On psychology

Emil Cioran quote_Wrath of Gnon

It seems self-evident to me, but apparently not to many people, as the correlation between the decline of the West and the pervasive influence of the psychological establishment is seldom discussed. Christianity is blamed far more often, despite the fact that it has been a central part of Western culture for centuries, whereas psychology’s rise seems to coincide with the decline of our society, and also the subverting and weakening of Christianity.Coincidence?

The subject certainly deserves to be noticed and examined more widely.

[Quote from Wrath of Gnon]


A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.

To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.

And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.

So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.

CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?

CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.

Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?

I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.

And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?




Foretold in 1932

Towardssovietamerica -Money quote - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0315


Towarssovietamerica - money quote 2 - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0316a

The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled Towards Soviet America, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.

However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.

Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?


Old vs. new, past vs. future

Today I was reading a discussion on a blog in which the question was raised: is it more useful to our cause to be ‘forward-thinking’ and future-oriented, rather than take a reactionary tone, focusing on recovering our traditions?

The question, I thought, was loaded in favor of the ‘future-oriented’ option; the way it’s put, of course it makes more sense to try to envision a better future — and given our dystopian present situation, almost any change for the better is preferable.

However — and it will surprise no one that I’m in favor of trying to reclaim as much of tradition as possible — how can we focus on a future which exists only in imagination? And how can we even imagine, much less create from whole cloth something which has never before been, without becoming like the would-be utopian leftists, who have succeeded in creating a nightmare in their quest to make real their bizarre visions of the future?

The Jacobins, like all their leftist/progressivist ideological progeny, thought they could raze everything and build something new and perfect from the ground up. How is that working out so far? Unfortunately some on the ‘new right’ under whatever label they call themselves, are so soured on the past, and on all the works of their forebears, that they are essentially adopting the Jacobin attitude toward junking the past altogether because “it didn’t work”. Why didn’t it work? “It was imperfect.” Why was it imperfect?

The gist of their answer seems to be that the past generations were to blame; they were flawed in a unique and irremediable way, a peculiar kind of original sin, unique only to certain past generations — but absent in the present generation of young people. No; they are exempt from this particular taint; it was confined to certain time periods and generations. Once those uniquely guilty sinners are dead and gone, the present generation of young people, freed of their toxic presence, will then proceed to build their own Future, unimpeded. Many of the younger rightists share this way of thinking with the ‘mad-dog left’ of their age group.

In my early blogging days I wrote a piece asking what happened to the old optimistic America of the 1950s? Does anyone remember how the 1950s vision of the future, as seen in Sci-Fi movies and Disney cartoons, showed triumphant science and technology solving all the world’s problems: we would conquer disease and hunger; Science would show us all how to live together in peace and plenty. The problem was ignorance and want, and Science had the answers. By the 21st century we’d live in ‘Jetsons’-style cities with our own personal sky-cars to fly around in. There’d be colonies on the Moon and Mars, if not in outer space. And on and on. I think many people assumed that given the recent successes of science and technology, this was all guaranteed. Onward and upward; the human race always progresses, and progress is always good, always for the better. We are all ‘evolving’ toward a higher, more enlightened state of being, growing up as a species. So they said. And so some people still say.

But surely most of us are seeing Science (capital-S) as hardly the savior of mankind. Science is, as the character ‘Shane’ said in the 1953 movie of that name said of guns:

“…a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything..as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

Science is flawed human understanding and reason. It’s served us well in many cases but it cannot save us. The human element alone makes it imperfect, and its discoveries susceptible to being misused or corrupted. Think of the ‘global warming/climate change’ scam, as well as the mountain of lies surrounding the issue of race/HBD.

What then, imparts an aura of ‘magic’ to any of our visions of the future as enlightened by Science? Do we really think that we can conjure up this shiny, antiseptic future world as gleaming utopia, just by thinking positively?

