It all depends...

On this day in 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared their independence from the Netherlands. What's this got to do with America or Americans? Not a great deal, on the face of it, but it does touch on a few issues we discuss here.

I've written before that the Dutch who had resided in Indonesia or the 'Dutch East Indies' as was, were repatriated back to the Netherlands after the revolution establishing Indonesia's independence. I learned about this in college, but I find that very scant information on it is to be found on the Internet or elsewhere. Here's one brief paragraph about it:

'To withdraw all the troops and all the colonial Dutch families after independence became a big headache for the Dutch government. Many of the Dutch colonial people had never seen the mainland. Some of them had lived in Indonesia from generation to generation and hated the cold climate in Holland. Many were given a chance to emigrate to the U.S.A. or Australia. Many of them took that opportunity and started a new life in those countries. There were many Dutch Indonesians who immigrated to California. Still many of them stayed in Holland and mingled in with the Dutch society.''

So these people, of Dutch and sometimes mixed ancestry, who had never laid eyes on the Netherlands in many cases, were shipped 'back' to a country they had never seen. Why are cases like this never mentioned when somebody is wringing their hands over how we 'can't' repatriate aliens or in plain language, send them home? Our European kin were forced out, in some cases, of areas they had colonized centuries before. Yet in a sense they were going home, to the home of their ancestors and their natural kin. Still, they and their children, and perhaps several generations before them, had never known any other home than the colony in which they were born and lived. Do you reckon many native Indonesians fretted over how cruel and unfair it was to 'deport' people who were born in their islands? Somehow I doubt there was little public agonizing over it. Yet some Westerners tend to go into hysterics over the idea of sending anybody home, though in most cases the people in question have only recently transplanted themselves to American soil, unlike the Dutch and the mixed-race 'Indos' who were shipped to the Netherlands circa 1950.

I suppose by that time, they were ready to leave, as the revolution was no picnic for them:

'It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' - Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese - and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder, even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the Revolution.
[...]
In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Sukarno and Hatta negotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October, the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.
[...]
A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of them Indian soldiers. More than 5000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest killed in rampages by Indonesians.

Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless, despite the fact that many Chinese supported the Revolution. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.''

There were apparently quite a few 'Indos' or mixed people in Indonesia, though I haven't seen an exact number. It appears that 60,000 'Indos' were repatriated to the Netherlands, even though their roots were partly in Indonesia. It seems they were associated with the colonial Dutch even if (as their photos indicate) many had little Dutch blood, having intermarried amongst each other for generations.

Apparently the Dutch colonists, especially the earlier generations, were very prone to intermarriage or to taking Asian concubines. At first this was because few Dutch women came as colonials, but even after more Dutch women came, the rate of intermarriage was about 30 percent.

This kind of thing invariably complicates such situations; the presence of mixed race people makes any such conflict more tangled. The Dutch, according the sources I found, encouraged mixing, thinking that it would solidify or help legitimize their rule, if they had blood ties to the Indonesians. The British had an opposite tendency, and discouraged mixing in most of their colonies.

But in our situation, as more and more people intermarry or have children with Hispanics or others among us, it will be harder and harder as conflicts increase and people naturally pick sides. Where does the mixed person stand? Where will their loyalties be? And what about those who marry out? Their allegiances are compromised and in many cases they are lost to us, as are the children of such unions.

But as we've seen, intermarriage and mixed children do not avert conflict and division, though our overlords seem to think this will be the case.

The situation of a colonial power having to leave the colony as native peoples press for independence is not exactly like ours. Still this episode in history might make us think a little about why the United Nations supports the right of 'indigenous' peoples to independence, (as they did in Indonesia's case), seeing colonialism as a great injustice -- whereas now the U.N. aggressively promotes the 'right of emigration', the right of people to live wherever they choose with no regard for the right of the existing population of that country.

And the issues of repatriation, of simply sending people home, is one that has become radioactive in our day, whereas nobody thought it amiss back in 1950 or so. We live in an age of cognitive dissonance as ideas that are declared anathema in one situation are considered good and appropriate in other cases. I suppose, again, it's all about the 'victim' groups versus the 'villain' groups, and the left is writing the script, as always.

Davy Crockett, born August 17, 1786

Davy Crockett was born on this day in 1786. We all know of him as one of the heroes of the Alamo, and those who are old enough will remember the Walt Disney TV series based on Crockett's life. The media image of him, even in his day, was based on a great deal of exaggeration and what we would call 'hype' today.

The image above is that of Crockett's Almanack, a book of tall tales which was published in the 1830s into the 1850s, purportedly written by Crockett although this website indicates he did not write the material nor have control over what was written. The Crockett of the Almanacks was a wild man, something of a mythical figure like Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, or other such larger-than-life heroes. (By the way, do the younger generations even know Paul Bunyan?)

If you are interested in the real life Davy Crockett's life, you might navigate around the website linked, though beware of the political correctness.

Another biography of Crockett is here.

A new SWPL 'disorder'

This may fall under the SWPL (Stuff White People Like) category, but according to The Guardian, the latest 'eating disorder' is orthrexia:

The condition, orthorexia nervosa, affects equal numbers of men and women, but sufferers tend to be aged over 30, middle-class and well-educated.

The condition was named by a Californian doctor, Steven Bratman, in 1997, and is described as a "fixation on righteous eating". Until a few years ago, there were so few sufferers that doctors usually included them under the catch-all label of "Ednos" – eating disorders not otherwise recognised. Now, experts say, orthorexics take up such a significant proportion of the Ednos group that they should be treated separately.

"I am definitely seeing significantly more orthorexics than just a few years ago," said Ursula Philpot, chair of the British Dietetic Association's mental health group. "Other eating disorders focus on quantity of food but orthorexics can be overweight or look normal. They are solely concerned with the quality of the food they put in their bodies, refining and restricting their diets according to their personal understanding of which foods are truly 'pure'."

Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out.

The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished. Their dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their "virtuous" behaviour even if it means that eating becomes so stressful their personal relationships can come under pressure and they become socially isolated.''

Well, I am reluctant to designate every problem or quirk people have as a ''disorder'' requiring mental health treatment, and most of us would say that eating healthy is a good and desirable thing, but it is a fact that there can be too much of a good thing. Moderation, even in concern for one's health, is appropriate. But it seems some people go overboard with whatever they do, making it the focus of an excessive interest, or a source of fear.

And I definitely know, and have known, people who would fall into this category. Most often it is seen among women and adolescent girls, although I am sure there are some men who become 'orthrexics' too.

This trend is one that has been present in our society for several decades, although it seemed to really take off during the 1960s and 70s, with the counterculture. Those who were part of that movement tended to dabble in Eastern religions, which often prescribe vegetarianism as not only healthier, but as being spiritually advanced. 'Meat is murder' as the vegetarians like to say, and eating meat is barbaric. So the Guardian article is not far off , in describing foods as being seen as ''good'' and ''bad'' or that some kinds of dietary habits are virtuous. These 'orthorexics' may not believe in God, or may believe in countless small-g 'gods'. They are often scoffers at Puritanical concerns with sexual morality, but the orthorexic morality centers largely on food and/or fitness. Not every 'orthorexic' is especially fit, but oftentimes they are exercise fanatics as well as food fanatics.

One of the books of the counterculture era that had a part in this trend was a book called Sugar Blues, by William Duffy, which appeared in 1975. After that, most young people and many older people became convinced that sugar was the most evil substance one could ingest. I heard many believers say that 'sugar is more addictive than cocaine.' Sugar was blamed for all manner of physical, emotional, and behavioral problems, most notably 'hyperactivity' in children. Many parents to this day insist that sugar is to blame for their children's rowdiness or restlessness. However studies done in reputable institutions debunked that idea, though it's useless to tell believing parents that. They will insist, loudly, that their children do misbehave after eating sugar.

'The latest group to join the debate is the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which recently released a report charging that the government, professional agencies and the food industry have been ignoring evidence that diet affects behavior. However, the majority of studies so far haven't found a connection, and most in the medical industry maintain there is no known link between sugar and hyperactivity.

Still, many concerned parents feel certain they've seen a cause-and-effect relationship between sweets and rowdiness. Admittedly, more research would be needed to completely rule out the possibility of a link, but there are many plausible reasons other than sugar why a child may be bouncing off the walls.''

