Thursday, June 28, 2012

Civil Rights Wins Again...

The following was first posted here in May of 2011


Everyone I know is fuming over the “unconstitutional” health-care bill that was “un-democratically” shoved down our throats. I have to keep explaining to such people that compared to legislation passed in the 1960’s Obamacare is a minor triviality.

It’s amazing (yet sadly not unexpected) that so many seem to gloss over the rather draconian and spirit-crushing bits of legislation commonly refereed to as “civil rights”. Many seem to prefer to ignore or forget that among the “civil rights” accomplishments have been: legalizing abortion, promoting homosexuality, exalting feminism, attacking and attempting to destroy the family, de-constructing communities, rewriting history, and other equally civilization-crushing acts.

And these were done under the notion of “equality”. And to bring about “equality” our society had to destroy, in theory and in fact, freedom of association.

Since the “civil rights” legislation went into effect, Americans have been told (under threat of government force) who they must live among, who they can do business with, who they can vacation with, who their children must attend school with, and in what company they can congregate. All done to criminalize discrimination. Yet the most fundamental freedom that can be had (either collectively or individually) is the right to discriminate. Take away that right and freedom is instantly dead.

And the critical aspect of this is that prejudices and the discriminations they encourage are generally based on collective historical experience. They are an expression of a society’s hard fought for wisdom, enduring and solidifying down through countless ages of toil and struggle. They are not mere attitudes, but rather moral and social guidelines that define and defend a people.

Demonize the concept (of discrimination) in a society and that society WILL hand over all power over every aspect of its life to exterior (alien and hostile) forces. Because discrimination, at its very root, is the freedom and will of a people to say yes or no: to make an informed choice that is also reflective of a natural, collective instinct. Without it there is neither ability nor will to differentiate between what is good or evil, true or false, beauty or ugliness, hope or despair, man or woman, black or White, up or down and so on.

Most critical of all, without the willingness and encouragement to discriminate, a people will be defenseless against attacks both physical and philosophical. The entire premise of “equality” is the certain erosion of sanity. Thus we have to discriminate or society will collapse into chaos, which, not surprisingly, it has been doing since the 1960’s.

So picking nationalized healthcare as the battlefront at this point is kind of like trying to swat the mosquito on the back of the Grizzly bear that’s cornered you in your own home because you’ve heard they’re disease carriers.

As to differentiating the historical understanding of freedom from the modern concept of “Personal freedom”, it is actually a fairly modern concept without much real historical reality. It doesn’t exist and never has.
It can’t.

“Personal freedom” is anathema to a functioning society. And this we can clearly see before us today, as “freedom” is the rallying cry of the far-left demagogues who seek to take control of every aspect of our lives, even as they wreck them. The “personal freedom” slogans are hung next to the myriad of street cameras watching our every move.

A century of “self-liberating” psychology has resulted in a civilization demoralized through indoctrination of self-hate and strung out on mood-altering anti-depressants and increasingly banal whistle and bells distractions commonly known as entertainment.

It’s such a “free country” we can only move about here and there with the assistance of social engineers, government mandates on minority employment and corporate job placement programs, never forming permanent and historical roots to land and family. Thus we end up alienated, paranoid and securely locked away in our houses behind “security systems” and barred windows.

As our “personal liberty” has increased over the past half a century our society has rapidly descended into chaos.

Families are broken and torn apart. As mom and dad trasmute into the base metal mm and step dad or two daddies or two mommies or whatever the Frankenfamily arrangement du jour is, getting their fixes on anti-depressants, the kids have taken to mutilating themselves physically (tattoos, increasingly bizarre piercings, and “cutting”) to mirror their mutilated spirits, which have been crushed by womb-to-tomb propaganda that engenders self-hate and atomization from their people and identity past and present.

The streets are riddled with trash and gangs roam at will. Corruption in politics is a given, and the media’s complicity in it is shrugged off with a “that’s just the way it is” attitude. In the end, this modern notion of freedom (aka, personal liberty) has left a bitter taste in mouths of Western people, even if they’re not quite ready to articulate it.

