Erasing memory: the first step

tumblr_o3slhbofdW1tbakk0o1_540

The above is from a Tumblr blog. So Tumblr is not all millennial SJWs and angst-ridden teens.

The quote on the graphic above is very much like a quote which I used on my very first blog post back in 2006, as I seem to recall. Unfortunately I did not keep copies of my posts from those days, though they probably can be found in archives.

But the quote is more relevant today than ever. Back in 2006 there were far fewer people thinking or writing about these kinds of ideas and themes. Now, of course, there is a profusion of blogs, collectively known as Alt-Right or Neo-reaction, but those terms did not even exist then. But our relative fewness in number, those of us on the ‘traditional’ right or ‘paleo’ right, was offset by the more collegial and mutually supportive attitude amongst us which prevailed then. I miss that.

Still, it’s good that there are more people aware of the message in the above graphic, and more writing about it and discussing it, more openly and boldly.

Advertisements

Those ’11 million’ must have a ‘voice’

Antonio Villaraigosa, former L.A. Mayor and would-be governor of California, says that those fabled “11 million” illegal Latinos ‘must have a voice’ in the Democrat party and in ‘our’ nation.  “Our” nation, Tony? Do we, you and I, have a shared nation or nationality? Your ‘America’ and mine are not the same, as your words and actions amply illustrate.

Villaraigosa, as is typical of his political brethren on the Left, says that ‘we are our brothers’ keeper.’ But is everybody in the world my brother? If everybody is my brother, then the word ‘brother’ is meaningless. If everybody, all human beings including those tens of millions of Latino trespassers, are my brothers, then nobody is my brother. Our natural loyalties start with close blood kin and expand outward, and those nearest take priority.

The discussion of this article at Free Republic included the following, somewhat typical comments. For instance, the first comment is one that is frequently asserted by somebody, sooner or later, on such threads:

“A lot of Hispanics hate illegals.” – posted by Roman_War_Criminal

Sure, if you say so. The fact that I’ve never personally encountered this attitude is not necessarily proof that it isn’t so, but neither is the bald statement that it is so. Now, usually these statements — that many (or most) Hispanics object to illegal Latino immigration — are left unchallenged, but some healthy skepticism appears in the form of the following responses:

To: Roman_War_Criminal
A lot of Hispanics hate illegals.

Well they sure are mighty discreet about it.
11 posted on Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:59:45 PM by Steely Tom (Vote GOP: A

Slower Handbasket)

To: Steely Tom
kinda like those “peaceful” muslims we hear about.

37 posted on Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:18:15 PM by ealgeone

Exactly like those ”peaceful” Moslems. After all these years of witnessing Moslem atrocities (“false flags” to some) the lack of any significant counter-voice from the so-called ‘Muslim community‘ is glaringly obvious. I have less and less patience with these kinds of apologetic statements on behalf of supposed ‘moderates’, and for this “can’t we all just get along” pleading on behalf of this troublesome group or that. Unless there is a great groundswell of opposition to the ‘extremists’ who supposedly don’t represent the majority, I can only assume that the majority are either indifferent to what the ”few bad apples” [sic] are doing, or they are supportive of it. Either way, they are morally culpable, but then they illustrate the old adage that blood is thicker than water. Except, of course, for many Whites.

Where are these Hispanics who oppose illegal immigration? I know that some of the anti-open borders organizations in California would point to a Hispanic woman who spoke at various rallies 10 or so years back, as proof that ‘they are not all like that’; some are loyal  Americans just like you ‘n me. Likewise there has been a Hispanic woman who has been featured prominently at some Trump events, as a very vocal cheerleader for Trump. To me this is, sadly, much like the ‘conservative black’ fawn-fests that happened at Tea Party rallies and such: the endless quest for minorities who are ‘on our side’, and as proof that NA(X)ALT. Sorry, I remain skeptical. One swallow doth not a summer make; the exceptions and the outliers merely prove the rule. These exceptions are feted and courted and fawned over precisely because they ARE exceptions, oddities. We can’t base our actions or policies on the exceptions to the very real rule.