That last phrase 'bouncing off the walls' is one that parents invariably use when describing the behavior of their children following an ingestion of sugar.

Other evidence continues to discredit this idea but it does not convince parents or adults who believe that they themselves are also made 'hyper' by sugar.

The notion of a connection was first promulgated by an allergist named Benjamin Feingold back in the 70s, but by the time I was in a well-regarded graduate program in Education back in the 80s, we were taught that the Feingold Diet, which purported to treat hyperactivity by diet, was discredited and considered of no value. But it still lives on.

The latest trend in food faddism seems to be that people are diagnosed as having 'gluten intolerance', which requires a very restricted diet. I am wary of this, as it suddenly seems to be something of an 'epidemic.' Googling the subject brings up a lot of hits which seem to be to what I would term 'food faddist' websites, with idiosyncratic ideas about nutrition and health. But one wonders how many people are being diagnosed with this condition now, and how real this seeming 'epidemic' is.

Personally I have learned to take all these food scare stories with a huge grain of salt (and yes, I know salt is supposed to be bad for us.) Please notice that every day on the ''news'' or in your dead tree media, there will be the usual nagging stories about the harm done by this food or that food, and scolding articles about what we must eat in order to live longer and lose weight and slow down aging and 'feel better about ourselves.'' These are all the health equivalent of the Christian 'what must I do to be saved?' pieces. These sermons, however, promise only to extend our natural life for a few years, though occasionally there is the crackpot article about how in the future we will all be immortal, if we eat and exercise properly, and if all-knowing ''science'' finds a way to halt aging altogether. This is, I think, what many of the orthorexics are thinking of: the issue of human mortality. Many of the fussy eaters I know are obsessed with not getting old and dying. They are looking for the fountain of youth and hoping 'science' will grant them immortality.

However, for many women and girls, it isn't anything as profound as that; most just want to get thinner and stay thin. Getting fat is the fate worse than death.

I know of anorexic or bulimic young women for whom eating and food occupy their every thought. This is sad, and it's simply a distortion of the 'orthorexic' lifestyle.

As for all the food nags in the government and media, I notice they often cancel each other out, as a study reported one week will be contradicted by another study announced the next week. How can anyone know which to believe?

It seems that "all things in moderation -- including moderation", is the best motto in life.

As I noted at the beginning of this piece, the concern or even obsession with healthy eating, or fitness in general, is very much a SWPL thing. According to the official SWPL list, 'hummus' and 'whole foods and grocery co-ops' are among the Stuff White People like.

Earlier in life, I was a vegetarian and shopped at health food stores. Yes, I suppose I might have been an 'orthorexic' at one point, but I grew out of it. But never did I see 'people of color' in the health food stores. The idea of eating organic and avoiding the unhealthy foods is not something that seems important to nonwhites. I can't say why that is, but I think it's pretty generally true. I have known a couple of black women who might have been vegetarians but they were exceptions. It's a White thing to worry about whether one's food is healthy.

That being said, it's a habit that does get carried too far, with some SWPL types seeming to use strict diets to flagellate themselves in a way, as medieval penitents did. I've eaten plenty of 'organic' foods, and some of them are the culinary equivalent of a hair shirt. Much of the healthy food is not at all tasty or satisfying; I am convinced that the people who eat it are ascetics of a sort, who no longer really taste their food, but consume it only because they have to eat something to sustain themselves.

Maybe the people who eat recklessly, who eat all the unhealthy foods with no regard for their well-being or fitness, are people who are simply prone to risk-taking, the gambler types. The orthorexics are people who have somehow substituted dietary fussiness as a kind of self-denying religious discipline.

Sir Walter Scott, born August 15, 1771

Sir Walter Scott's most-often quoted words may be these:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land!'

He also wrote:

Teach your children poetry; it opens the mind, lends grace to wisdom and makes the heroic virtues hereditary.''

I think those are true words.

Sir Walter Scott, novelist and poet, had a wide-ranging influence as may be gathered from the links gathered on this site.

He was especially revered in the American South, as Carl N. Degler in Out of Our Past tells us:

Where the ideas of the nineteenth century were congenial to southern antebellum values, they spread extravagantly. Though the novels of a romantic like Sir Walter Scott were popular in North and South alike, it was in the latter that he became a literary idol. Upon his death, Richmond newspapers were edged in black. Only in the South were knightly joustings held in full pseudo-mediaeval armor and regalia. It was from Scott's books that Southerners lifted the word ''southron,'' which they self-consciously applied to themselves. The romantic picture of the organic, status society of the Middle Ages, which Scott dwelt on in several of his novels, seemed to shore up southern and conservative ideas on society and slavery. Hence, south of the Ohio, Scott found a welcome place denied to contemporaries like Dickens and Shelley, who mixed their romanticism with urban, humanitarian, and irreligious beliefs largely foreign to the South."

This is interesting; I had not been aware of the extent to which Scott was revered in the old South, nor that he was not as highly regarded in the North.

As to the word 'southron', I am not convinced that Scott was THE source for this term nor the use thereof in the South. It is an archaic term for Southern, used mainly in Scotland as I understand, and it was used by J.R.R. Tolkien in his writings. I suppose Tolkien may have picked it up likewise from Scott, but he was not the ultimate originator of it. I use the word, as do others, because it specifically refers to the people, history, and way of life of the American South, unlike the general word 'Southern'which simply designates a direction or a geographical region.

The Walter Scott Digital Archive contains a treasure trove of information about him, and links to his works.


Update: Please see the wonderful tribute to Scott at Cambria Will Not Yield.

Not all discrimination is equal

Over at Iron Ink, there are several good entries on the health care proposal, in particular this one, Nietzsche's Little Shop of Horrors.

Here is the problem folks.

America is broke and it needs to find ways to cut budgetary corners.

The answer, in part to that, is to allow Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped to die as opposed to giving them treatment. The solution is right out of Nietzsche’s playbook. The Christian values of gentleness, forgiveness, and mercy are going to be thrown out in order that a Nietzschean ubermensch (Supermen) can survive. Obama is invoking the “will to power,” in his plan to make Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped be the ones who help America out of its bankrupt condition.''

I agree with that assessment of the problem.
But the paradox is that the Left, the ones who are hell-bent on having this plan become law, position themselves as the champions of the weak, the downtrodden, and the politically 'disenfranchised.' But here they are taking a blatantly Nietzschean perspective. Can they continue to do this and still maintain any credibility as the party of 'caring and compassion'?

And how can the same people who arrogantly pronounce that we have to throw the 'non-contributing' individuals overboard in order to achieve health-care justice at the same time continue flooding our country with costly newcomers, many of them with exotic Third-world diseases and generally neglected health? The fact of many bankrupt hospitals in border states is but one illustration of how devastating to our health care system is the influx of illegal (and legal) immigrants.

Yet the powers that be, and their media flunkeys, (including the Wall Street Journal) continue to studiously ignore and deny the costs of mass immigration and the health problems which the newcomers bring with them.

But here, even the open-borders WSJ acknowledges the problem:

VALLEJO, Calif. -- A health clinic in this blue-collar city north of Oakland, partly funded by the county, is saving local hospitals thousands of dollars in emergency-room visits by treating uninsured patients who suffer only non-urgent ailments.

A watchdog group is now calling on county officials to cut funding for clinic patients who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally, a debate certain to surface in the national health-care overhaul.

With congressional proposals already stirring raw emotions, few supporters are eager to add the incendiary issue of illegal immigration. A provision in the House's health-care-overhaul bill rules out federal funding for illegal immigrants.

But in many ways, illegal immigration is at the nexus of two key health issues: the uninsured and ballooning costs.

Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.

The role illegal immigrants play in U.S. health-care costs is "one hot button that no one wants to touch," says Stephen Zuckerman, an economist at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.''

Well, Mr. Zuckerman, why do you suppose it is a 'hot button that no one wants to touch'? Obviously, it's because as I said yesterday, race is involved. If we had tens of millions of White Canadians thronging across our Northern border to 'seek a better life', nobody would be afraid to complain about it. Of course our Canadian cousins are generally too well-behaved and self-sufficient to violate our borders en masse, and they have created themselves a livable country, so the notion of their becoming border-jumpers should strike us as laughable. But alas, our borders are being violated by people of a protected race, so we must not notice the crisis their trespassing is causing, lest we be 'racists.' So no, Mr. Zuckerman, nobody wants to touch that hot button, which has been made a hot button on purpose, to keep us quiet about what is happening. But back to the article:

Residents have since complained to a 19-member county-appointed watchdog group about taxpayer money La Clínica going to health care for people living in the U.S. illegally. Neither the clinic nor the Sutter emergency room ask people their immigration status.

