Conspicuous compassion

One of the identifying traits of “liberals” or progressives is their conspicuous claim to ”compassion” toward certain groups that are called downtrodden or oppressed. In the Left’s cult, those classed as ‘poor’ are one of the left’s certified victims, and it helps that numbers of POCs are classed as ‘poor’, because the POCs make up the largest contingents of beneficiaries of the left’s alleged compassion.

Young white people, themselves often of middle- to upper-class origins, sometimes play the ‘conspicuous compassion’ role to the hilt, maybe because of guilt over their ‘White privilege’.

Most of us have been taught that giving to charity is a good thing, a worthy thing. But nowadays is charity money actually going to help the truly needy people, or is it being distributed according to the racial spoils system more often than not? When people want to show off their superior compassion, they are often prone give to those POCs, who are higher in the PC pecking order, rather than to those who demonstrably need it. And certain people are more likely to be fawned over and favored.

But is a poor person, whoever they may be, automatically heroic or superior to the middle-class or the upper class?

I know that egalitarian-minded Americans disavow a ‘class system’ and if they do acknowledge it, they are outraged that it exists, but the rest of us know equality is a myth in any case. As to poor people, are they necessarily victims of a heartless, greedy society, as the left frames it?

I read a quote posted online by a very left-wing young woman. It was a quote whose author I don’t recall; someone I’ve never heard of. The gist of the quote was the profession of the author to ”always take the side of the poor and needy” or of ‘those who have no money and are not allowed to enjoy what they do possess”.

Very touching. But so often these kinds of peoples who play the part of the soul of compassion and ”caring” are often people who have considerable creature-comforts and resources. Their public pose is often belied by the way they live their lives.

But back to my question as to whether the poor are always helpless victims — in some cases, yes — but are there not people whose irresponsibility and profligate habits leave them in poverty, or prevent them from escaping it?

In earlier times, those in charge of dispensing charity usually looked at the circumstances: did the person in need create his own problems by irresponsibility, recklessness, idleness, or by bad habits like excessive drinking? Those who drank or drugged themselves into poverty were classed as “the vicious poor“. That term didn’t mean that they were cruel or dangerous; ‘vicious’ then meant ‘having vices‘. Such people were not absolved of guilt in creating their own problems, or for neglecting their children and their homes in favor of enjoying their vices.

There were the ‘deserving poor‘, meaning obviously that some people were poor through no definite fault of their own. There are such people today, those whose businesses and livelihoods have been shut down or even destroyed by recent events beyond the control of most of us. Those people deserve compassion.

Still, the left, with their play-acted ‘bleeding heart’ ways, insist on their conspicuous compassion towards POCs exclusively. There have been lots of young people outside the U.S.A. asking how they can contribute (in money or in kind) towards the cause of a certain groups which has been in the news daily. Never mind that this particular organization has been funded to the tune of billions of dollars by these insane corporate donors, who apparently have far more money than they know what to do with. No; billions are not enough. More is needed, and these deluded young people in far-off countries want to pay their share of the tribute, adding it to the billions.

People should be made aware that there are poor people amongst our own, and that many of them are being forgotten in favor of the politically correct victims du jour.

One final point: a lot of Christians will say that the Bible teaches us to favor the poor always, because they are poor. And today, many would say it was doubly true that we should favor POCs. But the Bible tells us “…[T]hou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty“. Not all the poor are saintly and innocent, and not all the ‘mighty’ are villains. As it is, we are wrongly ‘respecting the persons’ of whole groups of people when we are warned not to do so.

Compulsory activism

The following story, by William A Jacobson, out of Cornell University is an example of something I wrote about immediately after the early BLM ‘activism’ Remember the people who were forced by ‘activists’ to kneel or genuflect, or to repeat some shibboleth? I wrote that I thought we would be entering a new phase of this conflict, in which, in order to prove our obedience or ‘loyalty’ to the regime, we would not be allowed merely ‘lip service’ but would have to actively participate in ‘actions.’

I referenced the Book of Daniel, where compulsory worship of the golden image was decreed. Everyone was required to fall down and worship the idol at the sound of the musical cue. It looks like Cornell University is following that example. It seems it isn’t enough to indoctrinate gullible college students into an all-encompassing Leftist, antiwhite worldview. No; they have to actively participate, participating in some kind of action.