Certifiably insane — or?

Jean-Claude Juncker has said that the EU will never give up on their open-borders policy, despite the growing migrant crisis and the ramped-up terrorist acts in Europe. He says the EU will not give up on the so-called ”free movement of people” within the EU.

“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.

[…]Speaking after Islamic terror attacks left 130 dead in Paris last November, Mr. Juncker rejected calls to rethink the EU’s open doors policy on migration from Africa and the Middle East. Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.”

Apparently this statement was before the most recent attacks, which resulted in an elderly priest in Normandy murdered in his church, his throat slit. Some reports say that he was beheaded, but as we cannot automatically assume the media is giving accurate and complete information, given the fact that their marching orders from TPTB are to lie and mislead so as to further the agenda; the days of honest and objective journalism, insofar as they ever existed, are now a distant memory.

In response to the latest outrage, Hollande the globalist stooge says that the French people are ‘at war with ISIS.’ Shades of George W. Bush saying we were at war with ‘terror’, not with Islam, the “religion of peace.” Anything to avoid naming an enemy, an enemy which is not an abstraction. And saying that the enemy is ‘Islamism’ or ‘extremism’ or just ISIS, is a copout, a politically correct way of narrowing the blame down to ‘just a few extremists, a few bad apples who don’t represent Islam.’

If Juncker and his fellow globalist lackeys are sincere believers in their evil agenda of destroying nations and peoples, they are, as I’ve said for years, either insane or evil. Some people attribute the actions of Merkel, Juncker, and all their sorry kind to incompetence or to simple power-hunger.  Even now, some people can’t seem to see that this bizarre Camp-of-the-Saints scenario is not just the result of blundering or of simple political party ambitions (for instance Americans saying “it’s all about keeping the Democrats in power, more Democrat votes,” etc.) or ‘cheap labor’ for business — although that last apparently is a motivator for big business and small business too, in some cases. No, the madness we see playing out has method to it. They are working to a purpose, and working furiously to accomplish their malevolent goals. Nobody does this kind of evil, of this magnitude, for ordinary reasons.

And for my Christian readers, yes, we are fighting against ‘principalities and powers,’ and ‘spiritual wickedness in high places.’

Oh, and I am waiting for the claims that ‘this was staged; nobody died; the survivors are crisis actors and the blood was ketchup.’

Strange and portentous times we are living in, but then we knew this was coming. It was predicted, and even some who don’t read the Bible or believe prophecy sensed that this was taking shape. Yet some still don’t see the larger significance of it.

The lying media at it again

Are they ever not lying?

Since yesterday’s post there are more details coming to light on the Munich murders. But how much of what the media says is trustworthy or true? The BBC baldly states that there is a link between the Munich murderer and Breivik. The only link that is evident is that the shootings in Norway and this one in Munich occurred on the same calendar day, five years apart. But the media are so desperate to connect the Munich event with any White person, particularly one who is supposed to be a nationalist, so as to tar all nationalists with the same brush as a deranged Mohammedan, or the deranged Mohammedan of the day. Blame Whites wherever possible, seems to be Rule #1.

A German speaker, on a Free Republic thread discussing the BBC article linked above, checks the BBC’s account of things against a German-language account of the story in Der Spiegel. He gives his translation of relevant passages:

Der Täter habe sich intensiv mit dem Thema Amok beschäftigt, daher gehen die Ermittler davon aus, dass er sich auch mit dem Fall Breivik beschäftigt habe. Das liege auf der Hand, sagt Polizeipräsident Andrä. Freitag war der fünfte Jahrestag des Amoklaufs in Norwegen.

My translation: The culprit has interested himself in mass shootings, therefore the investigators assume that he also has interested himself in the Breivik case. That’s obvious, says Chief of Police Andrä. Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the mass shootings in Norway.