"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department.''

Yes; I think this is official policy in many places. They can't be asked for proof of citizenship, so a blind eye is turned, in 'don't ask, don't tell' fashion. I often tell people this is happening, and they are incredulous, because many people naively assume that ''it's against the law for illegals to get services'', not only medical care, but welfare and other social programs. But then I have to remind the doubters that ''it's against the law to cross the borders without proper permission, too" -- but that hasn't stopped millions from doing so, has it?

VDare has more on health care for immigrants:

A Colorado Ph.D says Mexicans with AIDS drain California of millions every year

and this piece by Brenda Walker about organ transplants for illegals.

There is no question that foreigners illegally enter the country to get million-dollar transplants not available at home, e.g. Ana Puente and Jessica Santillan, who received at least seven organs between them. The Chicago Tribune recently reported, “Liliana Cruz, 16, and her family came to the U.S. illegally in 2005, trying to get a kidney transplant for her.” She hasn’t gotten a transplant and complains about receiving free-to-her dialysis provided by taxpayers. So inconvenient.''

Many of these immigrants come here to get extremely costly treatment which they could not get in their home countries. Some Americans are reluctant to object to this, thinking it un-Christian or uncharitable -- but we have to remember there are many of our own people on waiting lists for transplants or dialysis. Should we not put our own first, as most countries do? None of us, not even "rich" old Uncle Sam (who is actually a pauper now) can care for everybody. We have to prioritize.

But as I asked on the Iron Ink piece, will these HIV-positive immigrants and others with costly medical conditions be turned away or denied care under the proposed system? I can hardly imagine that happening, because these people are the protected victims, the 'special' ones who are prioritized under the left's system. They will not be denied treatment.

The idea inherent in this plan is that health care should be guided by the left's notion of 'social justice', and doled out to those deemed ''underserved'' or underprivileged, while those who have ''had their day'' will be expected to step aside in favor of the younger people, most particularly those of the protected 'victim' groups.

[Emanuel] explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).''

If costs are indeed the deciding factor, and old or chronically ill people are just a burden on the rest, how can the government still open our borders and our treasury to millions more immigrants, who have proven to be very costly to the system?

The leftists, of course, are not troubled by glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. Everything is ultimately ideological and political to them, including human life.

And young people, who think this is strictly about those old folks for whom you have little sympathy, remember that you, too, could become disabled via accident or chronic illness. And your life, too, will be considered too costly to sustain -- unless, of course, you are a member of a politically favored group.

This is an issue that should concern everyone, regardless of age.

Les Paul, 1915-2009, RIP

Les Paul, who was not only a gifted guitarist but also an innovator and pioneer who developed one of the first solid-body electric guitars, died on August 13 at the age of 94.

He was at the peak of popularity in his recording career when I was a child, but his influence extended into the rock 'n roll era and down to the present time; he was something of an icon to later generations of guitarists.

The video is part one of a documentary about him, and it gives a brief overview of how his career began.

Blogroll additions

I've added some new links to my blogroll in the sidebar.

First is Songlight For Dawn, which is Fellist's blog, then the Shieldline blog, which I mentioned in an earlier post.
Also, The Truth Shall Set You Free.
And last but not least, Ehudwould's Blog.

I encourage you to take a look at these blogs if you are not already familiar with them.

Everything is...

It's been asserted, usually by those on the left end of the spectrum, that 'everything is political.' Well, since the beginning of this present administration, everything is certainly racial, at least in the eyes of the administration's minions and defenders.

Example: the appalling exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC (he of the 'leg tingle') and professionally black Cynthia Tucker. The topic under discussion is the townhall protests, and the mostly conservative protesters:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.''

Leaving aside Matthews' outrageous proposal -- it's hypothetical, supposedly, but what kind of mind imagines such scenarios? -- Tucker's implicit claim to be able to read the thoughts of the White townhall protesters is itself pretty outrageous.

But this is typical, run-of-the-mill stuff for the media arm of the regime. This is what they do, day in and day out. This is how they earn their livelihood. This is what they think about, and this is how they see the world. They see a world in which just about everybody who is not ''of color'' is racist to some extent or other, and those who deny it merely affirm the truth of the accusation by their very denials. So in these people's warped minds, White=racist. And no exceptions exist.

Regardless of whether the allegations of 'racism' are true in any given case, the real issue is: why have we allowed this society we created become so fanatically obsessed with 'race' and with purging out any incorrect thoughts on the subject? The whole idea of this bogeyman called 'racism' is an idea without which we managed to live successfully and peaceably for centuries, and yet now it seems to completely consume our thoughts and our public discourse. It has become so all-consuming that we managed to elect someone to the highest office in our land, someone whose experience was extremely limited, somebody whose CV is not even known to the public, except as unsubstantiated claims as to biographical details. And this person was elected, for all intents and purposes, because of his race. A White man (or woman) would be laughed off the public stage if he or she thought to run for President with such meagre experience, and while claiming the right not to divulge crucial evidence of past accomplishments, citizenship, and birth. That we elected someone of unknown background and scanty experience belies all common sense, except when we bring the race factor into it.

Over the last half-century we've become fully indoctrinated, most of us, to the idea that black people, and to a lesser extent other 'people of color' are essentially our moral betters, always sinned against yet never sinning. We are always in the wrong where they are concerned, and they themselves can do no wrong. When caught in some misdeed, the benefit of the doubt always accrues to them, and never to us. When a dispute occurs between a White or group of Whites and a black, the black is always the victim, the White the villain. It's as simple as that.

Even when the nonwhite is caught red-handed in a crime, excuses are made, the handiest excuse being: he was a victim of 'racism', or of 'the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.' Whenever a White criticizes a black or other nonwhite, the most effective defense for the nonwhite is to accuse the White of 'racism' and 'hate.' Playing that race card immediately is generally very effective, because the focus shifts to the White 'racist' who is then on the defensive trying to establish that he is innocent of this most serious of moral failings. At that point, the White man is assumed to be the bad guy, regardless of whether the black involved was justly criticized or accused.

So life becomes one long exercise, for Whites, of trying to disprove one's putative racism, to pre-emptively show the world, lest we be accused, that we are really not racist. Liberals are people who work full-time at trying to pre-empt any accusations of racism. ''Conservatives'', especially of the mainstream Republican variety, are not quite as zealous, although they will react when accused with the same protestations of innocence, and the same flailing attempts to establish one's innocence of that 'moral evil'.

Conservatives react, when cornered by race-baiters, by pointing the finger back if the accuser is a White Democrat: ''Democrats are the real racists! Democrats keep blacks on the liberal plantation! Robert 'Sheets' Byrd....'' and so on. In other words, they accept the validity of the concept of racism as the greatest evil, the scourge of our time, and they accept the idea that Whites are often guilty of it (although they point the finger at liberals) and they accept the idea that being found guilty of it should bring condemnation and punishment. In fact they cannot or will not simply step outside of the game and say 'I'm not playing this game anymore.' Why they are stuck in that paradigm, which is the one established by the enemy, is a puzzle to me.

So now conservatives and other common-sense Americans who oppose the health plan are being accused, as usual, of being racists, because they 'obviously don't like the idea of a black president.' Again, the left is asserting mind-reading capabilities.

But should somebody not ultimately ask: is it wrong or 'racist' to have a problem with electing a black president? Is race truly an irrelevant, superficial category that must not be even noticed in choosing between candidates, or making any other choice?

Even the Republicans seem to have bought the idea that race, even if not a 'social construct', is still an irrelevant category, like eye color or height. They accept the belief that race is merely skin color, and that it has no significance in making judgments about people. They are implicitly accepting the idea that race tells us nothing about an individual or group.

During the campaign, when all sorts of nonsensical ideas were floating around ('worse is better,' for example) I had an extended discussion with a fellow blogger, with whom I had an amicable, ongoing exchange, about whether race was significant in the election. The argument also revolved around whether, given a choice between two liberal candidates with similar leftist views, race even mattered. What would it matter if Clinton or Obama were nominated, if they pursued roughly the same agenda?

