There is a lot of this sort of stuff on the Internet, especially on blogs that focus on retro/vintage ephemera. The attitude displayed by the writers and commenters is generally one of self-righteous 'shock' and almost a kind of perverse relish in looking at the taboo advertisements displayed for your (dis)approval in the article.
People often disparage the Victorian era for their 'prudishness' and what is called 'excessive' modesty today. The reticence of Victorians on sexual matters is ridiculed and mocked, with emphasis on how the Victorians sought out titillation in the sights and behaviors they condemned as sinful. The modern PC prudes are guilty of that very thing; they get some kind of thrill from seeking out the forbidden, that is, the politically incorrect. This kind of thing is a sort of perverse pleasure for the PC crowd. They get a chance to show off their 'tolerant and enlightened' attitudes and to have a laugh at the expense of those backward and disgraceful people who were our parents and grandparents.
The whole message inherent in this kind of thing is: thank 'the gods' that we are so much more enlightened and so much more sensitive than those troglodytes of a few decades ago.
What a lot of pious PC prigs. The world will be a better and much more relaxed place once 'political correctness' is a thing of the past.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Comments
The spam filter has for some reason trapped quite a few comments, and so if you posted a comment which did not show up, it was simply caught in the filter; I haven't deleted comments recently. I have approved a number of comments that were stuck in the filter.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Emma West in court
Emma West was in court yesterday, and initially I read only that she had pleaded not guilty. However the Daily Mail tells us that she said in court that she had taken a 'double dose of medication', apparently some sort of psychiatric medication, and that she had just been to see her psychiatrist.
Perhaps this is some kind of defense strategy -- so often the mental issues card is played. And maybe she was under psychiatric care; so many people in our countries are these days, and most of those who are, are also on some kind of psychoactive medications.
Sadly, though, this will only reinforce the leftist lie that being 'nativist,' having 'xenophobic', or indeed any sort of politically incorrect opinions is a sign of a 'mental illness' -- or of a low IQ, as was recently claimed in a 'news' article.
If this will enable her to go on with her life and be reunited with her children, then it's what she has to do, but I hope this will not further discredit her and make her life more difficult. I wish her well, but I also want to see a world in which people are not subject to arrest and imprisonment for saying impolite things or holding opinions which are not ''allowed.''
Perhaps this is some kind of defense strategy -- so often the mental issues card is played. And maybe she was under psychiatric care; so many people in our countries are these days, and most of those who are, are also on some kind of psychoactive medications.
Sadly, though, this will only reinforce the leftist lie that being 'nativist,' having 'xenophobic', or indeed any sort of politically incorrect opinions is a sign of a 'mental illness' -- or of a low IQ, as was recently claimed in a 'news' article.
If this will enable her to go on with her life and be reunited with her children, then it's what she has to do, but I hope this will not further discredit her and make her life more difficult. I wish her well, but I also want to see a world in which people are not subject to arrest and imprisonment for saying impolite things or holding opinions which are not ''allowed.''
On this day in 1861
"Davis will be pilloried in Northern histories as an ''arch-rebel,'' and traitorous to the core. So much for the truth of partisan history! While on the contrary his whole history will show that he was a calm, clear-headed, and large-hearted man, chosen in the hour of need for his known merits, and on the strength of his history, which was not obscure nor ignoble. That he failed was not extraordinary; that he held out so long, was the marvel. I write from knowledge of the man. If you would understand him and the history of his times, read his book, "The Rise and Fall of the Southern Confederacy," unanswered and unanswerable, as we of the South think.'' - Richard A. Wilmer, Bishop of Alabama, in The Past from a Southern Standpoint. Reminiscences of a Grandfather, 1887
Friday, February 17, 2012
My two cents
There is an interesting discussion at Spirit/Water/Blood, in which Andrew Fraser comments and receives a few responses in return. The issue in dispute is whether the American Republic was flawed from the beginning, in that it was based on a 'constitutional faith' that replaced a more organic ethno-religious tradition, based on Spirit as well as Blood. The American 'constitutional faith' as Dr. Fraser terms it encompasses -- if I understand correctly -- the 'proposition nation', the nation founded on assent to ideas, not a nation which grew up organically based on blood ties.
As I see it, since this nation included peoples from the British Isles -- English as well as Scottish, Welsh, and later, Irish, it could not be a strictly Anglo-Saxon nation. Different Christian denominations made it necessary to guarantee that no one form of Christianity was to be an established state religion, as the Church of England was, or the Catholic faith in Ireland. The result was the 'separation of church and state', although as we know, it is nowhere mentioned in our founding documents, only in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a citizen.
The colonists from the British Isles were not the only inhabitants of the colonies at the time of the founding; as we know, there were Swedes, descendants of original Swedish colonists, Dutch descendants of New Amsterdam colonists and Huguenots of French descent. John Jay was the son of such, as was Paul Revere.
Even here we can see how multiculturalism was incipient in our country.
So from the beginning this country was majority Anglo-Saxon but as more colonists from Scotland and Ulster began to enter in the 18th century and later, the character changed somewhat, and later waves of immigration altered the character further. Still, the majority of immigrants assimilated to the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture, and the animosities that today mark the relations between the descendants of the Irish, say, and the English, were not so pronounced. I would say that the mid-20th century marked a change for the worse, with various ethnic groups stepping up the conflict; old grievances (battles fought in Ireland and Scotland in the 17th century, the 19th century Famine in Ireland, etc.) were stirred up anew.
Dr. Fraser says
If the meaning is that the less-than-homogeneous mixture which existed at the founding was ultimately a death sentence to the old-stock Anglo-Saxon, I will agree to that, although I think that, had inflammatory rhetoric not worsened relations later among the various British Isles peoples, there might be a more cohesive society here now -- if we had not Ellis Island-ized the country and then opened the floodgates in earnest in 1965. I think I've expressed the view before that the initial seeds of our multiculturalism were sowed early on, long before the mid-20th century. It would have been better had more homogeneity had been maintained, though many people will object loudly to a statement like that.
Dr. Fraser recommends that Anglo-Saxons can and should re-invent themselves as a global confederation -- something that I could get behind, but before such a thing is even a possibility, Anglo-Saxons need to discover their identity as such. I've described White Americans generally as sleepwalkers or amnesiacs, too often out of touch with their origins. Too many of us have only the vaguest notion of our ancestry, or worse, have mistaken and garbled 'oral traditions' about who their ancestors were. Witness the popular 'Cherokee princess' story which is especially prevalent in the South. Ironically, the South is probably the area, even now, where the greatest concentration of Anglo-Saxon Americans live.