Now, you can go back to the BBC piece, check the first page of the Daily Telegraph etc etc and see how a false story is made. “

The phrase that I bolded in the quote above tells the story: investigators assume. The politically correct police seem as much to blame here as the anti-White mendacious media.

Another way in which the media have deceived us on this story: his name was at first (after some delay) given as Ali Sonboly. Later reports gave his name as David Sonboly, David, of course, not being a Moslem name usually. So we are told he was a convert to Christianity. And his ethnicity was given as Iranian. However, Walid Shoebat says he is not Iranian but Syrian, with Turkish loyalties.

“Why then advertise him as an Iranian which would make him a Shiite Muslim? Is it possible that Germany wants to avoid the repercussion when Germans know that Turks or Syrian refugees who are entering Germany by the droves are the culprit?”

Obviously the media have been told by their puppetmasters to conceal any link to the ‘Syrian’ ‘refugees’, so as not to arouse xenophobia and ‘Islamophobia.’

There are Alt-Right bloggers who are quibbling over whether he is Iranian because, they say, Iranians do not commit terror acts. I am not sure of the veracity of that claim; I haven’t researched it, but it seems a bit of a sweeping general statement, to me. In any case it’s moot, if it’s true that Sonboly was not Iranian at all. Shoebat asserts that the surname Sonboly is a Syrian name and he seems more credible on that than most Western journalists (many of whom are Third-worlders, including Moslems; remember journalism’s ‘diversity mandate’?). I will trust what Shoebat says over what the rest of the media tells us.

Again, other bloggers are arguing that the killings in Munich were not terror or jihad because he was just a troubled individual who was a loser and felt suicidal. But why would a merely suicidal person kill others on their way out of this world? Why not just kill oneself, and not innocent strangers? Then again, I am not a believer in armchair psychoanalysis of every killer or criminal out there, nor do I put much credibility even on the opinions of professional psychologists or psychoanalysts. Those ‘sciences’ are not hard science; there is far too much subjectivity and ‘trendiness’ in the mental health field, and it is now politicized, politically correct, far too often for it to be credible.

And what about the tedious media discussion of how this unfortunate young man got ”radicalized”, as if believing in Islam was not radicalizing enough? Who radicalized the original jihadists as they came out of the Middle East slaying and conquering and converting by the sword in the 7th century or so?

The overriding fact is that Sonboly was out of place, in a country that was not his ancestral country, and he was angry and bitter towards the native people of his host country. He was an immigrant, and he, like all the other jihadists or terrorists or whatever we choose to call them, illustrate not just the folly of promiscuous immigration practices, but the fatal consequences for innocent people in the host countries.

Another attack

Yet another attack, this time in Munich, at a shopping mall. Ten are dead, as of the writing of this, some of them children. More are injured.

And yet another shameful job by the Western establishment media in ‘reporting’ this story. As is usual in any crime or atrocity by one of the ‘protected groups’, the media deliberately obfuscated details, claiming that there was no certainty about the identity or especially the ethnicity/race of the attacker. The local authorities were also culpable, in issuing statements asking people to refrain from ‘speculating’ about the attacker.

The American media were especially brazen in trying to link the attack to German nationalists (which, in their twisted parallel universe, translates to ‘haters’ and ‘bigoted Whites’). Shep Smith, the light-in-his-loafers Fox News personality, was blatantly pushing this storyline. It may have been Shep who mentioned the Utoya shootings of several years ago, since the Munich attack occurred on the anniversaary of that incident. You will notice that the article I link above also makes a point of reminding readers that this was the anniversary of Utoya.

I am sure that many significant events have happened on this day, so why is that one alone so significant, that it must be mentioned? Is the point that ‘White men, right-wing nationalists, do this kind of thing too‘? I don’t know what else to take away from their pointedly telling us about that anniversary, which most of us would not even be aware of.