And what good will adopting this as a tactic or strategy for pragmatic purposes (“to appeal to the young”) do? Isn’t such a strategy cynical? Would it not be better to work from what is true — as in tried-and-true — and workable as we know from real experience?

Guido Bruno, writing in 1916, said this:

“It will not do to say that all the ways of old were the only good ways, and that those of to-day are turning us from paths that were good enough for our forefathers, to those that lead, we known not where; but on the other hand we can say, that many of the old ways have been discarded only because they were old, and not because we found something better.

What we call up-to-dateness and modernism is, in the analysis, a product born of excitement, a restless desire for change, a going from one thing to another, and although there is a measured tendency in some directions for a return to some of the ways of old, the fear of being called old-fashioned is the tyrant that speeds us on to seek new activities and novelty in entertainment.”

I’ve lately wondered if some of the obsession with ‘diversity’ and the desire to outmarry is nothing more complicated or profound than just this juvenile seeking for change-for-change’s-sake, coupled with the desire to repudiate one’s old fogy elders. Forget pathological altruism and all the rest; what if it’s just novelty-seeking?

To return to Guido Bruno’s remarks:

“All things up to date have their places, and by invention do we measure progress, but on the other hand a change is often times a going back, rather than a moving forward.”

‘Desensitize, jam, and convert’

The phrase above describes the strategy outlined by a pair of ‘gay’ activists back in 1988. These two activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, co-wrote a book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.

As of the 1990s, I think we could safely say their goal was pretty much realized. Think back to the late 1980s, those of you whose memories extend back that far: America’s ”fear and hatred”, or at least suspicion or disdain, of homosexuals was mostly neutralized by the 90s, with more and more people saying that ‘whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, between consenting adults, is nobody else’s business.’ Or they became sympathetic to gays because of AIDS. Or else they believed the media propaganda that homosexuals were persecuted, bashed, even killed, just because of their (supposedly) inborn sexual orientation.

Just as the activist/writers Hunter and Madsen suggested, the media played a huge part in the growing acceptance of the homosexual ‘lifestyle’; TV series and movies featured more and more sympathetic gay and lesbian characters, and portrayed anyone who objected to this change as a narrow-minded, hateful fanatic.

According to marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, the plan was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In Rondeau’s words, from his book Selling Homosexuality to America:

The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.”

I’d say they mostly succeeded. Up until quite recently, though, there has been a core of resistance to gay acceptance, and that core was made up of the few remaining conservative Christians, along with a few others on the ‘old right’. There is also a considerable generational divide, with each new generation becoming more accepting of homosexuality. The millennials are the most pro-homosexual of all the generations.

This seems to account in some part for the lionizing of Milo Yiannopoulos, and the bizarre decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to make him the keynote speaker at their upcoming conference. [Note: I now see that Milo has been ‘disinvited’, following the release of some Milo tapes in which pedophilia is spoken of favorably. But the substance of my comments are still relevant, re: Milo’s role.]

Twenty, or even ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable to present as keynote speaker at a conservative conference a flamboyantly homosexual figure, notorious for his outrageous persona and the lewd content of his videos and self-publicity. He makes it known that he is pro-miscegenation, (his preference for black male ‘company’) which makes it doubly baffling why supposedly pro-White ethnonationalists are among his most ardent defenders. In addition, Milo is half-Jewish (his Greek surname confuses the issue) while those who are part of his following are supposedly ‘Jew-wise.’ Makes no sense.

Oh, I’ve heard the usual arguments: his ‘gayness’ supposedly insulates him from the usual insults from the left; how can they attack someone of a victim group, especially since he actually prefers men ‘of color’? The fact is, though, that he is being attacked just as fiercely from the left, so he is not insulated or immune to the usual assaults.