Some Anglo-Americans don't know their genealogy, many don't want to know. Being an Anglo-Saxon American has no cachet, no social desirability for many people, perhaps because of the popular stereotype of the 'rich WASP blueblood' who lives in some lily-white enclave with other rich WASPs. Such people probably exist though they are few and far between. Still, most people do not want to identify with such a group.
In his book The WASP Question, Dr. Fraser refers to a phenomenon I've alluded to before; he refers to the 'social decrease' of WASPs in America. He notes that, according to estimates of descendants of Anglo-Saxons, according to 'natural increase' should mean that there are many more millions of WASP descendants than there actually appear to be, while the numbers of German-descended and Irish-descended Americans seem over-inflated, based on past immigration plus natural increase. The reason? Many Americans have a mixture of different ancestries, and when one of those ancestries is English, the modern-day descendant is drawn to identify with a more socially popular group, like the Irish or the Germans. Or the Scots-Irish. Or almost anything else. English-Americans are seen as being people of no ethnicity, hence the phrase that a hostile European commenter on this blog used to describe White Americans: 'a people of no race and no culture.'
Mind you, I am embellishing on what Dr. Fraser said, not citing him directly in that last paragraph. I don't want to misrepresent his statements in the book, which I don't have at hand just now.
In any case, for Anglo-Saxon Americans to rally and form some kind of confederation with our kinsmen worldwide -- which I would heartily support, should it be feasible -- we first have to remember who we are, and reaffirm the worth of our identity. We have to start to speak up when people malign our ancestors and our culture and history. Every other ethnicity -- especially those with historical animosities against the English -- speak up for themselves, while we meekly pass up our chance to speak for ourselves. We let everybody, including our enemies, define us, and to define us mostly as the bad guys who wronged their sinless ancestors.
Again, though, so many Americans are a mixture of different ancestries. I once posed the question on this blog: if you are of mixed ancestries, whose side do you take? If you are half-Irish and half English or some other combination, do you hate your English side? It seems many do; it's so much more socially desirable to identify with Professor Mel Gibson's view of history a la Braveheart, or The Patriot, where the English were the foppish and effete villains, or treacherous tyrants.
So we have a problem with rallying and uniting with our brethren. Even our cousins in England are not all conscious that they are English, not 'British.' If only we could get the world to distinguish between those two terms, that would be half the battle.
And now that I've written this piece as my small contribution to the discussion started at SWB, this post will probably receive a few comments only, because most of my posts on WASPs draw little comment. I've been told such posts are 'divisive', when in fact the divisions have already been drawn by others.
So if the three or four of you out there who identify with your Anglo-Saxon ancestry comment, I will consider this post somewhat worthwhile.
Meantime, for those who are not Anglo-Saxon, is it possible to see how the fate of Anglo-Saxons might be pivotal to the future of the West, or at least the Anglosphere? Even if you are not English by blood, this should matter to anybody who cares about the future of 'our' flawed America.
But I definitely believe that while we should focus on our closest ethnic ties, we can -- and must -- still ally ourselves with our more distant kinsmen.
As I see it, since this nation included peoples from the British Isles -- English as well as Scottish, Welsh, and later, Irish, it could not be a strictly Anglo-Saxon nation. Different Christian denominations made it necessary to guarantee that no one form of Christianity was to be an established state religion, as the Church of England was, or the Catholic faith in Ireland. The result was the 'separation of church and state', although as we know, it is nowhere mentioned in our founding documents, only in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a citizen.
The colonists from the British Isles were not the only inhabitants of the colonies at the time of the founding; as we know, there were Swedes, descendants of original Swedish colonists, Dutch descendants of New Amsterdam colonists and Huguenots of French descent. John Jay was the son of such, as was Paul Revere.
Even here we can see how multiculturalism was incipient in our country.
So from the beginning this country was majority Anglo-Saxon but as more colonists from Scotland and Ulster began to enter in the 18th century and later, the character changed somewhat, and later waves of immigration altered the character further. Still, the majority of immigrants assimilated to the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture, and the animosities that today mark the relations between the descendants of the Irish, say, and the English, were not so pronounced. I would say that the mid-20th century marked a change for the worse, with various ethnic groups stepping up the conflict; old grievances (battles fought in Ireland and Scotland in the 17th century, the 19th century Famine in Ireland, etc.) were stirred up anew.
Dr. Fraser says
''Unfortunately, most American WASPs continue to lie to themselves about who they are, where they came from, and where they are going. They cling to the hope that “Americans” (or at least “white Americans”) can still unite as a tribe.
But the bitter truth is that the American Republic has never been, is not now, and never will be an ethnonation.
America is a nation of nations.
For centuries, however, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants pretended to be the sole avatars of homo Americanus. In recent decades, Jews, Negroes, and Hispanics (with a good deal of help from WASP women) have stripped bare that constitutional conceit.
Old-stock Americans must acknowledge as well that the novus ordo seclorum created by their ancestors delivered a fatal blow to the unity of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. The American Adam was tainted by original sin.''
If the meaning is that the less-than-homogeneous mixture which existed at the founding was ultimately a death sentence to the old-stock Anglo-Saxon, I will agree to that, although I think that, had inflammatory rhetoric not worsened relations later among the various British Isles peoples, there might be a more cohesive society here now -- if we had not Ellis Island-ized the country and then opened the floodgates in earnest in 1965. I think I've expressed the view before that the initial seeds of our multiculturalism were sowed early on, long before the mid-20th century. It would have been better had more homogeneity had been maintained, though many people will object loudly to a statement like that.
Dr. Fraser recommends that Anglo-Saxons can and should re-invent themselves as a global confederation -- something that I could get behind, but before such a thing is even a possibility, Anglo-Saxons need to discover their identity as such. I've described White Americans generally as sleepwalkers or amnesiacs, too often out of touch with their origins. Too many of us have only the vaguest notion of our ancestry, or worse, have mistaken and garbled 'oral traditions' about who their ancestors were. Witness the popular 'Cherokee princess' story which is especially prevalent in the South. Ironically, the South is probably the area, even now, where the greatest concentration of Anglo-Saxon Americans live.