My thought was: even if the two had very similar policy goals and agendas, race did matter. I believed, and said, that the election of a black president would mean the racializing of virtually everything. I said that even if the media, for some strange reason, decided to be unbiased, the hypothetical administration would racialize things, especially criticism. Any criticism of the president's policies could be -- and therefore would be -- called 'racist.' How could a Democrat administration resist playing that old race card? It's the ultimate weapon in their arsenal; why would they suddenly develop compunctions about using it?

I said that Clinton, however disastrous a President she would be, would not be above criticism. I said that the Republican opposition (even given their craven cowardice) would not be above criticizing her in very blunt terms. She was and is a polarizing figure, and one who already evoked a great deal of hostility from conservatives. She would not be treated with kid gloves. She could be opposed vigorously and openly. Now, contrary to what feminists say, this is not because of 'sexism' or 'misogyny', but just because she was a woman who raised people's hackles, and who had no scruples about attacking her own perceived political enemies.

However, a black president, any black president would be treated with kid gloves, because Republicans are scared stiff of the race card. They would tiptoe around a black president and pull their punches. Nobody would want to be called the 'r-word' so they would roll over. And so far, that's what they've mostly done, throughout the campaign and after the inauguration.

So yes, it matters very much whether the president is White or black, as long as we still have this bizarre system in place in which people quail before a word, and will do or say almost anything to prove they are innocent of the charge of racism.

The system of political correctness, and the victimolatry which makes people fear transgressing against the 'victims' of the world, by word or deed, in essence makes us powerless. It disarms us. We have a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; self-defense in that sense is legal and allowed. But we are disarmed verbally and in our thoughts. We are not allowed self-defense in our speech. All criticism of the protected 'victims', even in self-defense, is denied us.

We are subject to sanction if we speak uncomfortable truths which ''offend'' the professional offense-takers. So we are to all intents and purposes disarmed. We are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis minorities, and they know this, and use it mightily against us.

Even were we to wake up, stand up, and reject this arcane system, it would still matter whether a president is black or White or some other color. It matters because there is a power differential in this society, and the power is not with us, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Look who has to bow the knee and apologize constantly; look who has to watch what he or she says. Look who cannot be ill-spoken of or criticized or looked at wrongly. It's not us.

Chris Matthews, and all the other media lackeys, are wrong in insinuating that it is illegitimate or immoral or evil or unjust to consider race when choosing a president.

It's a legitimate criterion for choosing a president. It's legitimate and reasonable because race is not merely a question of skin color or complexion. It is a fact, not a 'social construct', and blacks know this, as do Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and essentially everybody except mesmerized Whites. Nonwhites recognize that they have an enormous advantage in their race, and this is why they racialize everything. When everything, including the health care debate, is racialized, and when that racialization is meant to marginalize us and make us out to be the villains, nonwhites have every incentive to make it about race.

Think about it: if race were really insignificant, or if White race conferred some special privilege as some insist, then nonwhites would not constantly call attention to race. But they do so constantly, proving that they see some benefit in being nonwhite. They perceive that their interests are served by disassociating from Whitey.

And the stark fact is that many minorities, if not all, see Whites as their rivals if not as The Enemy, or as competitors who stand in the way of their goals, if not as an obstacle to their ambitions. As long as members of other races take an adversarial or even hostile approach towards Whites, it's not only legitimate and sensible to take race into account; it's downright essential to one's survival.

We are not supposed to notice nonwhites animosity and hatred towards us, though it's in our faces in many ways. Some easily-fooled or pollyannaish Whites comfort themselves with believing that minorities like us, they really, really like us, and it's only White 'racism' that makes them hostile to us sometimes. But the fact is: their interests and ours are in conflict. We have every right, indeed, we have a duty to take reality, including racial reality, into consideration when choosing our elected officials.

There are real, significant differences among the races, and these differences should and must be allowed to be taken into account, given that these differences include differences in temperament, personality, innate abilities, and culture.

And for now, at least, everything is racial, because those in charge have made it so, because it serves their purpose nicely.

A political solution?

A recent discussion on this blog addressed the question of potential scenarios for a breakup of the United States. What about the possibility of a political solution to our pressing problems? Is it plausible? Can it be done by political means, presumably by means of working within the existing system?

I've made it pretty clear that I no longer think it can be done, simply because the two existing parties have both been subverted and destroyed from within. Not too many years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I would become one of those cynics who says 'the system is rigged' or 'no matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.' But I have lost faith in our system. I have no confidence that the electronic voting system is honest, or that various forms of voter fraud (which are known to occur) haven't decided the outcome of our elections. And even if the casting and counting of ballots were scrupulously honest and above board, it seems that the candidates at a national level are handpicked by people behind the scenes. The candidates are pre-chosen in ways that give us little say or little choice. In this last travesty of an election, we had two candidates who were in favor of amnesty, for example, and who differed little on crucial matters that beset our country, such as race relations.

The primary system, too, was seemingly rigged in a way that skewed the results.

Never have I had so little trust in 'the system.'

I spent a lot of time and bandwidth arguing for a third party which would represent some alternative to the status quo, a party which would represent traditional America, or at least a party which is not one more variation on the same old PC themes. The Constitution Party seemed an acceptable alternative, as did Ron Paul's candidacy, though Paul and his followers insisted on race-denial.

However it seems that both those alternatives made a dismal showing, in part because some voters on the right felt that the possible scenarios would not allow for ''throwing one's vote away'' on a third party, and so they felt compelled to vote for McCain or in some bizarre cases, for Obama on the 'worse is better' theory. How's that working out, by the way?

So, given that for the moment we seem to be stuck with the existing two major parties, both of which have seriously failed us, what chance do we have for staying with the status quo and turning this ship around before we hit the lethal iceberg, in 2042 or before?

Read the discussion at Sailer's blog on the question 'What can the GOP do to revive itself?' However, if you don't want to be completely demoralized and discouraged, best not read it. The impression I get from many of the comments is that most people think 'winning' by compromising in various ways (stop 'gay-bashing', get rid of those annoying Christians, ''reach out'' to some minority or other, go libertarian, etc.) is the only thing.

Sailer's commentariat is, I would guess, slightly to the right of most Americans and even they are far to my left.

Even if the GOP somehow was revivified and regenerated into a recognizably conservative, American party, the part of the White majority, do we even have time to use electoral means to avert the crises which loom ahead? Will it be possible to do so after four years (at least) of the reckless 'remaking America?' Could a 'remade' America even be put back together again, or would it, like Humpty Dumpty, be irreparably broken?

Would even an ideal political party be enough to offset the changing demographics of America, and the intractable problems of dozens of competing nationalities, races, and religions under one 'American' tent, however big?

Another book find

I happened across a book called Out of Our Past, by Carl N. Degler, for which I paid all of 50 cents.
It's dated 1959, and it is subtitled The Forces That Shaped Modern America.

Apparently it's available now for purchase, though I found my copy in a second-hand store. It promises to be an interesting read, though I've only skimmed various passages so far. It seems as though he devotes considerable attention to issues that happen to be front and center now: national identity, immigration, the role of government throughout our history, and the intractable race problem.

Given that the book was first published in 1959, it seems to have been written in a kind of transitional time between old America and the America of today, especially where ideas about national identity and the role of government are concerned. Within those limitations, it seems to be fairly even-handed, compared to the PC extremes of today.

I've looked at the chapters regarding the War Between the States and it appears as though he treats the concerns of the South with somewhat more respect than today's historians and writers deign to.

There are obvious examples of proto-PC attitudes in the book, but in the 1950s as now, academics were more liberal than the general population, so I make allowances for that. I hope to blog about some of the subjects he deals with in this book, because as the subtitle says, certain 'forces' or ideas that brought us to our present state are a consequence of past events and developments.

If any of you know this book, or have any opinions or thoughts about it, please comment.

Not so trivial

It might have been worth watching this fake townhall event if only to see this foot-in-mouth moment -- or was it a Freudian slip? See the video.

However, I missed it -- well, OK, I avoided watching it. I figured it would be staged and scripted and the attendees would all be plants and cult followers.

Yet Obama encountered a friendly, cheering crowd, as if at a campaign stop. While there were crowds of protesters outside, few seemed to make it inside.