Now of course we know that the shooter (who targeted children, real children, not post-pubescent teenagers as in the aforementioned attack in 2011) was Iranian by ancestry, though apparently a German citizen. It appears he had a verbal exchange at the site of the attack with a German who referred to immigrants: the shooter said he was ‘German’ by virtue of having been born there.  Again, as Wellington said, being born in a stable doesn’t make you a horse, and this Iranian killer was not German, regardless of an accident of birth or of citizenship papers.

The shocking thing about this incident is that the killer apparently lured children to the McDonald’s at the mall where the killings took place. He posted on Facebook about ‘free food’ for children there.

Though the media portray any ethnopatriot or ethnonationalist Whites as evil people consumed with ‘hate’ for anyone different from ourselves, I personally cannot conceive of hating anyone, especially strangers, so much that I would even think of doing something like this. The real ‘hate’, the kind of burning, visceral hate that allows someone to lure and kill children because of religious/racial/ethnic grudges is just foreign to me. These attacks only confirm in me the belief that these people are of a completely different makeup and mindset to Western, European-descended people. We have dangerous people amongst our own but not on the scale of what the Islamic world produces.

The media lackeys are colossal hypocrites who point the finger of accusation and condemnation at their own kinsmen while whitewashing and covering up and apologizing for the evils of the ‘sainted’ Others in our midst. These ‘white’ collaborationists are a disgrace to us and if we could excommunicate them from our folk, banish them, make them outcasts, that would be fully justified. All lefties and multicultists should be required to relocate to the Third World country of their choice, which if they are consistent, they would happily agree to.

The dominant American ethnic group

For once, those are not my words, but a quote from a comment at the iSteve blog:

“I’ve noticed that they talk incessantly about minority cultures: their music, their food, and so forth, and how we “appropriate” it. But they act as if there’s no such thing as culture amongst white people. Unless they’re part of specific groups, like Italians or the Irish. The dominant American ethnic group in U.S. culture were and are the English. But we so take them for granted it’s as if their influence isn’t there, even though blacks, for instance, have “appropriated” more of it than we could ever hope to appropriate of theirs should we try.

A similar fate befell German culture. I guess the Irish survived because they were oppressed, or whatever. But there’s a whimsical quality to Irish-American culture, which I find artificial. Anyway, the point is that mainstream American culture is there, while people brought up in its slain yet undying influence pretend it isn’t.”

[Emphasis mine above.]

This will be cross-posted at the other blog, as it is very much the theme of that blog.

The new Ireland

Many Irish-Americans, provided they haven’t actually visited Ireland lately, still think of Ireland as a country which is religious and socially conservative, safe, and above all, populated by Irish (mostly Catholic).

Meanwhile, in the real Ireland of 2016, the Minister of Social Protection is surnamed Varadkar, and he is ‘out’ as a homosexual. I can just hear someone say ‘Ireland is a nation of immigrants’ — oh, wait, that’s what they say about our country. They say it also about Britain or any historically White country these days. Whatever. By their constant use of that refrain to pummel immigration skeptics into submission, they succeed in making it true, as propagandized populations begin to believe the lies over time.

Varadkar, in case you are wondering, has a father from India and an Irish-born mother.

But all the same, no doubt, he is more Irish than the Irish themselves.

However he does not seem to share the same set of ethics as most Irish people, who, despite the social changes accompanying the transition to post-Christianity, are probably still more pro-life than many other Western nations.

An Ireland with African mayors, an Ireland where a native-born mayor is driven to quit following a controversy over his remarks about African migrants — where are the ethnopatriots in Ireland? I know there are a few but it seems the Irish are in the throes of xenophilia or more properly xenomania. It seems they have so identified with the ‘immigrant’ because their folk have so often immigrated to other countries for economic reasons, and because of the famine and colonialism, they see Africans as fellow oppressed folk.

It appears that much of the nationalist fervor that led to past rebellions against the much-hated Brits was not motivated mainly by ethnopatriotism but enmity towards, and envy of, the British. The result we see in these news stories out of Ireland is what happens when nationalism is not so much based on love, or above all, on loyalty to one’s kinsmen, but on hatred of some outside group.