Some Anglo-Americans don't know their genealogy, many don't want to know. Being an Anglo-Saxon American has no cachet, no social desirability for many people, perhaps because of the popular stereotype of the 'rich WASP blueblood' who lives in some lily-white enclave with other rich WASPs. Such people probably exist though they are few and far between. Still, most people do not want to identify with such a group.
In his book The WASP Question, Dr. Fraser refers to a phenomenon I've alluded to before; he refers to the 'social decrease' of WASPs in America. He notes that, according to estimates of descendants of Anglo-Saxons, according to 'natural increase' should mean that there are many more millions of WASP descendants than there actually appear to be, while the numbers of German-descended and Irish-descended Americans seem over-inflated, based on past immigration plus natural increase. The reason? Many Americans have a mixture of different ancestries, and when one of those ancestries is English, the modern-day descendant is drawn to identify with a more socially popular group, like the Irish or the Germans. Or the Scots-Irish. Or almost anything else. English-Americans are seen as being people of no ethnicity, hence the phrase that a hostile European commenter on this blog used to describe White Americans: 'a people of no race and no culture.'
Mind you, I am embellishing on what Dr. Fraser said, not citing him directly in that last paragraph. I don't want to misrepresent his statements in the book, which I don't have at hand just now.
In any case, for Anglo-Saxon Americans to rally and form some kind of confederation with our kinsmen worldwide -- which I would heartily support, should it be feasible -- we first have to remember who we are, and reaffirm the worth of our identity. We have to start to speak up when people malign our ancestors and our culture and history. Every other ethnicity -- especially those with historical animosities against the English -- speak up for themselves, while we meekly pass up our chance to speak for ourselves. We let everybody, including our enemies, define us, and to define us mostly as the bad guys who wronged their sinless ancestors.
Again, though, so many Americans are a mixture of different ancestries. I once posed the question on this blog: if you are of mixed ancestries, whose side do you take? If you are half-Irish and half English or some other combination, do you hate your English side? It seems many do; it's so much more socially desirable to identify with Professor Mel Gibson's view of history a la Braveheart, or The Patriot, where the English were the foppish and effete villains, or treacherous tyrants.
So we have a problem with rallying and uniting with our brethren. Even our cousins in England are not all conscious that they are English, not 'British.' If only we could get the world to distinguish between those two terms, that would be half the battle.
And now that I've written this piece as my small contribution to the discussion started at SWB, this post will probably receive a few comments only, because most of my posts on WASPs draw little comment. I've been told such posts are 'divisive', when in fact the divisions have already been drawn by others.
So if the three or four of you out there who identify with your Anglo-Saxon ancestry comment, I will consider this post somewhat worthwhile.
Meantime, for those who are not Anglo-Saxon, is it possible to see how the fate of Anglo-Saxons might be pivotal to the future of the West, or at least the Anglosphere? Even if you are not English by blood, this should matter to anybody who cares about the future of 'our' flawed America.
But I definitely believe that while we should focus on our closest ethnic ties, we can -- and must -- still ally ourselves with our more distant kinsmen.
Enticements for 'asylum seekers'
Australia's 'home starter pack' of goodies for 'asylum' seekers waiting for their claims to be processed.
What is this but enticements for these people to settle in Australia?
The UK lavishes handouts and special privileges on 'refugees' as well. This is not giving people just the basics; it is setting them up in cushy circumstances, in effect placing them above the born citizens of the receiving country. Why is this met with such indifference on the part of the citizens of the countries?
Our country -- so far -- is slightly less generous in the handouts given to 'asylees' or 'refugees' but they are definitely given benefits which are not available to American homeless people, or those unemployed Americans who have run out of benefits.
The Western countries are essentially luring people with these goodies and luxuries. They are paying people to colonize Western countries and become long-term recipients of handouts. Why? Apparently our countries have money to burn, and are in effect making an open-ended commitment to support the world's ne'er-do-wells, at taxpayers' expense.
What is going on is a policy of population replacement, apparently.
And here's an article about the topic of refugee resettlement in our country and its many attendant problems. In it, Don Barnett of the Center for Immigration Studies is quoted. It's depressing and exasperating to read of the effects of these programs on our small towns and rural areas, but it's worth reading.
What times we live in.
What is this but enticements for these people to settle in Australia?
The UK lavishes handouts and special privileges on 'refugees' as well. This is not giving people just the basics; it is setting them up in cushy circumstances, in effect placing them above the born citizens of the receiving country. Why is this met with such indifference on the part of the citizens of the countries?
Our country -- so far -- is slightly less generous in the handouts given to 'asylees' or 'refugees' but they are definitely given benefits which are not available to American homeless people, or those unemployed Americans who have run out of benefits.
The Western countries are essentially luring people with these goodies and luxuries. They are paying people to colonize Western countries and become long-term recipients of handouts. Why? Apparently our countries have money to burn, and are in effect making an open-ended commitment to support the world's ne'er-do-wells, at taxpayers' expense.
What is going on is a policy of population replacement, apparently.
And here's an article about the topic of refugee resettlement in our country and its many attendant problems. In it, Don Barnett of the Center for Immigration Studies is quoted. It's depressing and exasperating to read of the effects of these programs on our small towns and rural areas, but it's worth reading.
What times we live in.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
In Austin? Texas?
The Republicans who love to play the race card (''Democrats are the REAL racists!") are really reaching with stories like this non-story.
Well, first of all, the daughter of your goddaughter is not your granddaughter, but nowadays family means to mean whatever the PC ideologues want it to mean; forget about hard-and-fast biological definitions of family.
Secondly, anyone who knows Austin, Texas would laugh at the notion that 'Jim Crow' and its ''ugly features'' are likely to be found in Austin, which is known as 'Berkeley-on-the- Brazos' and/or 'Moscow-on-the-Brazos' for a reason.
And the probable reason for the report made to the police is that someone feared the child (apparently unrelated to the 'grandfather') was being abducted by a stranger. Nowadays, what with so much emphasis on child abductions and Amber Alerts, many people are hyper-aware of men in the company of children who appear unrelated. And much as we pretend we have a 'colorblind' society, or that we should have one, the fact is, when two people are patently of different races, it's simply a common-sense assumption that the two racially different people are UNrelated. Granted, as the media tout interracial pairings and celebrate the mixed offspring, we see more racially ambiguous children, but it is usually obvious if a child is mixed, even though the resemblance to the White grandparents (or parent) is not discernible.
The article falls back on the usual PC cant about how 'racist' even liberal Austin folk are.
