Saturday, March 30, 2013

It's the trees, forget about the forest

The current debate concerning homosexual “marriage” is framed by its promoters and apologists as fundamentally a question of “equality.” Seeing these references in the slogans floating around social media these days got me to thinking about this word and its synonyms:  similarity, equivalence, sameness, etc., among other things.

On the one hand is the obvious absurdity that a homosexual union, independent of its being state-sanctioned or not, is equal to or in some sense the same as a heterosexual union—a farcical notion, from a purely biological perspective, brought to you by the crowd who fancy themselves the paragon of scientific enlightenment in the world, ever battling religious obscurantists.

On the other hand is the recurring fallacy of the liberal left: that social mores can be reduced to the question of whether anyone is immediately harmed by the matter at hand and that morality is based on that criterion alone. The wisdom of examining social issues of profound importance with multitudinous implications through a lens that only looks for immediately apparent harm to others is at best short-sighted and reveals the nexus point of homosexual “marriage”, race relations, mass immigration and feminism—in short, the bulk of the PC agenda.

Of course all these matters are framed by the liberal left as simple issues of individual fairness and equality; stripped of any constraining context like tradition, society, certainly not religion or for that matter biology. Reality is a social construct according to this crowd.

To some extent, you have to admire the left’s ability to keep the debate focused away from the forest and squarely on the trees in promoting their agenda. Not only does it give them the opportunity to portray themselves as the good guys in their myopic morality play, it saves them the trouble of dealing with much more complicated ethological questions, like the ill considered ramifications of their policies, but I digress.

The fact is that since the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, the left has been largely successful in having their assertions of “equality” and “sameness” go unchallenged. Anyone with the temerity to publically contradict this doctrine is branded with a derogatory Orwellian epithet:  homophobe, sexist, racist, etc.  

The curious thing is that those of us who do see the forest as well as the trees have reality on our side. Who would seriously argue that the very essence of a homosexual union is the same as and equal to that of a heterosexual union?  Being that the interplay of the sexes is the dynamic through which human life is created, society obviously has an inherent interest in promoting and nurturing such relationships. It’s as absurd to assert the “equality” of these relationships as it is to promote the other fictions in the Cultural Marxist agenda.

Monday, November 5, 2012

All Saints Day ruminations

I had the chance last week, on the All Saints Day holiday, to revisit one of my favorite albums of the 1980s, U2's "The Unforgettable Fire".  It goes without saying that the highlight of that album is "Pride", the anthem to African-American activist Martin Luther King. 

That song got me thinking of this philandering ethnic activist's subsequent beatification in the popular mind. It's no exaggeration to say this anti-American communist is at the pinnacle of the Cultural Marxists' pantheon of saints. That's doubtless due, in no small part, to his being martyred, but it's also thanks to the endless propaganda barrage by the multi-headed hydra of the media in all its manifestations. And there's no denying the importance of U2's song in making White folks feel good about this particular Black.  A careful listen to the lyrics reveals that Bono is putting King on a par with Jesus Christ himself.  Think about that for a moment.

Monday, July 2, 2012

"Diversity is Strength": Tell that to the Spanish national team

The big news today is Spain’s dominating victory over Italy in the finals of the European Cup.  While Spain’s triumph was noteworthy for the World Champs’ control of Sunday’s championship game, the Spanish national team is remarkable for being the only major country in Europe whose team is comprised exclusively of native ethnic Europeans. 

In their analysis, the news media are talking about the clean play, teamwork and camaraderie of the Spanish standard bearers. Any interested observer immediately noticed that the Spaniards played the tournament apparently without a marquee star—team captain and goalie Iker Casillas, not withstanding. And they really did play selflessly as a team.

The question I have is how long before the media get around to talking about the implications of all this for society at large?  I don’t mean the relative advantages Europeans might have over Africans in this particular sport.

