The story about Pat Buchanan's troubles with MSNBC is yet another occasion for people at AmRen, for example, insisting that the answer to this kind of censorship is to tread carefully, and not be too controversial.
The same kinds of stories have had other paleocons (Tom Tancredo, for example) and other ''conservatives'' like Glenn Beck at the center. Whenever any such figure or spokesman, who is considered by many ethnopatriots to be 'one of us', kisses up to political correctness and says the requisite phrases (''of course I have no problem with legal immigration' or ''I admire many African-Americans; look at Sowell or Clarence Thomas...') then the response is always ''well, he has to say that. If he didn't say that he would lose his job. His career would end. He would be raked over the coals in the media.'' And so on.
And likewise, when someone like Beck gushes over MLK, Rosa Parks, and the elusive 'African-American Founding Fathers', people say, ''well, he has to say those things; it deflects the charges of racism. Now they can't call him a racist.''
In other words these kinds of statements from those who are covertly ''on our side'' are considered a kind of verbal formula which, like magic incantations, are supposed to protect us from misfortune.
All the evidence is that such magic incantations, such rote appeals to the gods of PC, do not work. Look at the numbers of men (and a few women) who, despite their making obeisance to PC, despite their treading carefully, ended up being tarred as bigots, haters, and '-phobes' of some sort.
Nonetheless, the thread at AmRen had the first comment recommending a 'neutral' kind of advocacy for our people; something along the lines of the BNP and their policy of 'inclusion' and diversity. The EDL has also taken that path. And has it bought respectability for those groups?
I ask rhetorically; we all know it has not; they are still called 'haters' and 'vile.'
Many of the faithful who say that we have to avoid explicit advocacy for our people seem to think such a stealth approach is needed, and that it will disarm critics. So far there is no evidence (zero, none, nil) that this has ever worked, much less that it ever will. But the idea of hiding our real opinions and our real agenda is still one that seems sound, for some reason, to many people who profess to be on our side.
I have written about this over the years, and I've never had anyone make a good case for why this tactic is a good one. I mean, if ''the average people'' will be scared off by any open disregard for political correctness, or by the failure to spout the usual PC shibboleths, then are they even potential allies? If they are that indoctrinated, can they ever be persuaded, even if we speak in the softest voices, using careful language? If they are that easily spooked, they cannot be of any help to us, in my opinion. So why do we worry so much about getting the clueless masses on board? My inclination at this late stage of the game is to say 'the devil take the hindmost.' If they don't get it by this time, after all the 'flash mobs' and other attacks and atrocities, and after the blatant bigotry of the media, then they truly will never get it.
Worrying about the timid and the clueless is like teaching a class aiming it the slowest and most obtuse students -- which is exactly the way our schools work now, and we can see how that approach serves nobody, and harms the brightest students, holding them back. So why should it work in political or social contexts? Target the people who are the farthest along, the ones who are capable of having an epiphany, or who are on the very verge of really 'getting it.' This group of people is probably still fairly small, despite the increasingly obvious peril that we are in. Don't waste time on the wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road people who never form an opinion unless it is expressed by some celebrity first, or the leaders in their social group. Many people -- and I hate to say this about my countrymen -- are not capable of thinking for themselves; they can only imitate, parrot, and follow the unthinking crowd. Yet this is the group that everyone worries about winning over.
There is the strange school of thought that we need leaders who can conceal their real allegiances and feelings and feign loyalty to the cultural Marxist orthodoxy (the MLK cult, for example) while all the while being ethnopatriots. So the politicians who bow down to the altar are at some point supposed to speak their minds and reveal their real thoughts. At what point will it be safe to do so? For years people have said 'they (politicians and other public figures) can't say what they think. They have to go along.' But at what point can they speak truth? Next year? Next decade? Never?
I think just about everyone on our side sees that we are weakening in terms of numbers every year, and everyone can likewise see that the PC Marxist system is growing more oppressive, and free speech dwindles as totalitarianism grows. This is rapidly getting worse. So how much longer will we be able to speak relatively freely without facing imprisonment just for our words and thoughts? Do we expect it to be easier next year to speak up, or will it be harder? Any bets?
If we don't use what free speech we still possess while we still possess it -- at least, on paper -- then we may no longer have the opportunity to speak up, or the right. We are waiting until the cost of standing up becomes impossibly high, it seems. The longer we wait, the more it will cost.
And yet some people are still counseling silence and dissimulation on the part of our ''leaders.''
What is a leader? In my book, it is someone who is bolder than the rest, who has the confidence and the valor to speak up when the rest of us cannot or will not. A leader is someone who does not wait for permission to speak the truth. A leader is one who does not take the pulse of the public before he speaks or acts. An example of the opposite kind of person was Bill Clinton, who was said to have consulted focus groups about his smallest decisions, and who seemed to be forming his opinions only after putting his finger to the wind. Where are the leaders who actually lead, who step out in front of the crowd rather than following along, or saying ''Mother, may I" before they speak or act?
And yet most of us seem content with 'leaders' such as these, who ask 'do I dare to eat a peach?'
And what is the worst case scenario if a Pat Buchanan or a Tom Tancredo or a Ron Paul takes the initiative and defies political correctness, denouncing it? Would it end their political or media careers? If so, what of it? It would inspire and embolden many, probably millions of people out there who are longing to see somebody stand up to PC and to the powers-that-be. It would make many more people willing to follow suit. It would break the ice in a big way. It would be real news. And so what if the enemy media would lambaste them? Even some of the dullest wits among us recognize the bias of the media these days.
Or what else would be the worst that could happen to a truth-teller in the public spotlight? He might be called names. He might be threatened through hate mail, phone calls, and e-mails. These things have happened to many of us who trod on the wrong victim group's toes. In the majority of such cases, the offender apologizes and grovels, or slinks away in disgrace.
At this point, however, people are not being put in gulags for speaking politically incorrect truths, nor are they being executed. But people behave as if these things are an immediate possibility, though they are not, as yet.
The silence is mostly self-imposed, it seems to me. We are censoring and imposing taboos on ourselves in anticipation of meeting with opposition. We are doing the enemy's job for them.
And we, the public, we timidly hang back and make excuses for the failure of any of our public figures to speak up boldly. Remember in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, it was a child who spoke up and stated the obvious. Children are known for speaking their minds without weighing the 'costs' to them, or for couching their thoughts in careful language. Who among our leaders fits that description? None. And yet everybody excuses them: ''they have to...they can't.''
And what is someone who perpetually ''has to'' or ''can't''? Such a person certainly is not free. A free man can speak his mind. A brave man is willing to take the consequences of speaking his mind. It appears we have neither free nor brave men/women in 'leadership' positions -- at least not on the issues that are most pressing for us as a people.
So if our leaders 'have to' bow to PC and if they 'can't' speak up for us and themselves as of now, when will they be able to?
Time is a-wasting.
