not a long book, only 199 pages. Reading it may provide clues (or not) to the motivations of the ideologues who are in control of our world.
As best I can understand Coudenhove-Kalergi’s ideas, he believed that mixed races were superior to more homogeneous races. He doesn’t really get to this aspect of his philosophy until well into the book.
As to the title of the book, I find it misleading; it might make you actually think he was not a friend of totalitarianism, but let the reader judge for himself.
Anyway, it’s available to read for those who are interested in this man who obviously was one of the main architects of this crazy world we find ourselves in in the 21st century.
As September 11, 2017 came and went, I was aware that it was the anniversary of the World Trade Center destruction. Usually, over the years that I’ve been blogging, I would post something related to that event. But this year I just had no inspiration to write about it.
This blogger notes as I did inwardly, that there were very few blog pieces or even news stories from the controlled media about 9/11/01. I also wondered why.
Have we forgotten, in 16 years, what happened on that day? 3,000+ people lost their lives. Those deaths should not have happened. So many decent people’s lives snuffed out, horribly.
Why the apparent indifference? Well, silence does not mean indifference, as in my case; I was deeply affected emotionally and mentally by the attack and the many deaths. I was in a kind of shock for some time afterward; it was traumatic to realize how vulnerable our country was, and how our feeling of security was obviously not grounded in reality.
But are many Americans somehow indifferent or even callous about those many dead people?
First, one thing that is a factor in this change over the last 16 years is that many people who were alive back then are now no longer with us; the older people who were alive then have passed on. The young adults who make up a lot of the voices on the Internet were young children back in 2001, and have no memory of those events, or only a vague one; the event doesn’t have much emotional resonance for them.
Another factor: today there is so much more cyncism and disbelief as to what actually did happen on 9/11/2001 in New York City, in Washington, D.C., and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It seems that most of the online commentary believes that planes crashing into the WTC towers did not cause the collapse of the buildings, and some even say there ‘were no planes.’ Most people I talk to seem to think that there was at least some foreknowledge by those in power that this attack was coming, and that they ‘let it happen’, at least, much as with Pearl Harbor.
Personally? I don’t know what actually happened, except that I don’t question (as some do) the fact that thousands of people died. I mean, there are those who say in all seriousness that those people who were supposedly on the planes which supposedly hit the towers were actually just spirited away and given new identities. Sometimes these theories get way out of control and posit what to me are implausible scenarios.
I believe that yes, Islamic fanatics carried out the attack. It’s what they do. No need to make up alternative stories which absolve Moslems of the main guilt.
Was there a Jewish/Israeli/Mossad role in the attack? That’s a claim that is pressed by a lot of people.
The net result of all these conflicting stories is that many people don’t know what to believe, and no longer trust their common sense, or even their five senses. We live in a cynical age, dominated by postmodernism, which denies even the existence of objective truth.
We are also, sad to say, living in a time in which there has developed a certain callousness towards our fellow citizens, a coldness which is in part due to the obvious efforts to divide our folk every which way. It’s worked, to a great extent. We are a divided people.
Right after 9/11, I was still living in a big city, and a local fast food restaurant had a sign reading ‘United We Stand‘, — followed by ‘Celebrate Diversity.‘
That’s the story in a nutshell; the two ideas are in opposition. We are a diverse nation in every possible way, and there can be no unity in such a society, not even a coming together in mourning.
Here’s some interesting data that should be useful in one of those online discussions where people are pointing fingers regarding slave-owning in the South. I see lots of claims that only a ‘tiny percentage’ (single digits, according to some who claim this) held slaves, and of course the person saying this always says that his own ancestors owned none — “it was only those big plantation owners, the very rich Cavalier class”, etc. This always rang false to me. I know that there were smaller farmers who had a couple of slaves, or a few.
The following is from a book called The South, its Economic-Geographic Development, by A.E. Parkins, published in 1938:
The salient facts, to me, are that about 50 percent of farm-owners did own slaves but the author estimates that about a third of the total population of the South owned any. The distribution of slaveowners varied according to region and county.
And of those farms which had slaves, there were a good many more small farms with a few or a couple of slaves versus the number of very large plantations with great numbers of them. So it was not the large farmers or plantation owners alone who owned most of the slaves; even small farmers had them, and smaller farms were overrepresented, percentage-wise, in the number of slaveholders.
I don’t expect this data will ever be used by anyone; it seems it’s more appealing to make unsupported claims about who owned, or didn’t own, slaves, so as to be able to point the finger somewhere else. Where is the solidarity that should exist? The South is besieged and there should be more unity as opposed to class division. Funny, our ancestors didn’t go in for that kind of division as much; the people of the old South had a loyalty to one another and there was little of this ‘Celt vs. Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘poor people vs. rich, evil planter class’ that has become popular. Jacobinism is slyly insinuating itself in our society, although it’s always been there, implicitly, in egalitarianism; it’s just a matter of degree.
There was a popular statement, credited to a couple of renowned Southron statesmen:
“I am an aristocrat; I love liberty, I hate equality.” Naturally that kind of sentiment is not going to go over well in egalitarianism-besotted America. Few people seem to get the obvious truth that liberty and equality can’t coexist; they are mutually exclusive. Equality, or a pretended equality, requires coercion. And we are finding that out.