He spoke for almost 20 minutes before questions. After several friendly questions, he urged people with tougher ones to step up.

"I don't want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants" in the audience, Obama said. After two more mildly skeptical questions, Obama ended the town hall. He took nine questions in total.

A little girl who asked him a rather precocious-sounding question, may have been a plant, reportedly.

According to the IBD article, the Resident implicitly reiterated the new talking point: that those with concerns about euthanasia or 'death panels' are crazy.

Obama ridiculed the notion that this plan would create "death panels" to decide end-of-life care.

He said the bill provides for panels of experts "who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations. . . . These aren't going to be forced on people but they will help guide how the delivery system works so you get better quality care."

My opinion of New Hampshire went down a little after seeing some clips of the audience there; is this the 'Live Free or Die' State?

And is this president the one with the off-the-chart IQ? Why is it that Democrat presidents are always said to be geniuses? Bill Clinton was another mediocrity who was touted as a high-IQ prodigy. Where's the evidence?

I notice that with the president's faux pas or whatever you would call it, the IBD op-ed reports it with a straight face, either missing the irony or intentionally spinning his statement as an 'I meant to say that' moment.

I was talking to a nurse friend yesterday and she is very much opposed to this proposal (which the Democrats say does not exist: ''There is no health bill!" they insist), though the Democrat talking points say that the AMA and the American Nurses' Association are on board with this. My nurse friend says that many of the people she is hearing from are very upset about the prospect of government-run health care. I don't hear much favorable comment about it myself -- in fact, I've heard none, in real life. Only the shills on TV speak in favor of it.

I've read some internet comment from right-wing bloggers criticizing the townhall protesters, on the grounds that it makes us look bad, or that it amounts to using the left's rabble-rousing tactics and crudeness. I don't think there is any kind of 'astroturfing' on a wide scale going on. I don't know any sheeplike Republicans who would attend a protest and shout at their representatives just because the RNC or anyone else told them to. I believe the anger is genuine and spontaneous; it certainly is on my part.

And by the way, the RNC periodically begs me for donations, but they have not contacted me in any way to try to get me to protest or to demonstrate.

Somebody on a blog discussion said that it was ridiculous for people on the far-right to get worked up about health care when we have our dispossession to worry about. I don't see how that person could fail to notice that this thing is a not-so-veiled attack on us, a way to reduce our numbers even further and more quickly. This is a survival issue, and as such it's not trivial or irrelevant, not in the least.

Our dwindling families

At the Occidental Observer, there is a piece by Christopher Donovan which is about 'race-ending life paths of young Whites.' It's a discussion of several trends among young people which are an impediment to their following the traditional pattern of marrying young and having several children.

He notes that most White families show the same generational pattern, with the oldest generations having come from large families, and each generation having fewer and fewer children. I think this is true of most families now, at least most White families.

My father came from a very large family (12 children, or 13 if you count the relative who was brought up as one of the household.) All these siblings married and had children, with the exception of one. None of the brothers and sisters had more than 5 children, and though that sounds like a big family to most people today, it was not, in comparison with the previous generation. The next generation tended to have small families, in many cases, two children, with some having none at all. Some remained unmarried or formed unstable and short-lived relationships.

The children of that generation have had fewer children, with several refraining from marrying and reproducing. I know this pattern holds true in a lot of families, regardless of social status.

Donovan lists several factors, all of which seem to fit. He does not mention feminism, though I think most would name that as one contributor to the lower birth rate, but I suppose feminism might be subsumed under his 'careerism' category. However I think careerism among women would be the greater factor in explaining the 'birth dearth' among Whites, as many men in the past were career-obsessed, but yet fathered large families and managed to be adequate fathers. Career-minded women are more likely to have few or no children, obviously.

Interestingly, he mentions 'mental illness' as a factor in discouraging marriage and family life.

Every other young White, it seems, complains of a mental illness or problem: obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety, autism or Asperger's, you name it. They have it, and it requires rafts of medication. Usually, it prevents relationships. My own circle may skew my view of the true frequency of this problem, but I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. What I believe to be the increased incidence of mental illness of Whites needs heavy study, but I am convinced that our racial dispossession plays an unspoken role.''

That makes sense; we touched on that in a recent discussion here about the heavy use of antidepressants among Americans. And one wonders, sometimes, if the recent 'epidemic' of mental illness represents a kind of hypochondria, based on excessive self-concern. Around this time, someone may take offense, as they have a relative who suffers from some disorder, or perhaps they themselves have been diagnosed. So if I've trodden on somebody's toes, no offense is intended, but I do know of people who excessively focus on themselves and their feelings, and who consequently make themselves to be invalids of a sort. I've also known people who obsessed over physical symptoms, and who imagined themselves to have every ailment they read about. For some people, 'mental illness' is the focus of their fear, and they hear and read these warnings from experts about how 'one in three Americans is mentally ill' or words to that effect.

Lo and behold, they begin to be sure they have a disorder. If they are meticulous and tidy, someone tells them they must have ''OCD.'' If they have moods that vary, someone says 'you must be bipolar.' A shy person must be afflicted with 'social anxiety disorder' and so on.

One external factor I can think of which discourages young White people from marriage and family formation is that most attend college (for more than four years, usually, unlike in the past) and graduate with huge student loan debts. Some that I know of graduated with $25-30,000 in student loans to repay, and I don't think that's unusual. Given the cost of living, few young people with that kind of debt are good candidates to marry and start a family soon. They just about have to pursue a lucrative career to start repaying their debts, before marriage is a possibility.

Donovan is right that most people are influenced by what their peers are doing, and that if larger families become the trendy thing to do, perhaps things will turn around. I would like to see, though, not just larger families, but stay-at-home mothers. Why have several children if the plan is to immediately return to the workplace and 'career' while the children are dropped into the laps of Third-World nannies (as is the case among many affluent couples)? I suppose a better situation would be if grandparents care for the child or children, but the optimum is for the mother to care for her own children.

In my community three (sometimes more) children are very much the norm, but I don't think this portends a new trend, necessarily; this town is populated by mostly conservative and Christian people with traditional ideas about family. But perhaps the trends will change in that direction, given the right circumstances.

Read all of Donovan's piece at the link, if you have not already done so.

'Plain old common sense'

I posted the following (excerpted) article a couple of years ago, but I think it's worth re-posting, for those of you who were not reading this blog when I first posted it. It's from a magazine article of 55 years ago, and it ties in with what I've been writing about our therapeutic, pop-psychology outlook of today, vs. old American common sense.

[All emphasis in the following is mine.]

What Happened to Common Sense?
by Mary Ellen Chase, from Coronet Magazine, May, 1954


Whenever I return to the isolated Maine village where I spend every summer, I am pleasantly surprised by the way in which my neighbors there hold on to certain old terms.

One of these is grit, with its companion, gumption; another is get up and get, which in Maine means to depend on oneself; yet another is common sense. These words describe the human qualities which my neighbors, fishermen and their wives, extoll above all others. For fishing is a hard calling. It demands gumption, or in more polite terms, self-reliance, the power of decision and the determination not to be downed by adverse circumstances.

My neighbors are frankly suspicious of anyone who lacks these old American virtues. They voiced their common judgment of a man who had lost his lobster traps in a northeast gale and had been bewailing his fate with too little reserve.

"Why don't he shut his mouth and pick up his feet?" they said, "You can't set sail straight by takin' time to bawl about bad luck."

They and I stem from the same rural background. In the country school of my childhood, precepts were written on the blackboard, each Monday morning by our "old-fashioned" teachers who knew it to be their duty to instill iron in our souls as well as common fractions in our minds. Through the years those precepts have proved salutary to me in moments of indecision and anxiety. Usually they were in terse prose:

"It takes a live fish to swim upstream, but any old log can float down."
Don't expect others to bear your troubles; they have their own.
Life isn't all you want, but it's all you have; so have it."

Occasionally a rhyme enlivened us. One I recall as a favorite.

The mind of man has no defense
To equal plain, old common sense.
This homely virtue don't despise,
If you would be happy as well as wise.

Parents, too, 50 years ago dealt out such robust aphorisms liberally, sometimes even sternly, in the upbringing of children. I was taught early by both precept and example that a job once undertaken has to be completed whatever the cost, and that no one but the maker of them ought to be expected to pay for mistakes.