Several years ago I wrote a post addressing this in an American context. We are very united in dislike for ‘the elites’ or some other group — everyone has their favorite minority, it seems, and many have their favorite enemy as well. But do we love our own folk, do we have enough loyalty to our own, to attain some kind of solidarity? I believe that love for folk and family and Faith have to animate our desire to prevail; animus cannot take us that far, especially when we can’t always agree on exactly who or what is ultimately responsible for our predicament.

Time will tell. I hope Ireland wakes up, and I hope the same for the American majority.

A conservative says this?

A poster on a ‘conservative’ forum shared an e-mail which he got from the Ted Cruz campaign, apparently one of those mass e-mailings that solicit support and money.

From the text of that e-mail, ostensibly written by Cruz himself:

“If we choose freedom, our future will be brighter.
Freedom will bring back jobs and raise wages. Freedom will lift people out of dependency and to the dignity of work.

47 years ago today, America put a man on the moon. That’s the power of freedom.
Our party was founded to defeat slavery.
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
We passed the Civil Rights Act, and fought to eliminate Jim Crow laws.
Those were fights for freedom, and so is this.”

Then the request for money followed. Cruz is (I hope!) delusional if he expects people to send him money for his failed campaign now, especially after his reneging on his promise to endorse Donald Trump. But does anybody see the obvious contradictions in the above quoted text? Couldn’t anybody with conservative instincts (and I mean that in the classic sense, not in the political sense, as in today’s Republican party) see the glaring, blinding contradictions in Cruz’s invoking ”freedom” while expressing support for liberal, egalitarian principles?

There is a well-known quote attributed to both John Taylor of Caroline and John Randolph of Roanoke, two great Virginian statesmen, who said “I love liberty; I hate equality.” Today’s conservatives (or cuckservatives?) would probably object strongly to those words. But there is sense in those words, and truth, though that truth is  mostly rejected today, especially by the likes of politicians like Cruz and unfortunately many self-described ‘conservatives.’ These people apparently fail to see, or refuse to see, that the Civil Rights Act and the elimination of Jim Crow laws (which Cruz boasts of) were anti-freedom, at least for the majority in this country. It was the beginning of the end of traditional America, in which we still had freedom of association, and in which we could still speak relatively freely, uninhibited by what we now call political correctness. We could still unabashedly care about our folk, and act in our own interests. Was that ‘unfair’ to the others in our society? Possibly, but is the current situation fair to us?

Under our system, the will of the majority was to be honored. After all, even in the best of situations not everyone can get what he wants, so is it not preferable that the majority, the greatest number, has its needs addressed? Now, minorities’ wills prevail over the majority, and that is a greater injustice. Many Americans rail against aristocracies and nobility because they feel that rule by a small group is a terrible injustice against the majority. And yet this is exactly what we have now. Yes, I know the real rulers are not blacks, sexual deviants, Hispanics, and Moslems, but the elites rule using them, and for political reasons choose to grant more freedoms and more concessions to those minority groups. Either way, it’s an injustice to the majority population.

Any ‘conservative’ should see that liberal policies such as those Cruz and his ilk boast of are detrimental to the freedoms of the people as a whole. Even if we are talking about ‘freedom’ in the abstract as libertarians are wont to do, egalitarianism comes at the cost of freedom. It is not possible to create ‘equality’ or equal treatment by fiat, or to force association with others at gunpoint, which is what Cruz and the average Republican pride themselves on.

‘Ending Jim Crow laws’ may sound like a great coup for ‘freedom’ because the term ‘Jim Crow’ has been loaded with bad connotations — but let’s admit that ending Jim Crow amounted to forcible ‘integration’ at gunpoint, and it is still going on now, as for example Section 8 tenants are placed into neighborhoods that are ”too White”. People must not be allowed to sort themselves according to their own interests or choices.

‘Equality’, or some semblance of it, can only be brought about by coercion, achieved by an overbearing government. And since the perfect equilibrium of that state cannot be maintained except by outside pressure and threat of force, it requires ongoing coercion.