As to real, historical freedom, we are born bound and obliged to a thousand infringements upon our “personal liberty”. Freedom, in the historical since, was the ability to carry out the obligations of the station in life which the web of history had placed upon you; obligations to parents, wives, children, friends, clan and so on.

Slavery and bondage, on the other hand, often “liberated” individuals personally from their responsibilities to their people. It limited their obligations to physical, daily, duties that asked nothing more of them than to complete an assigned task.

Being “the captain of your own ship” or “master of your own destiny” are slogans appealing to the selfishness of those “weighed down” with obligations to wives, children, parents, siblings, clan, friends, community, ancestors and posterity. And true enough, in that sense (the true sense of the notion) death or slavery are the surest ways to “personal liberty”. Because life is obligation. To breathe is to find limitations on your “personal liberty”.

Thus death (of the nature of tribal/ethnic history and collective and personal identity) and slavery (to political correctness, government enforced social engineering, etc) are similar in that both prevent you from fulfilling your obligations to your people.

But in that sense they both liberate you from those obligations as well.

Those now fretting over government mandated “death panels” should relax, as it represents the apex of everything America has fought for over the past 40+ years. After all, Death is not only the surest way to “personal freedom” it’s also the state most assuredly conducive to equality among all peoples.

...

Saturday, June 16, 2012

What Is A Nation?...

We often (very often) hear the jingoism “take America back” by all and sundry on both sides of the political/social divide.  Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers.  But is this really the case?  Is modern Americanism fundamentally different from 18th century revolutionary Americanism?  What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today?

In addressing that, we must first consider what The America is and what The America is not.  What The America is not, is a nation.  What The America is, essentially, is a religion/empire, with much akin to a Marxist state.  And one of the “gifts” which both Marxism and Americanism have bequeathed to the world is the ability to re-define words and even reality itself.

One example of that is the definition of nation. Since the advent of Americanism/Marxism the definition has been completely re-written to the point that it now actually means the complete opposite of what it meant for thousands of years.

As stated, The America is not a nation, which makes such linguistic concoctions as “a nation of immigrants” one of the more profound examples of an oxymoron and generally reflects the intellectual apathy found amongst the populace.

A nation is NOT a placeA nation is NOT an ideology or creed or form of government or philosophy. 

What is a nation? 

In the simplest terms, nation is another word for ethnic Group

A nation is a race or stock of people.  The English are a nation.  The Irish are a nation.  They need not be gathered in the same locale, share a common faith or reside under a similar form of government to be a nation.

Let me say this again.  Nation is another word for Ethnic Group.  A nation is a biological unit, an extended family, aka a tribe.
From the Etymology Dictionary:
Nation
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) “nation, stock,
race,” lit. “that which has been born,” from natus, pp. of nasci “be born”
The origin of nations is ancient, and the knowledge of it should be embedded in our culture.  Its lack leads to all kinds of problems and comedy, such as the (inherently American) Evangelical interpretation of “prophesy” in regard to Israel becoming a nation again in the 1940s and how that “sign” points to the end of days.  The irony there is that if they believe modern jews are the Israel of the bible, then they didn’t “become a nation “again in 1948 as they never stopped being a nation (ie, an ethnic group) in the first place.

Again, a nation need not have government, leaders or even a land of their own to be a nation.  It is blood that makes a nation, not forms of government.  Thus there is no American nation.

Can nations mix to form a new one?  No. 

Small admixtures from cousin-nations can be absorbed, such as Danish into English, but the former is inevitably lost into the latter. There are no new nations.