American 'Thinker' is one of those sites that revels in playing the race card, usually with the 'Liberal plantation' theme featured, and plenty of obligatory diversity among the writers. It seems to have a more multicultural cast of writers than the New York Times or MSNBC, and definitely an equally PC slant on issues like this.
No wonder that the Republicans are sounding more and more like the Democrats, with each side taunting the other side as 'racist.'
Real progress.
As for me, I have a dream that one day we will be free from busybodies in the media re-defining family, race, and nation for us, and calling down anathemas on anyone who dares to hold to the time-honored definitions.
''Some of the uglier features of the Jim Crow South are alive in Austin, Texas. Just ask Scott Henson, an Austin resident who describes himself as "an almost stereotypical looking Texas redneck." In his popular "Grits for Breakfast" blog dealing with the criminal-justice system, the political consultant and former journalist tells how he was a victim last Friday of "baby sitting while white." He was guilty -- he relates in a post that's attracting national and international coverage -- of walking hand-in-hand with his black granddaughter -- 5-year-old Ty who is the daughter of his goddaughter.''
Well, first of all, the daughter of your goddaughter is not your granddaughter, but nowadays family means to mean whatever the PC ideologues want it to mean; forget about hard-and-fast biological definitions of family.
Secondly, anyone who knows Austin, Texas would laugh at the notion that 'Jim Crow' and its ''ugly features'' are likely to be found in Austin, which is known as 'Berkeley-on-the- Brazos' and/or 'Moscow-on-the-Brazos' for a reason.
And the probable reason for the report made to the police is that someone feared the child (apparently unrelated to the 'grandfather') was being abducted by a stranger. Nowadays, what with so much emphasis on child abductions and Amber Alerts, many people are hyper-aware of men in the company of children who appear unrelated. And much as we pretend we have a 'colorblind' society, or that we should have one, the fact is, when two people are patently of different races, it's simply a common-sense assumption that the two racially different people are UNrelated. Granted, as the media tout interracial pairings and celebrate the mixed offspring, we see more racially ambiguous children, but it is usually obvious if a child is mixed, even though the resemblance to the White grandparents (or parent) is not discernible.
The article falls back on the usual PC cant about how 'racist' even liberal Austin folk are.
''Austin, ironically, is a bastion of liberal politics where the political ideology of diversity is given much lip service. Yet it's also a place where in some areas, a white grandfather can't hold hands with his black granddaughter without arousing the sort of suspicions that once occurred in in the Jim Crow South.
In his "I Have a Dream" speech, Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared: "I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls."
It's a dream that Scott Henson is living every day - and, sadly, some in Austin hate him for that.''
American 'Thinker' is one of those sites that revels in playing the race card, usually with the 'Liberal plantation' theme featured, and plenty of obligatory diversity among the writers. It seems to have a more multicultural cast of writers than the New York Times or MSNBC, and definitely an equally PC slant on issues like this.
No wonder that the Republicans are sounding more and more like the Democrats, with each side taunting the other side as 'racist.'
Real progress.
As for me, I have a dream that one day we will be free from busybodies in the media re-defining family, race, and nation for us, and calling down anathemas on anyone who dares to hold to the time-honored definitions.
'Nothing to be refused...'
In recent years we've read and heard a lot about the prevalence of 'eating disorders' among Americans, and we certainly never get a rest from the stories and sermons about obesity. But I wonder if the problems we refer to collectively as 'eating disorders' don't also include good old American food faddism, something I mention here occasionally.
Lately I've noticed that a lot of Christians are obsessing on what is called 'The Daniel Diet', supposedly based on the diet adopted by Daniel in the Bible. He and other young Hebrew captives (remember Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?) chose to shun the King's wine and food when they were captives in Babylon.
I had always understood this choice on Daniel's part to be based on the desire to eat according to the Levitical laws regarding food, but the proponents of the diet would have us believe that Daniel and his companions wanted to show the benefits of 'a natural diet', versus the diet eaten by the King and his court.
You can read Daniel Chapter 1 here and see if there is any mention of such motives on Daniel's part.
Personally I think someone is 'adding to' God's word here; Daniel was not prescribing his diet as a universal practice. He was, seemingly, attempting to show that God could keep him and his compatriots healthy even on a limited, meager diet.
It seems Christians are not immune from the food faddism and diet obsessions that so plague many Americans. It seems every other person I meet these days is on some sort of self-chosen dietary regime, according to the fads of the moment. Low carb, high protein, gluten-free, 'natural' or 'raw, whole foods', vegetarianism, veganism, and on and on.
Few Americans seem to be able to eat a meal and enjoy it without counting carbs, trans-fats, protein grams, fiber content, calories, gluten, food additives, antioxidants, probiotics. Few Americans, it seems, are willing to let their fellow Americans eat what they please without offering recommendations of their own chosen food regime or diet, which they always see as THE only way to health and attractiveness.
This tendency to obsess about food and health is something that is not new.
The writer offers his opinions of why this food faddism is so prevalent in America:
Studies have tried to examine the kinds of people prone to food faddism and the use of 'fad food products' including supplements, vitamins, 'health foods', etc., and have not found consistent patterns.
It does seem many Americans, compared with those in other countries, are especially preoccupied with youth and the fear of aging, and fitness, as well as outward physical attractiveness. Much of the food faddishness revolves around avoiding illness and maintaining youth. Not a few of the food-obsessed people I know were people who despite their finicky eating habits were not particularly healthy and hearty.
Another aspect of this obsession with food, health, and youth, is the vegetarian 'lifestyle.' It does seem that vegetarianism is more common now than it was when I was a vegetarian in the 1980s, and the so-called 'vegan' diet is certainly more common, especially among younger people.
In some surveys, Americans displayed a more fearful attitude about food than their French counterparts:
I've often commented on how just about the only thing that is called 'decadent' or 'sinful' these days is food, specifically the tasty foods like chocolate.
Ámericans in the survey seemed to connect certain foods with the idea of 'poison' and to connect health with food more than they connect pleasure with food.
Recently there has been a discussion of vegetarianism on several blogs, beginning and continuing at OneSTDV and carrying over to Inductivist, among others. It was an interesting series of posts, bringing even the Jewish Question into the mix.
From OneSTDV:
This would be consistent with what I've said about the class bias in food attitudes, as well as an ethnic/regional element; I also alluded to the latter in my post a few weeks ago about Paula Deen and her nutritionally incorrect Southern cooking. It has all the forbidden elements.