Let’s think about and talk about soccer as a microcosm of society at large. That doesn’t seem to be a stretch and it’s something that is discussed when it appears to promote the PC agenda of displacing and replacing White European society.  Last year, the Financial Times accidentally got around to talking about the reality behind the “diversity is our strength” mantra as it relates to the French national team.

I won’t hold my breath for the mainstream media to talk about the advantages of a homogeneous soccer team, much less those of a homogeneous society—at least for Europe, North America and Australia.  Keep in mind all the time, energy and money behind the “ant-racist” indoctrination to which UEFA subjected us soccer fans again this year.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Trayvon and hoodies as smokescreen

So I got on a flight this morning where the airline gave me a free copy of the Financial Times.  There  I read this article with one, Gary Silverman, trying to pass himself off as an ordinary White guy:

“I am white and middle-aged, a taxpayer and a property owner. But if you believe what you hear on television in this country, I have been dressing for most of my life like a criminal…”  He ends it telling us “…I have worn them without incident for decades, and that makes it hard for me to accept that Martin attracted attention simply because of his sweatshirt. I have never known a white kid who caught a bullet for pulling his hood over his head.”  

You know the victimization narrative, who the victims are and who the narrative claims they are.

I decided I had to write to this guy and his editor, along the lines of and including many of the points that “Whiskey” at AltRight had to say on Tuesday.  Sorry for the wholesale plagiarism, but hey, I’m busy:

I’m sorry to see you be a part of the media frenzy around “Trayvon” and “hoodies” – a frenzy intended to whip up Black violence to intimidate and create fear among Whites and to create a distraction from the brutal reality of Black criminality, especially that criminality targeting Europeans and European Americans.

You got one thing in your column right:  White kids don’t intimidate people when they wear this accessory because European Americans don’t commit crimes in anything like the same numbers African Americans do. 

The Daily Mail is full of stories about brutal Black criminals.  In the case of the prior link, one Tyrone Woodfork, brutally raped and beat to death 86 year old Nancy Strait, and critically injured her 90 year old husband Bob, a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge as a member of the 101st Airborne. Then there is the case the Daily Mail also reported on, two British tourists murdered in Sarasota Florida by an African thug named Shawn Tyson.

Floating around the Internet is the 2009 case of the 15 year old White boy set on fire in Deerfield Beach Florida, and the 13 year old White boy set on fire in Kansas City several weeks ago. Both were set on fire by Black “youths” as the links make clear (photos at the link of the accused). The boy in Florida nearly died, has massive burns, and faces a life with heart and kidney problems, as well as being permanently disfigured.

Then there is the “I will Kill the F*** out of you” video also at the Daily Mail link here, wherein we see Africans at an alleged institution of higher learning.  I think you get the idea of what’s going on here and who the victims and the victimizers routinely are.  Please try to put your hostility toward European peoples and European cultures aside for long enough to clear your view as to what’s really going on. 

This is a classic example of the hostile elite using their access to the elite media to beat the White- people-are-the-victimizers-and-people-of color-are-the-victims drum.  They’ve been at it for at least 50 years many of us now know why they do it and what they’re up to.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Open letter of a PC-apostate