[...]During my life as a teacher I have often questioned whether we have discovered any worthy substitutes for those precepts and teachings which, outmoded as they seem, are rooted deeply in our history and our ways of life.

In place of the old sayings we use today new words and terms to describe our states of mind and our meetings of those difficulties and questions which will always beset us. We are now insecure, or ill-adjusted, or frustrated, or made ineffective by a sense of inferiority. These new words lack the optimism of the old. Implicit in them is the notion that we are surrounded by foes difficult to defeat.

The new vocabulary comes into use early. We hesitate to look upon our children as simply ill-mannered or spoiled. We fear that they are problem children who need expert care lest they become neurotics or uncontributive members of society.

In high school and college they are surrounded by advisers on what they would best study, what work in life they are best fitted for. They are too seldom encouraged to face problems by themselves, to make their own decisions and to pay the consequences of their own mistakes.

Nor are adults free from waves of anxiety. Too many of us are looking about for some panacea which will ease the burdens of our past and present errors in judgment and lighten our fears of the future. Something, we feel, is wrong somewhere, and without making any stout attempts on our own to discover what it is, we turn to professional advice which guarantees to show us how to understand ourselves.

Even a cursory reading of such books reveals nothing but what we used to call plain old common sense. They urge upon us a calm and objective weighing of ourselves; a frank and even merciless recognition of our weaknesses and failures, a determination to oust at any cost oversensitiveness, which is but a form of self-indulgence; a sense of personal responsibility for the well-being of our families and communities; a fresh start; in short, reliance on our own powers of self-discipline.

No one in his senses would suggest that such books are not often helpful to the anxious mind. But the assumption that most of us have somehow acquired emotional conflicts which we cannot cope with by ourselves surely has its dangers.

We Americans have since our beginnings been known for our self-reliance, for our gumption and common sense. We are, or at least we were, adventurers and our history is the story of a game played against tremendous odds and gloriously won. Why not recall the tough moral fiber which made the winning possible? Isn't it about time that we return as individuals to those values and practices which we have not forgotten so much as neglected?

[...]Life may not be all we want, but it's all we have, as my old school precept said, and it's high time that we have it. We shall not find its secrets or its possible riches in the advice of others, however wise, unless we complete that counsel with our own grit, gumption, and common sense."

'...hold people's feet to the fire.'

Westchester Agrees to Add Housing in Desegregation Pact

From the article:

Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care,” said Mr. Gurian.''

Residential segregation is behind every racial disparity? What does that mean? Is Mr. Gurian, who is executive director of 'the Anti-Discrimination Center', saying that nonwhites must live among Whites, being in constant proximity to them, in order to be 'equal' in education, jobs or healthcare? That is about all I can make of his words. So he is indicating, as I perceive it, that nonwhites are not self-sufficient, able to accomplish 'equality' on their own, and that their being amongst White people is essential to their prospering in any way?

I would bet Mr. Gurian does not mean that as it sounds. He is either one of those ideological, doctrinaire liberals who really believes that Whites are selfishly denying nonwhites their ''piece of the pie'' by not 'allowing' them to inhabit historically White areas, or he doesn't really believe the egalitarian claptrap, and knows that the only earthly way to remove those pesky 'racial disparities' is by dragging everybody's standards down to the lowest common denominator. That was the way it usually worked in the old Communist countries; instead of 'wealth' being spread to everyone, poverty was made more inclusive. Almost everybody but the 'party elites' lived in cramped, dismal housing and had minimal creature comforts. That was 'equality'. So when the Gurians of the world finish with America, all neighborhoods will be grimly equal, with nobody living in middle-class 'luxury', and everybody living in shared squalor.

There is no way to bring everybody up to the higher level; instead, everybody will be dragged down, and the envious will have had their pyrrhic victory. Nobody will be 'better' than anybody else; misery will have its desired company, and the envious will enjoy their Schadenfreude at seeing Whitey brought down to their level.

Quite apart from the futility of social engineering efforts like this, and its impracticability, and its cost in dollars and cents, it's just simply wrong. It's wrong from a constitutional point of view; our government was not designed to do this. The United States government (whew, I almost slipped and said ''our'' government again!) has no legal right to meddle in mandating where people live, and in forcing taxpayers to fund the relocation of the have-nots to live (according to some imaginary 'right') among the haves.

The government is destroying natural freedom of association. You and I will no longer be allowed, if this continues, to live among people with whom we are comfortable, with whom we share certain commonalities -- of income level, religion, lifestyle, race/ethnicity, habits, or whatever. It will all be decided for us by Big Mommy Government, and it will be ensured by force.

The agreement, if ratified by the county’s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments’ housing policies by the Obama administration.

“This is consistent with the president’s desire to see a fully integrated society,” said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. “Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people’s feet to the fire.”

The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration.

The county, one of the nation’s wealthiest suburbs, has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing.''

This kind of government coercion is yet another means by which communities consisting mostly of White people will be forcibly broken up, and ''diversity'' imposed by government edict.

Now, 50 years ago, this kind of ''integration'' could not be forced on people if only because blacks were only 10-11 percent of the population, and they obviously could not be in every community.

I've noticed that many young diversity-minded people are alarmed at seeing pictures of White communities from 40 or 50 years ago, saying ''where are the African-Americans and the Hispanics?' Where, indeed. Now, however, our resourceful elites have solved that vexing problem. Knowing that certain neighborhoods and towns could not be properly ''integrated'' since nonwhites were spread too thin, they thoughtfully, in 1965, passed a law to ensure that no neighborhood need ever be color-deprived. The Hart-Celler Act, which favored Third World immigration and discouraged European immigration, began to import millions of people to 'integrate' America properly. Now, all these years later, there is still a color shortage, apparently, as millions more are sought to come and 'integrate' us further. Refugees help increase the numbers, since immigration is not fast-and-furious enough for our rulers.

Some of us have noticed that refugees are now very consciously placed in small, mostly White towns and in states with a diversity 'deficiency.' Do the powers that be think we are so stupid as not to notice this pattern, and to divine the reasoning behind it?

I posted an article a while back about the plans to bulldoze certain areas and to relocate people elsewhere, and remarked that I was certain it was more social engineering, more meddling. The New York Times article describes the other part of the plan. Places like Westchester (and maybe your town) will be the recipient areas.


Note: Old Atlantic has blogged about this, here.

Shrinking society, Part 2

In a recent post, I discussed the fact that the psychological worldview, as presented by the popular culture and the old media, has become a widely accepted, very influential belief system. It's also insidious in that most people have absorbed many of the core beliefs of this worldview without even being aware of it. Anybody who watches shows like Oprah, or reads any of the best-selling 'self-help' books, or who undergoes therapy or counseling for life problems, has taken in a good deal of the beliefs of the psychological worldview. Anybody who has taken social science courses in the last several decades has also imbibed some of these beliefs.

Many of those who have unconsciously adopted these beliefs also call themselves 'Christians', and may in fact be regular worshippers at a church. The pastor at their church may also preach messages full of the humanistic ideas with which the psychological belief system is saturated. This is particularly true these days, because so many churches are caught up in this 'seeker-sensitive' movement, with its idea that people (nonbelievers, casual 'seekers', spiritual shoppers) must not be made to feel 'bad about themselves.'

Most of the mainline churches today have embraced the messages of 'diversity', egalitarianism, race-denial, and ''social justice''.

Most of these established religious groups promote open borders and one-worldism -- although most people with even a rudimentary education should be familiar with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the idea that a one-world system is not in God's plan.

Those who have not even examined the facts are quick to condemn Christianity for the Babelizing of the Western world, yet how can anyone, with a straight face, presume that the church, any church, exercises that much influence over people, much less over the world's political system? No, all the commonsense evidence points to the fact that the world system is instead setting the tone, leading the way, while the churches follow along. Granted, the churches are wrong in this. They are derelict, having lost their way. They are quite literally the 'salt which has lost its savor', of which Jesus warned, worthy only to be discarded.

And if the churches are guilty of going along with the world political system, they are wrong because they are not being true to themselves, and to the message they are supposed to be preaching.

However, if the political establishment and the ovine followers who make up most of the citizenry are not being misled by the church, who is leading them towards the multicultist Babel?