The fact that the younger dissident right loves Milo is understandable when one considers that this is the ‘South Park’ generation, a generation which is, after all, just as post-modern and libertine in their ‘thinking’ as are the predominant lefties in the same age group. They are of one mind, left and right, on social and cultural issues except for race and nation, perhaps. And granted, those things are of paramount importance now, as they are being used to destroy the West, and Whites in particular.

So is Milo an ally with whom we should make common cause because he is an effective weapon against the left? Or is he being used, whether he knows it or not, as a battering ram with which to allow the gay cause to get a foothold within the right?

We can look at the FReepers as an example: many on the dissident right would call FReepers either ‘cuckservatives’ or ‘normies’, yet look at how they defend Milo here, and welcome his ‘joining’ our side. This post, for example:

So glad to see so much support for an ally on this thread.Beware though, the “Milo is a sodomite!” crowd will show up soon and start trolling.’

So, traditional rightists and Christians will now be considered’trolls’ and ultimately, if this trend continues, will be unwelcome, while the Milos and whoever follows him as the next ‘conservative gay’ are embraced wholeheartedly. Voila, both major parties will be gay-friendly, and pursue pro-gay policies as the ‘homophobic’ old guard will be shown the door.

This is a case in point as to how the left has succeeded in pulling both parties to the left, and how they have met with only feeble and dwindling opposition to their cultural Marxist agenda over the years. It illustrates the ‘long march through the institutions.’

It also calls to mind the familiar list of Communist goals, as outlined in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen. Just to jog your memory, goals # 25 and #26:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The right may think they are just being pragmatic and ‘using’ people like Milo to slap the left in the face, but the right should beware lest they end up being used and manipulated.

Non-discrimination can be deadly

This story illustrates the fact that not discriminating can cost innocent lives, as well as damaging our societies in numerous ways.

As Val Koinen points out here, it’s insanity on parade. I fully agree with his outrage and apparent exasperation. The older generations, could they have seen into the future, into our time, would surely have been incredulous at this story. Imagine, a crazed killer could behead a man in full view of witnesses, on a bus, then be institutionalized in a ‘hospital’ for a short while — then be granted full freedom — and Canadian citizenship to boot. So now, the crazed killer,  (poor, sick individual, in PC terminology), one Vince Li is a Canadian citizen, with all the privileges and freedoms thereof, and he is known as ‘Will Baker’, for some bizarre reason.

Understandably, the mother of the murdered young man in this story, has opposed freeing the killer, and is quoted as saying ‘I have no words’ in response to the news.

Lest the victim be forgotten, as is usually the case, his name was Tim McLean. He was all of 22 years old. His apparent offense against the murderous Li (aka ‘Will Baker) was in smiling at him as he sat down, and asking Li how he was doing.

There are so many things wrong in this story, things which are symptomatic of how our countries (Canada, our country, and all the West) have lost their way. For instance, the obvious thing is the injustices of our ‘justice systems’, in all Western countries subverted by leftism/bleeding-heart pop psychology, and moral relativism. Then there is the ever-present issue of mass, promiscuous, un-vetted immigration, weighted towards the Third World and hostile, primitive countries in most cases, this being no exception. I am really weary of hearing about how ‘East Asians can produce civilized societies; they have high IQs and low criminality.’ Statements like that show a real ignorance of conditions on the ground in most East Asian countries. I consider Japan an exception, but I don’t idealize Japan, either.

Was this man vetted before immigrating to Canada? Since Canada has one of the most promiscuous immigration policies, being besotted with the idea of “diversity”, they seem to be actively recruiting people from the most backward and most hostile cultures on earth, given the statements their politicians are making. Not that our country is much better, if any. We can only hope that our President means what he has said about curtailing immigration, especially from certain societies. But poor Canada; they seem to have no political leader or other prominent voice to speak up for common sense and for the real, historic people of Canada.