Another element in the food faddism in our country is that we are spoiled for choice. We are presented with a staggering array of foods to eat, often many brands of the same foods, all competing in their claims to being a 'healthier' choice or, subliminally, appealing to our desire for prestige or status.
We have so much abundance that we can afford to be finicky and fussy about what we eat, and to make a fetish of denying ourselves good things, perhaps as a mark of our superior character. Few believe in old-fashioned morality these days, even Christians, but most people like to show their morality by eating the 'right' foods.
Now is the cue for someone to claim that we can blame this all on the Puritans, who somehow passed on to most Americans their tendency to prudery. The difference is that we've made food a kind of moral test. One has to eat the 'right' foods, and having backslidden, to make atonement by a rigorous exercise program. We Americans are not prudes in the old sense, but food prudery is everywhere.
Lately I've noticed that a lot of Christians are obsessing on what is called 'The Daniel Diet', supposedly based on the diet adopted by Daniel in the Bible. He and other young Hebrew captives (remember Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?) chose to shun the King's wine and food when they were captives in Babylon.
I had always understood this choice on Daniel's part to be based on the desire to eat according to the Levitical laws regarding food, but the proponents of the diet would have us believe that Daniel and his companions wanted to show the benefits of 'a natural diet', versus the diet eaten by the King and his court.
In Daniel, chapter 1, Daniel himself takes on a challenge to show the value of a natural diet (v12) and goes on to prove its success (v15). His regime is the basis for Daniel’s Diet.''
You can read Daniel Chapter 1 here and see if there is any mention of such motives on Daniel's part.
Personally I think someone is 'adding to' God's word here; Daniel was not prescribing his diet as a universal practice. He was, seemingly, attempting to show that God could keep him and his compatriots healthy even on a limited, meager diet.
It seems Christians are not immune from the food faddism and diet obsessions that so plague many Americans. It seems every other person I meet these days is on some sort of self-chosen dietary regime, according to the fads of the moment. Low carb, high protein, gluten-free, 'natural' or 'raw, whole foods', vegetarianism, veganism, and on and on.
Few Americans seem to be able to eat a meal and enjoy it without counting carbs, trans-fats, protein grams, fiber content, calories, gluten, food additives, antioxidants, probiotics. Few Americans, it seems, are willing to let their fellow Americans eat what they please without offering recommendations of their own chosen food regime or diet, which they always see as THE only way to health and attractiveness.
This tendency to obsess about food and health is something that is not new.
''About a hundred years ago John Harvey Kellogg persuaded a great number of fluent and well educated Americans to sign themselves into his sanitarium at battle Creek, Michigan. Here they submitted to a regime that included all-grape diets and almost hourly Bulgarian yogurt enemas and of course whole grains. At this same time millions of Americans became convinced that "Fletcherizing" was the cure to their ailments. Horace Fletcher, known as the Great Masticator, preached the importance of chewing each bite of food 100 times.''
The writer offers his opinions of why this food faddism is so prevalent in America:
''These proponents of healthy eating marked the beginning of an era of food faddism that has not ended. Why are Americans so vulnerable to these fads? I think it has to do with the diversity of cultures that exists in the US. We do not have a stable national cuisine as do other cultures. Other cultures have found over hundreds and even thousands of years what is a healthy diet for their area. Since we have no dietary traditions to follow we are more easily subject to the latest "scientific" approach to eating.''
Studies have tried to examine the kinds of people prone to food faddism and the use of 'fad food products' including supplements, vitamins, 'health foods', etc., and have not found consistent patterns.
''One possible hypothesis concerning fad food use is that it is in some way associated with a middle-American value system which embraces such beliefs as the need for preventive maintenance and the utility of technological innovation to solve potential problems such as aging or future illness.''
It does seem many Americans, compared with those in other countries, are especially preoccupied with youth and the fear of aging, and fitness, as well as outward physical attractiveness. Much of the food faddishness revolves around avoiding illness and maintaining youth. Not a few of the food-obsessed people I know were people who despite their finicky eating habits were not particularly healthy and hearty.
Another aspect of this obsession with food, health, and youth, is the vegetarian 'lifestyle.' It does seem that vegetarianism is more common now than it was when I was a vegetarian in the 1980s, and the so-called 'vegan' diet is certainly more common, especially among younger people.
In some surveys, Americans displayed a more fearful attitude about food than their French counterparts:
According to Rozin, the U.S. medical establishment’s preoccupation with what foods constitute a healthy diet also has added to American women’s “normative discontent” about weight and body image. He cites his recent survey of college students from six campuses across the U.S. In that study, more than 10 percent of the female respondents admitted that they are “embarrassed” to be seen buying a chocolate bar, while 30 percent said they would be willing to take a nutrition pill—and forgo eating. “About one quarter of Americans, mostly women,” Rozin adds, “if asked for the first few words that come to mind when they think of chocolate, mention both a positive and a negative word: ‘delicious’ and ‘fat.’ They’ve taken this incredibly delicious food, and they’ve made it into something like a toxin.”
I've often commented on how just about the only thing that is called 'decadent' or 'sinful' these days is food, specifically the tasty foods like chocolate.
Ámericans in the survey seemed to connect certain foods with the idea of 'poison' and to connect health with food more than they connect pleasure with food.
'“We tend to think about what’s in the food that’s either good or bad for us,” explains Rozin, “and the French think about it as an experience: It’s eating. They’re thinking about it in the mouth, and we’re thinking about it in the bloodstream. Ironically, recent studies show that life expectancy is about the same in France and the U.S. The French eat a higher-fat diet, have higher levels of blood cholesterol, and do not worry about a healthy diet, yet still have a rate of cardiovascular disease that is about one-third less than Americans.''This is the mindset that creates the food fads; the search for the perfect diet which will insulate us from illness or obesity or aging. There is also the fact that foods are often viewed as indicators of social status; 'unhealthy' foods are often associated with lower-class people while the healthy 'whole' foods are associated with the wealthy and trendy people. Remember the president's remarks a few years ago about the 'price of arugula'? Arugula is one of those status-conferring kinds of foods.
Recently there has been a discussion of vegetarianism on several blogs, beginning and continuing at OneSTDV and carrying over to Inductivist, among others. It was an interesting series of posts, bringing even the Jewish Question into the mix.