I've said that most people in our society owe more to the pop psychology cult, and humanism generally, than to Christian teaching. I can just hear someone say: what does psychology have to do with politics or world affairs? It's just about people's individual lives and problems, not about politics or society. Well, think again.

Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.

Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.''
[...]
"As the world's people demand freedom and self-determination, it is urgent that we learn how diverse communities of empowered individuals, with freedom to construct their own stories and identities, might live together in mutual peace. Perhaps it is not a vain hope that is life in such communities might lead to the advance in human consciousness beyond anything we have yet experienced."
[Emphasis mine]

Notice the emphasis on 'social change' ''modifying old institutions and inventing new ones...' -- all the leftist concerns. It could have been written by some leftist politico as well as by a social scientist. They are hand-in-glove.

In my personal experience (and yes, it's anecdotal) most leftists are immersed in psychological jargon and thinking. Very few ''progressives'' are Christians, even liberal Christians. Most, in my experience, are secular and nonbelieving, or else involved in New Age practices. That latter topic in itself is worthy of a whole post, with New Age thinking very focused on the idea of a 'one world' government and a blending of all races into some 'highly evolved' hybrid race. I say this as someone who was once very involved in this kind of thing. I know it from the inside, and I have friends who are still part of that subculture.

Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the bestselling Aquarian Conspiracy, said

There are legions of [Aquarian] conspirators. They are in corporations, universities, and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils, and in the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country."

That is probably more true now than it was when she wrote it, 20-odd years ago.

What has this got to do with the psychological worldview? It intersects with the New Age philosophy. The latter is a blend of a hodgepodge of various Eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, ''Native American'' spirituality/shamanism, etc.) and the Western humanistic tradition of which psychology is a part.

What these systems have in common is the focus on the self, on self-actualization (whatever that means), and they both tend to promote the notion that Western morality, which emphasizes individual responsibility and a defined system of right and wrong, is ''negative'' and backward, un-evolved.

New Age beliefs (although those involved often shun that label) blend seamlessly with the beliefs promoted in psychology, particularlly 'transpersonal psychology'.

There is an emphasis on 'not judging' or not excluding anybody -- except Christians of course, because they are too 'separative' in the words of Alice Bailey, who wrote a number of New Age/occult books which are considered authoritative by many. Anything that separates, as Christianity does, is bad, according to this worldview.

Psychology as it is understood by most people has done more than any other philosophy to popularize the idea of nonjudgmentalism as the greatest virtue. The idea is that we are not to put moral judgments on people, or anything people do -- unless it can be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or species-ist. Then we are free to judge and condemn at will.

Otherwise, moral relativism prevails.

The idea that it's bad to be 'negative' about anything is also a very popular idea which is attributable to psychology and the social sciences. It's also an idea that is part of New Age thinking, which emphasizes 'positive thoughts'. (This system does not account for actual evil, or consider that being negative about some things is the only appropriate response.)

These ideas have wide exposure, especially among women who watch Oprah and other such shows. I allude to Oprah often as being a promoter of this kind of thing. She is a perfect example as she claims to be a Christian, yet publicly says she believes other 'paths' and religions are equally valid and true. She also promotes many New Age authors and their books, one recent example being Eckhart Tolle, a European New Age guru who has apparently taken in some gullible Christians.

I see evidence of the influence of such ideas all around us, especially when I converse with women, or when I read popular magazines or newspapers, or watch TV. It is part of the air we breathe these days. It baffles me to think that some people believe Christianity is so influential as to take the blame (or credit) for anything in our society, good or bad. Christianity is very much marginalized these days, and the thinking I've outlined briefly here is what dominates the 'purpose-driven' churches and the 'seeker-sensitive' churches, which are everywhere.

Christians who read their Bibles know that Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever.' So riddle me this: how is it that old-time Christians did not believe in open borders, miscegenation, one-world government, and 'nonjudgmentalism', while today's ''Christians'' are perfectly comfortable, in too many instances, with all of the above? Christianity has not changed; today's Christians are thoroughly confused and lost, in many cases.

The fault is not in the Bible or in Christianity. The fault is in the insidious worldview, based on humanism, based on the false notion that 'man is the measure of all things', which has captured the Church as well as the rest of our society. And the fault, insofar as it lies with Christians, is that they do not read their Bibles or develop and exercise discernment. They simply take in the world's poisons and don't even realize it.

Some are being led astray by popular authors and 'teachers' who are in turn peddling the trendy ideas of the world, not the truth. These false shepherds are to blame, but so are the gullible 'sheep' who follow them.

We can see the havoc that the influence of psychology has played in our judicial system, where every criminal is portrayed as either ''mentally ill'' or as a victim of society, or a victim of bad parenting. Everybody is a 'victim' these days, especially the worst among us. Many people have lost all concepts of evil these days; the obsession we have with trying to 'understand' and 'reach out' to everybody, even heinous criminals, is a very detrimental trend to our societal well-being.

We see this carry over to our attitudes about things like illegal immigration; the people who consider themselves 'enlightened' are oh-so-careful to try to understand and empathize with illegals, saying things like ''well, I would do the same if I were in their shoes. I don't blame them.'' The drive to 'understand' and explain away all illegal behavior, or just plain bad behavior, has no limits. We have to re-learn to judge and discern, and not simply understand and empathize and tolerate anything.

As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

If it was true in Pope's time, it is even more rife now, this 'pitying and embracing' of bad behavior. We can't be judgmental; who are we to judge? We have to understand and reach out.

If we truly care about rescuing our society, and averting its impending demise, we need to look at the real dangers which beset us and which have rendered us a weak and morally slothful people, a 'nonjudgmental' people who are scared stiff of offending anyone.

And while it's easier to zero in on easy targets, and hard to deal with an amorphous target like a hazy belief system with no visible insitutions to blame, it's also less honest.

One more time

The list of blogs I read is shrinking. Why? Because it is hard to keep one's morale up and one's spirits high when the mainstream (so-called) media bombard us with propaganda, lies, and character assassinations all day, every day. The mainstream media are a disgrace to our society and to humanity. I wonder how they sleep at night. They have made themselves the enemy, the declared enemy of traditional America, specifically White America, even though many of the individuals who work for the media are themselves White. For that reason, they are also traitors to their own people.

The blogosphere has been something of an oasis in this wasteland of lies. But for whatever reason, it seems there is more and more division on our side, among those who dare to defend their own people against the constant slanders and manipulations of the powers-that-be and their media arm. The most obvious divisiveness is on the subject of religion, specifically Christianity. I've been reading race-loyalist blogs and forums of various kinds for a few years now, and the religious rift is coming more and more to the surface, with more out-and-out attacks on Christianity and on the person of Christ, as well as on Christians as a group.

I know there must be others beside myself who are Christian and race-loyal, but nobody raises a voice in defense of Christianity or Christ on those blogs and forums, usually. Occasionally one person might raise a half-hearted defense and get shouted down. Usually no one speaks up.

One such blog (whose name I won't mention; I don't want to start a back-and-forth with the blogger or his commenters) had such a discussion and it was disheartening enough to me that I don't care to visit that blog despite the blogger's interesting and articulate posts. I've already crossed AmRen off my list, as the moderator(s) let it be perpetual open season on Christianity there. So the blogs I visit are fewer now.

I don't see this as a good thing. I like to read what others are saying. Some will say I should overlook the attacks and let it roll off me; it's harder and harder to do when the media already bombard us with hostility. I go to the Internet to find like-minded people with whom to exchange ideas and to get my moral bolstered, if possible. I try to do that here, albeit imperfectly I'm sure. So I really don't see much of value in reading attacks on my faith and my Savior.
I will tolerate (though not without offering a defense) attacks on my ancestral origins -- people perpetually attack Anglo-Saxons in the far-right blogosphere; they, too, are a whipping boy. Southrons are another target. However, that can be chalked up to differences of opinion. That kind of criticism is far less virulent. I can take it, though I disagree with it and don't like it.

However when I see that a considerable percentage of pro-Whites seem to hate Christianity and Christians, that causes me to feel dispirited and alienated from these people. I can't in good conscience give my support or acquiescence to that. It makes me feel as if perhaps America, White America, has already been destroyed spiritually and mentally. I say this because it seems they have now declared war, as it were, on the traditional faith of America and on our ancestors -- their ancestors in some cases, although I wonder how many of these people are ethnic Americans who feel no kinship with old America. Why on earth should I put my heart into a cause which may in fact want no part of me or mine? I would be insane to do so. If the 'racial right' hates my Christian faith, and perhaps me, as much as the infernal left, what would I gain by supporting that cause? I and other Christians would be persona non grata in either a far-left atheist world or a far-right atheist/pagan society. Heads, they win, tails, I lose.