So what The America is, is a proto-Marxist religion/empire.  Nothing more.  And in that, Americanism naturally shares more than a little in common with conventional Marxism.  This is why The America and the former Soviet Union look so much alike.  Both were artificially fabricated political constructs, rather than being natural, organic living-societies.  (And, not surprisingly, both found themselves dominated by a nation who very much considers themselves a nation, separate from the empires they ruled.)
Take for example this excerpt from a letterfrom Karl Marx to Abe Lincoln:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large
majority.  If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago *the idea of one great Democratic Republic* had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued …
And in ambassador Adams’ reply (at the same link), we find the following,
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example.
Adams, in a round about way, agrees with Marx (see the full quote at the link).
His father John Adams, a “Founding Father”, first vice-President and second President of the United States, wrote the following, concurring with the theme:
If the empire of superstition and hypocrisy should be overthrown, happy indeed will it be for the world; but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other’s self love.
-page 619, ‘John Adams’ by David McCullough
Such is not the sentiments of a man residing (physically or otherwise) in the warring ghettos of the real world amongst his kin.  No, that is the pompous affirmation of a man safely ensconced in an ivory tower, from whose lofty perch even Sao Paolo must look lovely at midnight when its dim and dirty lights glow luminously, masking the chaos, disease and death in the streets below. From such a distance joy and sorrow are indistinguishable and all peoples look alike … and they tend to look like ants.

Such sentiments, as express by Marx and Adams are echoed in our own time by Bill Gates, George Soros and the like; Businessman, Mercenary Merchants, ‘Power to the People-preachers’, “Citizens of the World” and so on.  CEO’s with a corporate management mindset that believes social engineering cannot only reap ever-increasing profits but “better-off” the little people as well.  A man-made rearranging of the elements to better suit the perceived “greater good”.

Thus Marxism and Americanism consummate their relationship through their shared denouncement of family, tradition and identity.  Their offspring is the atomized consumeristic blank-slate.  For tradition is the enemy of America.

And so we have, from our beginning, a hypocritical elite who bemoans the existence of an elite. A Merchant-Pirate class who bemoans piracy and class, and the rich and powerful piously denouncing riches and power.  And with one voice they ask of the masses, “will you not give up your pursuit of power, riches and identity for the greater good?”  (We can see this today with rich and influential celebrities using the soap box their multi-million dollar lifestyles afforded them to denounce both the bigotry of the people they openly and collectively loathe and the “greedy excesses” of people who earn less than $50,000 a year.)

Powerless people cannot give up power anymore than poor people can “enter a life of poverty”. Thus it is rare (if ever) that “people’s revolutions” occur from the bottom up. Marxist-minded social engineers are either of the elite or end up as the elite.  And for them all things are malleable….for and by them.

“We the people” were neither consulted nor present when “They the rulers” applied our consent to their overthrow of history.  So what the Founding Fathers instituted was the notion that nations are man-made creatures (akin to Frankenstein’s patched-together-monster) rather than natural outgrowths of the family/tribe. And that is a critical point, considering trends today. For if the family is the bedrock of a nation, then how we define a nation will effect how we think of the family.

If a nation is merely an agreed upon social arrangement, voluntarily entered into and agreed by individuals (as in a creed), then so is the family. We should not then be surprised at the existence of the Franken-family, wherein are found every conceivable arrangement (from two “mommies” raising donated sperm to single parents and their revolving-door one night stands to the adopted multi-rainbow mockery) redefined into constituting a legitimate family.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers’ action in creating The America was akin to a vacationing wife who writes back to her husband to inform him she is leaving him, taking the kids and moving into a commune where everybody is husband and wife to everybody else, and the kids now have 27 dads and as many moms.  A “melting pot”, in other words.

In point of fact The Declaration of Independence was a divorce paper, wherein George and Tom and Benjamin and the rest announced their intention of severing ties with kith and kin. Their actions in creating The America was not only the breaking up of a home, it was a direct assault upon the sacred nature of the family in and of itself.

So in answer to the question, no, the Founding Fathers would not be surprised or upset at The America’s present state.  They would be pleased with the progress.  After a (well, very) little soul searching they would embrace a Marxist colored president, if not outright bow down before him, and promptly denounce any who oppose him as un-American.  Even Jefferson, who wrote about the perpetually low mental and spiritual qualities of the negro would come around quickly.  After all, a democratically elected Marxist Negro is the final embodiment of everything the “founding fathers” strived for in their rejection of an un-elected White Monarch. 

Again, tradition is the enemy of America.