This is what I said; it may eventually required of all of us. It has happened in various totalitarian systems. One had to prove one’s loyalty and commitment or be suspected of disloyalty or heresy. I suppose this is a way of weeding out those who are the undesirables.

I encounter young people online who ask how they can ‘help’ the Cause, how they can contribute money from their countries (in Europe, Australia, etc.). The young people are being conditioned to look at this movement as heroic or as a ‘freedom’ movement. Those in other countries have little clue as to what goes on in this country, and it seems that even many of our home-grown young have little idea of reality. If you have college-age children be aware of these things, and of the mental conditioning that they are experiencing.

And it is not just limited to the students and young people. It affects anybody who watches the ‘news’ media or takes in toxic pop culture.

Discussion at the OD blog

At his blog, Hunter Wallace has been having a very intense discussion with a leftist who responded to a post of Hunter’s, centering on the differences between the left and the (alt)-right, or the alt-right as was. I think it’s one of the most in-depth discussions of the respective belief systems or outlooks, and worth reading. As of now it looks like Hunter and his interlocutor are on part 3 of the exchange. I found it very thought-provoking. Hunter has certainly done his homework with respect to history, especially Southern vs. Northern viewpoints.

I think this series of posts is one of the best I’ve seen on the OD blog. This is the kind of thing that should be done more. It’s always good to put the truth out there even though the left seems incapable or unwilling to hear or accept it.

American Reconstruction — circa 1919

When we hear or read the term ‘Reconstruction’, those of us from the South at least, tend to think of the process that was inflicted on the former CSA, but in 1919 or so, the R-word of that day was more likely to refer to the planned process of re-making not just the world map post WWI, but remaking the minds and hearts of the former combatant nations, specifically the Western/European world.

Nowadays many people, lacking a good education in 20th century history, think that the Left’s current offensive is peculiar to our day, whereas when we look at books of the early 20th century we find that the Left was already barking mad back then. For example; there were leftist parties in America which were very much active , and in the wake of WWI there were violent episodes, such as incidents involving the out-of-control Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, also known as ‘Wobblies’). In a shocking episode, IWW members lynched and castrated a military veteran, and killed four other men in a separate shooting episode, in Centralia, Washington. The Pacific Northwest has long been a hotbed of this kind of fanaticism. Of course current sources say that IWW violence is a ”myth” but then myths don’t kill people.

The antifas, aggressive and brutish as they are, are kiddies compared to their counterparts of a hundred years ago. This is not to downplay the malice of the antifas but to remind us that the violence and unrest are not peculiar to our troubled time, but another instance of a recurrent, chronic phenomenon.

The unrest of the post-WWI era also manifested in the form of — well, manifestos. Lost of rhetoric appeared involving how humanity must learn to live together in harmony, or else — or else humanity would destroy itself in rampant senseless wars. The answer, according to our betters, who were writing book upon book urging peace at all costs, was for us all to transcend nationalism and learn to join together.

A few examples of the many books that appeared circa 1919 were: Reconstructing America (subtitle: Sociologically and Economically) by one Benjamin J. Rosenthal, and another tome, also called Reconstructing America, subtitled ‘Our Next Big Job‘. It was a compilation of essays by ‘respected’ invidivuals including Woodrow Wilson, Paul Warburg, and John D. Rockefeller Jr., From the introduction:

“We are in the throes of a new order, conscious of a new spirit of toleration and mutual interest…

Yet another book, by Cecil Fairfield Lavell, also printed in 1919, also used the word ‘Reconstruction’ in its title – (Reconstruction and National Life). Among the ideas promoted in that book were the ‘fusion’ of different ethnic and racial groups, suggesting that this would be the best answer, a sure deterrent to future conflicts. Another odd idea there: that intensified nationalism, though feared by the intelligentsia, might in fact fuel internationalism. I suppose this meant that they thought people were so war-weary (understandably so, after the horrors of WWI) that they would reject nationalism. Or were they intending to try a kind of aversion therapy by allowing nationalism to go to such excesses that people would reject it in favor of the ‘One World’ nostrum?

Shades of the Kalergists.

In all my reading of old books in the last year or two, focusing on the WWI era and earlier, it becomes obvious that the situation in which we find ourselves is not of recent origin; it’s been brewing for at least the better part of a century, and much longer than that if you go back at least to the era of the rise of the Jacobins. Yet we can only seem to see causes in much more recent times.

But these things, having deeper roots than we have imagined, will be harder to deal with if we don’t consider their long-established presence in our country and in Europe.