Home » 'racism' » Who are the ‘real bigots’?

Who are the ‘real bigots’?

The answer to the question posed by the post title is, apparently, ”anyone who has views with which I disagree” or “anybody I wish to discredit and marginalize.” Just as with the related word ”racist”. From here on out I think I will enclose the much-abused word “bigot” in scare quotes, just as I do the word ”racist.”

If a word is used over-liberally, or its definition increasingly expanded or distorted so that it can mean whatever the person wielding it chooses it to mean, then it becomes a worthless coin.

Since Donald Trump declared himself a presidential candidate, it seems the word ”bigot” is getting quite a workout. Now, in times past, you could just about make book on the likelihood that the person shrieking ‘bigot’ was a lefty, or in today’s parlance of acronyms, an SJW. Now, it is just as likely that the wielder of today’s preferred word-weapon is a ”respectable” Republican.

The phenomenon seems much like the recent trend of Republicans suddenly calling Democrats “racists” or more specifically, the ‘real racists‘. The idea seems to be that the people who felt aggrieved at being called ‘racists’ themselves decided to try to turn the same word-weapon against their leftist harassers. The fact that it has never worked, and never silenced or discouraged one single leftist/SJW escapes the hapless Republicans who just keep on trying the same thing, hoping for a different result.

Having failed to fend off their leftist attackers, the Respectables now turn their frustration and contempt toward the “nasty mouth-breathers”, the “quacks and haters” to their right. They are simply passing along the same insults hurled towards Republican voters in general to those undesirables to their right.

The insults in the paragraph above were the words of a writer in Commentary Magazine, who happens to be an in-law of William Kristol. The invective is, its source considered, unsurprising. But doesn’t it have a whiff of patrician (or would-be patrician) condescension and class-prejudice about it?

The writer laments the absence of the likes of William F. Buckley, whose ability to keep the GOP ‘big tent’ swept clean of the riff-raff the writer misses. I am old enough to remember Buckley and his TV program. Unaware of his actual origins, being young and naive, I assumed he was an ”upper-class WASP”, to the manor born. Imagine my surprise when I learned that he was of Irish origin, and of fairly recent immigrant provenance. I maintain there was and is such a thing as ‘WASP envy’ on the part of Ellis Island-vintage immigrant stock, and it is particularly strong amongst the ethnic immigrant stock, who imagine or were told that their ancestors were mistreated by those snobbish WASPs. Once having attained wealth these immigrants or their descendants both emulated WASP elites (as did Buckley, so ostentatiously as to become a walking, talking caricature) and envied those same WASPs and worked to undermine them as a group and destroy their legacy.

Personally I think this is a big motivation for many of the neocons who have held sway over the GOP in recent years. Maybe they are alarmed that their influence may be finished, as many voters who traditionally voted GOP have turned against the useless foreign ‘interventions’ and democracy-building in countries where such political systems will never find fertile ground. Whatever the reason, the neocons, the GOP party apparatchiks and the ‘cuckservatives’ who are in many cases just dupes of the aforementioned, are turning on the ‘real’ right wing, declaring them to be the ‘real bigots’, unlike the oh-so-PC Republican ‘Respectables.’

Hunter Wallace, in the linked piece, notes that the word ‘bigot’ has lost its meaning, and it’s true, as I mention in my opening paragraph. Recently I happened to look up the word ‘bigot’ in my 1936 Webster’s Dictionary, and I found that 80 years ago, the word was defined as

“One devoted obstinately or intolerantly to his church, party, belief, or religion.”
Obviously the meaning has changed, as your modern dictionary will say it means a ”hater” or a ”prejudiced” person. It used to imply rigidity and narrowness, not ”hate”.

By the old, time-honored definition, the left are bigots, but of course they would not be fazed by having that word thrown at them; they’ve learned that they can manipulate language and words to their own perverse purposes. Now it seems the Republicans/cuckservatives are joining in the chorus with the left. They are running scared, these ‘Respectables’, in some cases, lest they be associated with ‘quacks and haters’ and the ‘nasty mouth-breathers’.

This kind of thing is very characteristic of the nouveau riche class; the non-“old money”people who are most insecure in their status and image, and are most likely to be embarrassed by, or contemptuous toward, their poor relations.

Once upon a time even the venerable pseudo-WASP Bill Buckley was called names by the left, as seen in this hit piece. So even he was not deemed the doyen of respectability by his enemies. It’s almost enough to make you admire Buckley. The fact that he liked Albert Jay Nock impresses me.

But the point is: today’s pillars of respectability may tomorrow be deemed ‘reactionary’, ‘fascist’, or even ‘nasty mouth-breathers.’ Especially with the leftists constantly at work re-defining words and converting them to weapons.

However it seems the Respectable Right has decided to give up trying to beat the Left, and simply to join them — using the same tactics and the same rhetoric against the same people. Shows us their true colors, does it not? Thanks, Respectables, for making it so very easy for us to see.

[H/T Hunter Wallace]

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Who are the ‘real bigots’?

  1. VA, your experience watching Buckley matches mine. I was totally taken in my him on Firing Line as an old line Wasp. It also took a long time to realize the depth of resentment White Catholics felt in the 1980s and even up to now in some respects.

    “envied those same WASPs and worked to undermine them as a group and destroy their legacy.” So true. Some White Catholics in Wall Street will never hire a White Protestant from North or South nor treat them fairly otherwise. Jews are more rational in this respect and are less willing to leave money on the table over past spites.

    This fissure between White Catholics who dominate the New York City area and the coastal Northeast is a key part of the weakness of White America. If not created on purpose, this split is exploited and even kept going by those who see this weakness as their opportunity to destroy White America for the good of their group.

    Liked by 1 person

    • OA – I agree with your point about White Catholics (ethnic White Catholics in particular) seeming to have more power and influence in Wall Street in particular. I have known people in Wall Street from my time in the NYC area and it did seem that the “connected” people I knew, connected with the ‘bankster’ class and certain powerful families were Italian or Irish by descent, not of the supposed ‘WASP elite’ that everyone assumes to hold so much power.
      Nothing against individual Catholics, mind you. I’m not speaking of everyday people but people in a certain segment of society.

      Like

  2. I checked my favorite dictionary – The American College Dictionary, 1948, which my father used in college. Bigot – a person who is intolerantly convinced of a particular creed, opinion, practice, etc. As you note, not a mention of “hate” or “racism.” Neither does this definition imply that the particular creed or opinion is in any way wrong or incorrect. It simply means a person who ascribes so strongly to that particular idea or practice or belief that he refuses to consider any alternatives. If said belief is correct, then to consider alternatives would clearly be the greater wrong.

    The ongoing adulteration of our language by SJWs and ethnots is yet another way we are being beggared. A rich vocabulary capable of precise and minute distinctions of meaning is being lost, because of feelz. I’m reading “Great Expectations” with my 16 year old and even I have had to double check a word here or there in my dictionary – and this serialized book was not high brow, but aimed for the general reading public in the mid-1800s.

    Like

  3. Thanks, Sheila, for elaborating on the definition of bigotry. Good point about the fact that the definition does not imply that a belief system need be wrong or mistaken in order for the holder to be defined as a bigot; it simply means a lack of willingness to look at both (all) sides of a question and alter one’s viewpoints if they are found wrong. And that’s something that the left is unable or unwilling to do, unlike some of us who were once (usually when young and naive) more liberal and who saw the wrongness and folly of leftism.

    Like

  4. Totalitarians are the biggest bigots, and that seems to fit the aspirations of the leftists. They have an agenda which, in their mind, justify them against intrusion by facts.

    Les Brigandes – The great replacement

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s