Besides, it should be rather telling, that as The America ascended to world supremacy post-WWII the world has become increasingly radically liberal and leftist in outlook and ideology. And debauched culturally and racially.

Europe is a good example of that. Western Europe has been under the American dominion for 60+ years, and in that time has rapidly slid into the gutter culturally, socially and demographically. It is frequently described today as a dying continent.

The America is a multi-headed Beast, seeking out whom it may devour.  Americanism is a trumped up religion to sell a poisoned product.  In times past that religion was euphemistically called Babylon. Through democracy and universalism via assimilation it has created an image of Global Governance, wherein people from all tribes reside under one government, with “justice for all” at the point of a PC litigated riffle. 

And it calls upon the whole world to bow down before that image.  Those who do not bow down can neither buy nor sell on the world stage. They are derided, attacked and denied the right to the preservation of their distinct nations (peoples) and ways.

Just look at the White nations residing in The America ...  What’s left of them.

...

Monday, June 11, 2012

Where is the Western Apologetic?...

If there is one overriding notion in the concept of "Just", in a Justice system, it is that the accused have the right to a defense.

A prosecution without a defense is generally considered, obscene.

For the past 60+ years Western Civilization has been on trial without a general defense being presented. Accusations, slurs and innuendos have gone unchallenged as Western Man has accepted, without investigation, the acridity of the claims.

Imperialism, Colonialism, Racism, Intolerance, Prejudice etc....

Where is the defense?

Where is the Western Apologetic?

It was recently asked here if Christianity could be used to defend The West.
But is it possible that this question is backwards?

The ideological Left began marshaling its troops a century ago, and as they've inched ever closer to seeming victory in The West, we have to ask, where did they attack?

Most Christians claim that they directly assaulted Christianity, but did they?

Christianity has no doubt lost ground even as Christian Apologetic books and sites have become a dime a dozen.

So what happened?

Today's Christian leaders have acquiesced to the claims by the Left upon Western History. They nod in agreement with the Left's denouncements of everything from The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition to Colonialism and Southern history. And they do so deferring to the scholarship of the Left's own propagandists.

These Christian leaders have made no attempt at an Apologetic in defense of The West; crusades, slavery, colonialism, racism etc...

You see, the Left did not attack Christianity to undermine Western Civilization.
They attacked Western Civilization to undermine Christianity.

And it worked!

The Ideology of the Left is based unabashedly upon ever morphing hypocrisy. And they do this best in verbal and emotional appeals.

For example, they might proclaim, "We decree that everyone has an inalienable right to their own opinion. And anyone who disagrees with this is a tyrant!"
It's called double-speak.

And in a truly Machiavellian stroke of genius, they lured the Right into this mode of thought. And in so doing they have made the Christian a hypocrite.

The Leftist asserts that the slave owners, crusaders, conquistadors, heretic hunters etc.. to be evil.
The thoughtless Christian, intent upon showing his "reasonableness" agrees with the assertion.
The Leftist then points out that all of the above were Christians.
The Christian attempts a defense by claiming the accused were not "true Christians".
But the Leftist is already ahead of his opponent here because he has, in another context, accused the Christian of being "Judgmental".
And the "reasonable" Christian can appeal to no Biblical standard lest he be forced to call a host of other modern behaviors a "sin".
The Christian has now become a glaring hypocrite because he gleefully nods at Southern Slavery being called evil, yet now chokes on calling homosexuality or abortion evil.

The result: the Christian today scourers the Bible to find ways of reinforcing the Left's attacks upon the very people who have historically espoused the Christian faith!

Had the Christian halted the proceedings at the first accusation against the Crusader or Slave owner and challenged the claim by developing an apologetic on their behalf, he would have, in essence, stood his post at the Western Gates and pushed his enemy into retreat.
Instead, he left his post, dropped his armor and aided the sworn enemy of all that he holds dear in despoiling his Civilization, Country, City, Home and Family.
He has become a traitor.

And as his enemy stands unaccosted in the village square shouting endless profanities and slanders against his countryman's forefathers, he wonders why his sons have become apathetic, if not hostile, to those forefather's faith.


...