From OneSTDV:
A non-exhaustive list of meat currently stigmatized by the nutritional establishment reads like a traditional white Christian dinner: pork, ham, bacon, lard, and gelatin. Butter and oil, staples of down-home Southern cooking, are out too. And ever hear Dean Ornish or Andrew Weil encourage people to start eating hunting game like deer, rabbit, bird, and wild boars?''
This would be consistent with what I've said about the class bias in food attitudes, as well as an ethnic/regional element; I also alluded to the latter in my post a few weeks ago about Paula Deen and her nutritionally incorrect Southern cooking. It has all the forbidden elements.
Another element in the food faddism in our country is that we are spoiled for choice. We are presented with a staggering array of foods to eat, often many brands of the same foods, all competing in their claims to being a 'healthier' choice or, subliminally, appealing to our desire for prestige or status.
We have so much abundance that we can afford to be finicky and fussy about what we eat, and to make a fetish of denying ourselves good things, perhaps as a mark of our superior character. Few believe in old-fashioned morality these days, even Christians, but most people like to show their morality by eating the 'right' foods.
Now is the cue for someone to claim that we can blame this all on the Puritans, who somehow passed on to most Americans their tendency to prudery. The difference is that we've made food a kind of moral test. One has to eat the 'right' foods, and having backslidden, to make atonement by a rigorous exercise program. We Americans are not prudes in the old sense, but food prudery is everywhere.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
More Russian people needed?
Vladimir Putin, the favorite of many pro-Whites for some reason, has made a controversial statement about the need for his countrymen (and women) to 'start having more sex' in order to halt the population decline.
Well, that's one way of trying to address the problem, but 'more sex' is not the solution as long as the abortion rate is high in Russia, which it has been for many decades.
I assume that the numbers quote reflect the population of actual Russian people, that is, people of Russian descent, Russian ethnicity, rather than just warm bodies of any origin inhabiting Russian territory.
I wondered how many people -- Russian people, that is -- are leaving Russia every year. I reasoned that the numbers must be pretty large, considering the large populations of Russians who live in certain parts of this country (not just Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, aka Little Odessa).
According to this webpage, migration out of Russia since 1989 has been only 1.1 million.
That seems to be an undercount, considering the great numbers of Russians who are established in various Western countries.
I have to wonder if the numbers are inaccurate. I do realize a great many of those who are considered 'Russian' in our country are Ukrainian or some related people, and also a great many are actually Jewish -- which was considered a separate ethnicity in the old Soviet Union. Certainly there seem to be more migrants from Russia than those numbers indicate.
Why is there no effort seemingly aimed at keeping Russian citizens at home, rather than seeing them off to the United States, Canada, or wherever else they settle? Can it be that, as with the Third World countries, it's in the interests of the governments to have their citizens emigrate and send home 'remittances' extracted from our economy?
Remittances, too, are generally acknowledged to encourage 'chain migration' as they finance the emigration of remaining family members to the 'magnet' countries.
Russia, according to the statistics provided on the linked website, is a magnet country itself for certain Third World countries, while its own people migrate elsewhere, hence the decline in overall population despite immigration.
Russia seems to be a popular place for Western men to find 'mail-order brides', despite the known problems associated with that business.
If Putin and his government are serious about increasing the birth rate of the ethnic Russian people, they should address the problem of out-migration, and the practice of Russian women seeking men outside the country. In order to increase the population of Russian people, both Russian men and women are needed. The old cliche that a country's real resources are its people is a true one. Russian women should not be encouraged to seek greener (in more senses than one) pastures abroad. This does not benefit Russia or the Russian people.
Though many of those who identify as pro-White think it's fine for any and all White peoples to intermarry and/or emigrate where they will, it simply adds to the globalizing and deracinating trend for people to cross boundaries of culture and nationality; just having the same or similar skin tone is not enough to mix and match -- at least not for anyone who is a real ethnonationalist or a lover of his own kin and kind. As is often pointed out in other contexts, it isn't 'just about skin color', and above all, people are not interchangeable. If we are, then we should just embrace globalization, multiculturalism, and 'propositional nations' , because ethnicity is meaningless; only broad racial categories matter.
Meantime, is Putin a real ethnonationalist? He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, occasionally sounding very nationalistic while later advocating tolerance and multiculturalism, and easing curbs on immigration as he has done.
But a real nationalist would recognize the unique qualities and value of their own people, and would not want to see the distinctions blurred away.
Well, that's one way of trying to address the problem, but 'more sex' is not the solution as long as the abortion rate is high in Russia, which it has been for many decades.
''Since Putin first came to power in 2000 the population has decreased by 2.5 million Russians so the Prime Minister has made increasing the country's birth rate through Government incentives one of his key election pledges.
He vowed to offer more free kindergarten places, cheaper housing, and a £140 a month benefit bonus to mothers who have a third child, in a bid to boost the population size to 154 million people.''
I assume that the numbers quote reflect the population of actual Russian people, that is, people of Russian descent, Russian ethnicity, rather than just warm bodies of any origin inhabiting Russian territory.
I wondered how many people -- Russian people, that is -- are leaving Russia every year. I reasoned that the numbers must be pretty large, considering the large populations of Russians who live in certain parts of this country (not just Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, aka Little Odessa).
According to this webpage, migration out of Russia since 1989 has been only 1.1 million.
That seems to be an undercount, considering the great numbers of Russians who are established in various Western countries.
I have to wonder if the numbers are inaccurate. I do realize a great many of those who are considered 'Russian' in our country are Ukrainian or some related people, and also a great many are actually Jewish -- which was considered a separate ethnicity in the old Soviet Union. Certainly there seem to be more migrants from Russia than those numbers indicate.
Why is there no effort seemingly aimed at keeping Russian citizens at home, rather than seeing them off to the United States, Canada, or wherever else they settle? Can it be that, as with the Third World countries, it's in the interests of the governments to have their citizens emigrate and send home 'remittances' extracted from our economy?
Remittances, too, are generally acknowledged to encourage 'chain migration' as they finance the emigration of remaining family members to the 'magnet' countries.
Russia, according to the statistics provided on the linked website, is a magnet country itself for certain Third World countries, while its own people migrate elsewhere, hence the decline in overall population despite immigration.
Russia seems to be a popular place for Western men to find 'mail-order brides', despite the known problems associated with that business.
If Putin and his government are serious about increasing the birth rate of the ethnic Russian people, they should address the problem of out-migration, and the practice of Russian women seeking men outside the country. In order to increase the population of Russian people, both Russian men and women are needed. The old cliche that a country's real resources are its people is a true one. Russian women should not be encouraged to seek greener (in more senses than one) pastures abroad. This does not benefit Russia or the Russian people.