Ted Cruz is obviously clueless about ‘freedom’ and about the principles on which this country was founded, but then as a foreigner and an immigrant, we can’t expect him to understand. But there’s no excuse for any American with even a basic education not to understand these things.

Ignorance and apathy

Ignorance and apathy are surely two of the biggest threats to us in our day.

Few people seem to know the truth — they are ignorant — and even fewer care about the truth, being apathetic towards it.

An example: the left and their minority  clients are making hay over Melania Trump’s speech at the GOP convention. They’ve created a tempest in a teapot, something at which they are notoriously adept, claiming that the speech was knowingly ”stolen” by Melania. And this, of course, is a racial issue — after all, what isn’t,  to them? If it isn’t racial, they are absolute wizards at making it into a racial issue.

The shameful New York Times has an article about this, discussed here by Steve Sailer’s commenters. Some person named Yasmin Yonis, good old all-American name, that, says

“White women have spent centuries stealing black women’s genius, labor, babies, bodies.”

Genius? The less said on that issue, the better. Did White women (or men) ‘steal‘ black women’s labor? How, when? Even in the day of chattel slavery, something was given in exchange for labor, namely, food, clothing, shelter, and lifelong care, actually, ,when laboring days were over, in old age. Many White indentured servants had a similar arrangement, the only difference being that they would be unbound from servitude after a prescribed time — but then again the White indentured servants were on their own after that, and could not expect anyone to provide for them in old age or infirmity.

Babies? When did White women steal babies from black women? Oh yes, the old Harriet Beecher Stowe version of ‘history’ again. Somebody on the iSteve thread gives Angelina Jolie, Madonna, and other black-obsessed celebrities as examples. Sadly we could also add Sandra Bullock and several others who are obsessed with having ‘diverse’ children, especially black ones. This, to me, is adulation of blacks, but in the black mind, it is exploitation or perhaps ‘racism’ in the form of paternalism or maternalism. Condescension. Maybe that’s true to some extent. And sadly these aberrant women have imitators among the common folk; a number of women in my area hold fund-raisers now and then to finance their quest for black children from Haiti or Africa. Some prefer Guatemalans or Asian children, but black adoptions carry the most cachet. I would support black efforts to pass some kind of regulation as the Russians did, forbidding foreigners from ‘buying’ orphaned children and taking them away from their natural kin. Likewise, American Indians forbid White adoption of their children, and this seems sound to me. I would be troubled at the idea that our folk’s orphans could be bought by wealthy foreigners and shipped off to another continent or country.

Stealing black women’s bodies: how is that done? Slavery yet again? What about the Barbary pirates (Moslems) stealing millions of White women (and men and children), with many unfortunate White girls and women forced into harems in the Arab world? But oh, no, only blacks and other nonwhites are ever victims.

I am surprised that ‘Yasmin’ in the article does not charge us with stealing black women’s souls as well.

But as to the supposed plagiarized speech by the ‘First Lady’, it appears from what I have read that the speech was cobbled together from bits of other people’s speeches. Does anyone write an original speech anymore? In this age of degeneration of our English language skills, it’s not surprising that no one seems to be able to write a decent speech. Once our children read good literature and were well-schooled in the use of the English language, and they had to learn to write, everything from social letters to essays and poetry; to be well-educated they had to be able to speak extemporaneously when needed and to use, with citation, quotes from great thinkers and writers. Nowadays this is gone.

One depressing aspect of this brouhaha is the quibbling over one phrase in Melania Trump’s speech: the phrase ‘word is bond‘ or some variation. Even on ‘conservative’ forums some say the phrase is from hip-hop. I can scarcely believe that any educated adult would say such a thing; ‘his word is his bond’ or ‘my word is my bond’ are phrases that are age-old. Have Americans become so ignorant of our own idioms and aphorisms, and of the words of past writers, that we think a phrase like that could originate with some hip-hop ‘artist’ with at best, a high-school diploma?