It's evident that some don't even want the support or help of Christians, considering us the enemy because they see our faith as an 'alien', Middle-Eastern, or 'Jew' faith. Here's a news flash: most Jewish people do not consider Christianity a Jewish religion, nor do they consider us their brothers in faith.

So I find myself feeling less welcome at many of these blogs and forums where Christianity is raked over the coals, sometimes in a less-than-gentlemanly manner. This is not intellectual, scholarly discussion we are talking about. If it were, and if my opponents were open to being reasoned with, I would not be nearly so bothered. But they are not open to any honest debate, and they don't acknowledge any other side to the story.

For instance: not one person has ever offered any answer to my question about why Christianity did not 'kill' Europe and Western civilization 1500 years ago? Why is the 'poison' so slow to act if poison it indeed is?

Why did Europe (and the United States, and all of Christendom) excel at the martial skills and why was Christendom so powerful throughout the earth when Christianity was at its zenith?

How on earth do Christianity's detractors blame Christians for 'killing' the West, when Christians are fewer and weaker than at any time since Europe was converted?

Why is it that countries which have largely abandoned their Christian faith are the farthest-gone? The Netherlands, once a staunchly Christian country, but now post-Christian, is being lost rapidly, and for a long time, has abandoned Christian morality and social values. Likewise the UK, where very few profess Christianity or attend church, much less read the Bible. Likewise, Scandinavia, where they have for decades been a secular society, known for their libertine sexual habits. Go down the list of Western countries: without fail, the most secular or nonbelieving are the most leftist, politically correct, and decadent.

And the fact that we still have a few shreds and fragments of our freedoms is only because, I am convinced, we still have a remnant (albeit a small remnant) of believers in this country. The fewer that are left, the weaker and more Orwellian will our society become. Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.

Another paradox: those on the left hate Christianity because it was 'militant' and is 'intolerant', while critics on the right say just the opposite: Christianity is a wimpy, feeble religion which is too tolerant.

I am convinced that most of those vocal critics (to use a kind word) of Christianity are people who have already rejected Christianity, who have personal ''issues'' with it. From personal experience, I've noted that many such people are the intellectual type, in love with their own reason, who find Christianity childish and a sign of weakness (as that great intellectual Jesse Ventura characterized it.). There are others who hate authority and rules, and who are rebels against all authority, and since God is the ultimate Authority, they hate him. These same people don't find exotic religions objectionable because they perceive these as having little moral content. It's easier to follow some 'god' who does not lay down rules about sexual behavior or drug use. Others are pagans, sometimes followers of 'sages' like Aleister Crowley, and his famous ''do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.'' For some people, that's the only kind of religion they want: one which gives its seal of approval to their selfish or self-destructive behavior.

Many of these people are young, callow people for whom anti-Christianity is a rebellious, hip pose that they strike; it plays very well among their college classmates or the coffee shop crowd. I suppose they may grow out of it, but given that our society is itself of this tendency, they may never grow out of it.

Christians know that we will be hated; that's a given. But it's getting very ominous when both sides hate us with a virulence that I don't remember seeing in my lifetime. And perhaps we may have to withdraw from active life and go underground as the Christians in Rome did, or be locked up or worse.

And speaking of Rome: did Christianity cause the fall of Rome? Or did the importation of many aliens and barbarians have some part in it? Did the widespread debauchery have some part in it? I believe it was Lycurgus of Sparta who warned that licentiousness and moral decay were fatal to a people and a country. I've always believed Lycurgus had it right on that score, and I believed that long before I became a Christian.

I don't expect I have won anybody over; those on the other side, as I have said, do not want to listen to an opposing opinion, or any arguments. They want a scapegoat. They are angry at Christians already, or resent them, and this goes even for some who profess Christianity in some form. Looking for a scapegoat is not what is needed right now, and the last thing that is needed is more division within our ranks. I wonder how many of the divisive people, especially those who despise Christianity, are actually plants or operatives trying to cause division?

I am, however, disappointed with the lack of response from Christians, who should be offering some kind of defense of their faith. I am disappointed with those Christians who give space in their comments sections to people who attack their faith and their Savior. I am disappointed to see Christians linking to blogs which habitually post anti-Christian screeds or bloggers who take potshots at Christians in veiled ways.

Perhaps some of these Christians believe they can 'witness' to these people, but I don't think that it is possible in most cases. There's a time for shaking the dust from one's feet and moving on.

I'll say it explicitly, though it should not have to be said: I am a Christian. I express a Christian point of view here. Those who are opposed to Christianity or who have some grudge or vendetta against the faith of their fathers, will not be treated accommodatingly here. Anti-Christian axes will not be ground in the comment section. Generally I don't suffer leftists attacking me or my ideas here, and the same goes for hostile comments from the right. Life is too short, and our time is short.

I want this blog to be edifying, not a place for division.

What is the answer to this rift, if any?
One thing is sure, in the context of the post below: if this country ever disintegrates, the unbelievers should separate from those of us who are Christians. It looks as though the religious division is as deep as the racial one.

The Untied States of America

The topic of secession is discussed more and more lately. One of the best pieces on the subject was that by Michael O'Meara, which Dr. D recently reminded me about in a comment. I didn't link to it when it first appeared; I supposed everybody here was aware of it, and had read it. If not, I recommend reading it.

Slate has an interactive piece up asking readers How is America going to end?

The fact that such a piece appears there is another sign that the idea of some kind of breakup of the United States is no longer confined to the right-wing, nor to Southron partisans. The results of the responses over at Slate shows that the average Slate reader probably has a very different conception of how a breakup might occur, and what would precipitate such an event. But go over and check it out, and discuss here if you like.

Another piece which appeared recently is this one: A reasonable case for secession.

See also this blog, which discusses Democratic separatism.

As for my own ideas about secession or some kind of breakup of our formerly-united states, I think I've expressed my thoughts before, so that most of you know where I stand. I was writing about this a few years ago when it was still a shocking idea to some and I've watched the topic become less radioactive over the last year particularly.

I notice that certain ''arguments'' always come up when the topic is discussed, even now that it has become less fringe. The skeptics, who, like the poor, are always with us, say ''It'll never happen! Can't happen! Impossible! Crazy! They won't let us! They'd stop us!'' or some variation thereof.

I suspect those arguments (if we can call them that) were also heard back in 1775 or so. Famous last words, back then.
Moreover, it annoys me that there are some who insist on being doomsayers, or who take some kind of odd pleasure in quashing any suggestion of an alteration in the status quo. I really take issue with the notion that someone, anyone, can say with such ironclad certitude that a given course of action is doomed and impossible, out of hand. That presumes some kind of supernatural ability to predict what may be a year from now or at any time in the future. Nobody has that kind of certain knowledge. Things can change, turn on a dime. Anyone who has read a history book knows that, and our situation now is unstable, and therefore what is true today may not be so in a month or a year or certainly a decade. So it's presumptuous, putting it mildly, to say it cannot happen.

Then again there are the people who like to smugly remind us that ''it didn't work back in the 1860s, so it ain't gonna work now.'' Or this one: ''We settled that back in 1865.'' No, actually, we didn't. The rift still exists. And the War Between the States did not discredit the idea of secession as such; it simply proved that the North was able to subdue the South and force her back into the ''union.'' Might does not make right.

Also, need I tell anybody that the country was a very different place back in 1865, with a very different set of problems -- although some of the same problems have carried over.

I think there are a certain number of people who like to throw cold water on the idea of any kind of big change, whether spontaneous or deliberate, because some people have vested interests in the status quo, and some are simply afraid of the idea of upheaval -- but I think most of us are pretty well certain that upheaval is in the cards whether we choose it or not. ''Things fall apart, the center cannot hold...''

Some simply want the existing order of things to go on, even though it's untenable over the long term, and things seem to be deteriorating rapidly. However, change is and has always been the one certainty in this world, and ''change'' of an unwelcome kind is the order of the day. What alternatives are there?