Though many of those who identify as pro-White think it's fine for any and all White peoples to intermarry and/or emigrate where they will, it simply adds to the globalizing and deracinating trend for people to cross boundaries of culture and nationality; just having the same or similar skin tone is not enough to mix and match -- at least not for anyone who is a real ethnonationalist or a lover of his own kin and kind. As is often pointed out in other contexts, it isn't 'just about skin color', and above all, people are not interchangeable. If we are, then we should just embrace globalization, multiculturalism, and 'propositional nations' , because ethnicity is meaningless; only broad racial categories matter.
Meantime, is Putin a real ethnonationalist? He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, occasionally sounding very nationalistic while later advocating tolerance and multiculturalism, and easing curbs on immigration as he has done.
But a real nationalist would recognize the unique qualities and value of their own people, and would not want to see the distinctions blurred away.
Just an empty spectacle?
Just after Super Bowl Sunday, I posted a short piece about the bizarre Madonna halftime performance, in which I linked to a lengthy discussion of it on Vigilant Citizen. Now, at AltRight, Mark Hackard has written a good piece , Spectacle in Babylon, analyzing that show and its symbolism.
The same people who are habitual critics of Christianity will scoff at the idea that this kind of thing is significant in any way, but scoff as we may, there are people -- more of them than ever, by the look of things -- who take this stuff very seriously indeed, and some of these seemingly deluded people are in places of great influence where have the capacity to manipulate many people. Some are in show business -- Hackard points out the prevalence of cults and their followers in Hollywood.
Politicians, too, are no strangers to these kinds of groups. We've all been reassured by those who profess to 'know' that groups like Skull and Bones or the Bohemian Grove gatherings are just fun and games, just harmless pranks and a means of depressurizing for the wealthy and influential.
While I don't profess to have any secrets to share, or any inside knowledge of these things (though I have attended functions of one well-known group back East in the past) I think it's foolish to dismiss the importance of this kind of thing; it's better to maintain a degree of wariness and not be quick to scoff.
As much as some people on the ''right'' despise Christianity and blame it for just about everything that is wrong with our world, especially globalism, open borders, the 'One World' delusion, and anything else that menaces us, why not look at the influence of the so-called 'New Age' movement on all these trends? Various religions, sects, and cults which have flourished since at least the middle of last century have been promoting all the above delusions and lies heavily, and their fingerprints are all over the One World/globalist/multiculturalist agenda. It is their jargon and catchphrases that fill our media: 'empowerment', 'enlightenment' 'global citizenship' 'transformation' 'global governance' 'unity in diversity' and all the rest of it.
The problem with tracing these things to the New Age movement is that it is, by design, a rather nebulous philosophy, weaving together bits and pieces from many religions and philosophies, and even managing to feign respect for Jesus Christ (aka 'The Christ') in their propaganda. But mostly they exalt all things non-Western above all, and while they employ pop psychology as part of their belief system, they are mostly averse to real science when it comes to their worldview.
Many people in this movement will disavow the term 'New Age', saying that it means nothing, or that it is too all-inclusive.
However, there is a widespread belief among many Western people these days in New Age-derived ideas like 'karma' including group karma, national karma and racial karma; past lives/reincarnation beliefs also figure prominently. How many people do you know who are interested in, or avidly believe, in some of these things? I've known many. Even some of those who profess Christ believe in some of the above ideas, sad to say.
The most common belief among people who embrace some form of 'New Age' or Occult belief system is the idea that 'all is one.' There is no good, no evil, in an absolute sense; all is one, and the idea of a dichotomy between good and evil is just mistaken thinking; it's all based on illusion. Mankind and all life forms are just aspects of One being, so the belief goes. All human beings are essentially one. God and man are aspect of this unity too, and man can become God, supposedly -- or is already a god with a small 'g', if he but knows it.
Madonna and her Hollywood peers supposedly practice some homemade version of the mystical tradition known as Kabala. This kind of thing is very much under the New Age umbrella.
Hackard seems to see a move toward openly leading people into this arcane believe system, via manipulation of occult symbols. He seems to see this kind of formerly hidden ('occult') system coming out into the open. It would seem that this is culminating as people have become sufficiently disarmed via having their traditional faiths subverted and discredited, and all their suppositions about themselves, their history, and the world, challenged and/or remade. We can certainly see this happening, even if we insist on attributing it to some random process or to some more mundane kind of agenda.
I've mentioned how, that in my liberal and unregenerate days, I used to be steeped in New Age thoughts and practices, and I've certainly seen it up close and have been involved in it. So my acquaintance with it is not mere book-knowledge or something I saw on Oprah -- although Oprah herself is a prime example of someone who promotes this belief system to the female population on a large scale.
But these increasingly open attempts to bring the formerly hidden out into the open remind me of what I read in the writings of New Age 'writer'/channeler Alice Bailey, when she wrote of the 'Externalisation of the Hierarchy.'
Does any of the above describe what we see happening to our world ? The above words (supposedly from an 'Ascended Master' from Tibet, dictated to Alice Bailey) were written decades ago, long before many of the pieces were in place. No doubt they sounded more far-fetched in the mid-20th century, but they sound very much like what is happening now, what with all our 'elites' seemingly on the same page as regards the direction 'our world' is taking. Bailey, in her extensive writings, described how nationalism had to go, because it was 'separative' and all separative philosophies and people would have to be removed, because they hindered the wonderful Unity which would characterize the coming 'New Age'.
Some will no doubt scoff at the notion that these kinds of belief systems are anything but harmless fantasy or well-intentioned fluff, but I assure you they are taken seriously by some important people, and we dismiss them at our own peril.
The same people who are habitual critics of Christianity will scoff at the idea that this kind of thing is significant in any way, but scoff as we may, there are people -- more of them than ever, by the look of things -- who take this stuff very seriously indeed, and some of these seemingly deluded people are in places of great influence where have the capacity to manipulate many people. Some are in show business -- Hackard points out the prevalence of cults and their followers in Hollywood.
''Having built her fortune on blasphemy, Madonna is also a high-profile practitioner of Kabbalah, Judaic magic rooted in the mystery schools of Babylon and Egypt. One reason among many for Hollywood’s suspension in unreality is that “the industry” has an extensive history with cults, so it should come as no surprise that a number of stars and their handlers might be participants in such activity.''