It seems that especially with the younger generations, many old sayings are believed to have come from contemporary popular culture rather than from the long-ago past. An example: ”Revenge is a dish best served cold.” Most people think that phrase was a ‘Klingon proverb’, at best a creation of the writers of Star Trek, when in fact it’s a proverb that is in many old books of proverbs from various cultures. (To me, it’s a cynical and ugly proverb, but it seems to appeal to postmoderns). Then there’s ”Keep your friends close, your enemies closer” which many credit to the TV series The Sopranos. That cynical saying, too, was not invented by a scriptwriter, but has been around for some time. But most people’s knowledge base is limited mostly to current or recent pop culture; the world begins and ends with pop culture. Hip-hop artists are in Bartlett’s Quotations these days, so debased is our culture.

It’s no wonder, then, that so many of our folk don’t know any better than the lies put out by the media and the “victim” classes they serve. And those who do know better seem not to care enough to stand up against the lies and remind people that there is an objective truth which must be guarded and defended in order to keep us strong.

 

 

 

Controversial?

An acquaintance of mine, bless her heart, was irate when hearing the BLM slogan repeated for the millionth time — that is, ‘black lives matter.’ Now, she is not an ‘extremist’ except perhaps in the minds of the far-left extremists, who think that milk-and-water Republicans are ‘Nazis and fascists’, but she was just expressing exasperation over the fact that all other peoples’ lives appear to be devalued by this phrase, as if only black lives matter. This lady then blurted out the now-often heard (in private, at least) phrase: ‘All lives matter!’

Now I read that Shepherd Smith, the effeminate liberal Fox News “personality” took Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal to task for saying the same colorblind phrase that this nice Christian lady uttered to me. Apparently it’s controversial to suggest that in fact, all lives, that is, not just black lives, matter. I would have thought that was a given, that no civilized person would say that only certain lives matter.

“Smith cuts in to attack Jindal:

“Governor, you know, you know that that phrase you just used is is one that’s seen by many as, as derogatory, right? I, I just wonder why it is that you use that phrase when there’s a certain segment of the population that believes it’s a real dig on ’em.”

I know the ‘reasoning’, if such can be said to exist, behind the BLM mantra; they have talked themselves, or been talked, into believing that in the past black lives were treated as nothing; that blacks are and have always been killed ‘just for the color of their skin’, and then there’s “400 years of slavery”, Jim Crow, the back of the bus, profiling, driving while black and all the other outrages and atrocities.

Still, for some years now our society has had a kind of compulsory colorblind philosophy which has taught us all that we must not see color, and that all human beings are our brothers and sisters, children of God, etc. Most White people have for years at least outwardly conformed to this orthodoxy, even when other races have not reciprocated.

And now it’s being called an affront to suggest that all human lives should matter as much as black lives? Since when? I would guess since the likes of Shep Smith and all the rest of his lockstep politically correct kind have had control of public discourse. They, that is, the PC establishment, make the rules as to what is allowable discourse — and not just discourse, but thought — and they enforce it relentlessly via government and the government media extension.

The acquaintance of mine who also used the controversial ‘all-lives-matter‘ phrase is, from my viewpoint, still bound by political correctness. In the article linked above, Jindal was expressing the standard ‘colorblind’ formula, saying that we need to ‘look beyond race’. Though Jindal is a Republican it’s clear he is in agreement with one of the basic presuppositions of left-liberalism: race is a social construct, something we can ‘look beyond’ or ignore, or discount, while in the real world race is something that we are not allowed to ignore or deny away — if we try, we do so at our own peril.

My acquaintance, being a nice Republican churchgoing lady, is in agreement with Jindal. And there are many more like her. This is why as a people we are so slow in responding to the existential threat that faces us; we can’t be colorblind in a hyperracialized world in which race is a greater force than ever for pitting us against each other. Being colorblind in the world today is being a disarmed pacifist in a bad neighborhood full of armed hostiles.