My politics have changed a lot over the last six or seven years from left liberal to conservative traditionalist; from not questioning PC egalitarianism to being solidly grounded in race realism and the reality of HBD (human biodiversity).  Also, by now it’s clear to me that nothing emanating from Hollywood with a politico-cultural orientation has any trustworthiness. It’s not unlike the position people in Eastern Europe under communism were in when seeking reliable sources of information and considering the validity of the information made available to them—they took it all with a grain of salt.
Taking a couple of steps back, you might find it interesting to know how we, as a society, got to that point.  You also might find “my personal conversion on the road to Damascus” interesting, in as much as it’s been a pretty radical change that interestingly came about in large part as a result of the Iraq War and the US’s disastrous involvement in it. 
For me personally, it started when I first read Pat Buchanan’s classic article in The American Conservative magazine that properly framed the whole question as to why we were going to war in the Middle East and the role of the Neoconservatives in the Bush administration in making that happen.  Subsequent to that, in digging deeper, I came upon the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald, an evolutionary psychologist who shows, among other things, how through the creation of culture, the domination of the media (including Hollywood) and higher education, Jews have created an intellectual environment that undermines Western Civilization and the ethnic interests of White people.  His work is essential reading—it’s bracing and engaging, especially his magnum opus, The Culture of Critique.  I believe one can’t have a full understanding of 20th Century history and the current state of affairs in the Western world without reading at least this tome from Macdonald’s trilogy on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.
Macdonald’s work was pivotal in opening my mind regarding race realism, mass immigration, and other politically charged issues.  Suffice to say the entire edifice of politically correct assumptions and taboos is based upon the intellectual movements and pseudo-sciences he convincingly deconstructs:  Boasian anthropology—“all cultures are equal and there is no such thing as race”; Freudian psychoanalysis—“Western civilization is fundamentally pathological” as a result of  its “sexually repressive mores”—a clear attack on Christianity; the Frankfurt school of social science and “critical theory” —“ethnocentrism and other manifestations of group solidarity are pathological”  (in White people only, of course); Marxism and leftism generally—“race is a meaningless social construct, if it does exist, environment is everything and there are no meaningful group differences in behavior, disposition and IQ”; immigration policy—“immigrants from anywhere make for an equally good citizenry in Europe and America as the traditional peoples of those lands”—along with its corollary, “you're a racist xenophobe if you don't support mass immigration or believe in the PC religion of racial egalitarianism”.  In short, PC doctrine—cultural Marxism—was basically canonized by these intellectual movements for a very specific reason, to undermine Western civilization and its peoples.  As Macdonald wrote:
The various chapters of Culture of Critique show that hostility to the people and culture of the West was characteristic of all the Jewish intellectual and political movements of the left that came to be ensconced in the academic world of the United States and other Western societies. For example, Franz Boas’ cultural relativism (which implied that Western societies were in no way more advanced or superior to other societies) came to dominate academic anthropology. Boas had a strong sense that anti-Semitism pervaded non-Jewish society, leading him to despise non-Jewish culture, particularly the culture of the Prussian aristocracy in his native Germany.
Therefore, the key here is to keep in mind the precepts and the motivations behind all these ideologies and their promoters in academia and the media.
I have found that once cultural Marxism has been laid bare, one can begin to base one's opinions on the available data and not merely mouth platitudes about “racism” "diversity" and “equality” while rationalizing away reality and allowing the world we grew-up in to be destroyed.
So what does this all have to do with anything.  These are the fundamental bases of all political discussion within the cultural establishment. These are the messages emanating from the Hollywood propaganda machine that continually bombards us with negative images of Europeans, European Americans and our culture, including Christianity.  It contrives unrealistically positive representations of African Americans as well as other races and ethnic groups.  This propaganda is designed to make us feel bad about our culture—including our religion—and about ourselves. Ultimately it’s about disenfranchising and displacing us.
They are images that promote ‘cultural pessimism’, among the traditional peoples of Europe and America and they are promulgated to further Jewish ends in the West.  The ideas are the orthodoxy of the elite media and academia. If you don’t buy into these ideologies, you won’t have a voice among the elite in America or Europe. And if you don’t mouth clich├ęs supporting the party line, you risk social ostracism and exclusion, both personally and professionally.  There’s nothing worse for a status-conscious White person in the current PC-dominated culture than to be called ‘racist’. So people for whom social standing is important go to great lengths to show they’re not “racist”. Remember even Jeffrey Dahmer felt the need to demonstrate he wasn’t a ‘racist’—only a serial killer.  At least he wasn't branded with the "r" word whilst on death row--an interesting commentary on our current milieu. 
Next:  three toxic ideologies poisoning the West.