Politicians, too, are no strangers to these kinds of groups. We've all been reassured by those who profess to 'know' that groups like Skull and Bones or the Bohemian Grove gatherings are just fun and games, just harmless pranks and a means of depressurizing for the wealthy and influential.
While I don't profess to have any secrets to share, or any inside knowledge of these things (though I have attended functions of one well-known group back East in the past) I think it's foolish to dismiss the importance of this kind of thing; it's better to maintain a degree of wariness and not be quick to scoff.
As much as some people on the ''right'' despise Christianity and blame it for just about everything that is wrong with our world, especially globalism, open borders, the 'One World' delusion, and anything else that menaces us, why not look at the influence of the so-called 'New Age' movement on all these trends? Various religions, sects, and cults which have flourished since at least the middle of last century have been promoting all the above delusions and lies heavily, and their fingerprints are all over the One World/globalist/multiculturalist agenda. It is their jargon and catchphrases that fill our media: 'empowerment', 'enlightenment' 'global citizenship' 'transformation' 'global governance' 'unity in diversity' and all the rest of it.
The problem with tracing these things to the New Age movement is that it is, by design, a rather nebulous philosophy, weaving together bits and pieces from many religions and philosophies, and even managing to feign respect for Jesus Christ (aka 'The Christ') in their propaganda. But mostly they exalt all things non-Western above all, and while they employ pop psychology as part of their belief system, they are mostly averse to real science when it comes to their worldview.
Many people in this movement will disavow the term 'New Age', saying that it means nothing, or that it is too all-inclusive.
However, there is a widespread belief among many Western people these days in New Age-derived ideas like 'karma' including group karma, national karma and racial karma; past lives/reincarnation beliefs also figure prominently. How many people do you know who are interested in, or avidly believe, in some of these things? I've known many. Even some of those who profess Christ believe in some of the above ideas, sad to say.
The most common belief among people who embrace some form of 'New Age' or Occult belief system is the idea that 'all is one.' There is no good, no evil, in an absolute sense; all is one, and the idea of a dichotomy between good and evil is just mistaken thinking; it's all based on illusion. Mankind and all life forms are just aspects of One being, so the belief goes. All human beings are essentially one. God and man are aspect of this unity too, and man can become God, supposedly -- or is already a god with a small 'g', if he but knows it.
Madonna and her Hollywood peers supposedly practice some homemade version of the mystical tradition known as Kabala. This kind of thing is very much under the New Age umbrella.
Hackard seems to see a move toward openly leading people into this arcane believe system, via manipulation of occult symbols. He seems to see this kind of formerly hidden ('occult') system coming out into the open. It would seem that this is culminating as people have become sufficiently disarmed via having their traditional faiths subverted and discredited, and all their suppositions about themselves, their history, and the world, challenged and/or remade. We can certainly see this happening, even if we insist on attributing it to some random process or to some more mundane kind of agenda.
I've mentioned how, that in my liberal and unregenerate days, I used to be steeped in New Age thoughts and practices, and I've certainly seen it up close and have been involved in it. So my acquaintance with it is not mere book-knowledge or something I saw on Oprah -- although Oprah herself is a prime example of someone who promotes this belief system to the female population on a large scale.
But these increasingly open attempts to bring the formerly hidden out into the open remind me of what I read in the writings of New Age 'writer'/channeler Alice Bailey, when she wrote of the 'Externalisation of the Hierarchy.'
"The externalised Ashrams will be active along four major lines:[Emphasis mine.]
1.Creating and vitalizing the new world religion.
2.The gradual reorganizing of the social order - an order free from oppression, the persecution of minorities, materialism and pride.
3.The public inauguration of the system of initiation. This will involve the growth and comprehension of symbolism.
4.The exoteric training of disciples and of humanity in this new cycle." (The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, p. 700)
"The preparatory work of externalisation falls into three phases or stages, as far as relation to mankind is concerned:
First. The present stage in which a few isolated disciples and initiates, scattered all over the world, are doing the important task of destruction, plus the enunciation of principles. They are preparing the way for the first organised body of disciples and initiates who -- coming from certain Ashrams -- will proceed with the next phase of the work.
Second. The stage of the first real externalisation upon a large and organised scale will succeed upon the above endeavours. These disciples and initiates will be the real Builders of the new world, of the new civilisation; they will assume leadership in most countries and take high office in all departments of human life. This they will do by the free choice of the people and by virtue of their advanced and proven merit. By this means, gradually the Hierarchy will take over the control upon the physical plane -- subjectively as well as objectively -- of the direction of human affairs.''
Does any of the above describe what we see happening to our world ? The above words (supposedly from an 'Ascended Master' from Tibet, dictated to Alice Bailey) were written decades ago, long before many of the pieces were in place. No doubt they sounded more far-fetched in the mid-20th century, but they sound very much like what is happening now, what with all our 'elites' seemingly on the same page as regards the direction 'our world' is taking. Bailey, in her extensive writings, described how nationalism had to go, because it was 'separative' and all separative philosophies and people would have to be removed, because they hindered the wonderful Unity which would characterize the coming 'New Age'.
Some will no doubt scoff at the notion that these kinds of belief systems are anything but harmless fantasy or well-intentioned fluff, but I assure you they are taken seriously by some important people, and we dismiss them at our own peril.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Hidden history?
It's no surprise that certain events of the past have been covered up. This story from The Australian is an interesting example. Since we don't think of politically correct censorship as having existed so much back during WWII, one wonders why this story was hushed up.
Was it to quell any fears on the part of the local populace in Queensland, where the incident is said to have happened? Or was it to stifle any potential criticism back home in the United States of the idea of integration, which was already in the planning stages back then?
Certain people, even on the ''right'', insist that incidents such as this one were rare to nonexistent before the radical changes of the 1960s and later, but such things did happen, even before our current 'liberal' regime was fully in place.
How many more such incidents have been kept quiet, so as to perpetuate the cultural Marxist egalitarian worldview?
Was it to quell any fears on the part of the local populace in Queensland, where the incident is said to have happened? Or was it to stifle any potential criticism back home in the United States of the idea of integration, which was already in the planning stages back then?
Certain people, even on the ''right'', insist that incidents such as this one were rare to nonexistent before the radical changes of the 1960s and later, but such things did happen, even before our current 'liberal' regime was fully in place.
How many more such incidents have been kept quiet, so as to perpetuate the cultural Marxist egalitarian worldview?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)