So how many more homicidal or otherwise dangerous and problematic immigrants are in Canada — or in our country — now? How many future Lis does Canada have roaming their country? How many does America have? We are letting millions of un-vetted strangers into our countries, offering up our citizens, our children, our elderly, as potential sacrificial victims — and why? Because it is wrong to discriminate. Always wrong. It is evil. We are not to discriminate about who we allow into our countries on any basis, be it religion, nationality, race, creed, gender(!), health condition, character — any basis whatsoever. Send us your wretched refuse, by all means. We don’t discriminate. Let’s put that phrase on our national epitaphs: ”At least we didn’t discriminate.”

But not to discriminate is to give up our right to choose. It means we take huge risks; we leave it all to random chance. It amounts to having no standards whatsoever. It amounts to saying that one thing is as good as another. Law-abiding or criminal, healthy or contagiously diseased — we don’t care. It’s all the same. Ignorant or educated, skilled or uselessly unskilled, what’s the difference? Those who hate us? Just as welcome as those who like us. Come on in, one and all. And there are no limits on numbers, no quotas. Just keep ’em coming, always room for a few million more.

Imagine applying this kind of insanity to our own homes. If we did so, we’d have no locks on our doors; in fact we ought to leave the doors wide open so that nobody would have to trouble themselves to knock; they can walk right in. And bring their friends, families, in-laws, their whole clan, their whole village from the old country.

This is the essence of our immigration policies, on the premise that we ‘need’ more warm bodies — but most especially, ”diverse” warm bodies. People of color. Visible minorities, vis-mins, isn’t that what Canadians call them?

Insanity, as Val Koinen says, indeed, but our overlords, who are masterminding this whole ‘fundamental transformation’ of our national homes, are not insane as much as power-mad, greedy, and determined. They know what they are doing. There is a plan at work, though it seems  madness to the sane amongst us.

So our cultural Marxist system is busily destroying our countries under the guise of humane, compassionate ‘non-discrimination.’ Unless we commit ourselves to returning to common sense discernment, to choosing between good and evil, safe and unsafe, beneficial or destructive, we will continue to see many other stories like this one.

‘The real fascists’

We’ve all seen the above phrase being used by many Republicans/’conservatives’,  along the same lines as the tiresome “Democrats are the real racists” — as in the statement that the right are not fascists as the left claims; no, ‘the liberals are the real fascists.’

So this post on the Ex-Army-Libertarian Nationalist blog is welcome. In it, we read how the European communists of the last century employed ‘street thugs’ to bully and terrorize opponents, to which the fascists responded by using the same tactic. Yet now the popular belief is that the street thugs, much like those we’ve seen in action in Berkeley (and elsewhere) lately, were originally fascists. Now, of course, anybody to the right of Mao is a ‘fascist’ or a ‘nazi’, deserving of being physically attacked by the hordes of leftist ‘useful idiots’ and organized street thugs.

We’ve seen how ineffectual the ‘conservative’ tactic of calling leftists ‘the real racists’ has been; it seems to roll right off their backs, just as do most of the insults and accusations hurled by the ‘respectable right’ — or even the not-so-respectable right. Like most thoroughly reprobate types, they have no shame, no conscience, and no capacity for reflection or self-examination. They have no honesty. How can anyone expect that calling them a name will shame them, or that it will somehow hit home, causing them to change their ways?

The left is expert at persisting in their lies, saturating our public discourse with certain ideas that come to dominate if only through constant repetition and by the left shouting down anyone who disputes the lie.

Some examples of ‘big lies’ that have prevailed over the last half-century or so: Joe McCarthy was a paranoid drunk who imagined the whole ‘Red Scare’; there were no Communists (big-C or small-c) in high places, or in Hollywood. It was a Witch Hunt, and everybody knows there are no witches. And if there were communists anywhere it was only for the purpose of fighting for ‘social justice, freedom, and equality.’

Another big lie: certain self-defense organizations in the South during Reconstruction were ‘hate groups’, secret vigilante societies that lynched innocent people just because of their skin color.

This, in fact, is sort of a parallel to the lie that it was fascists who started using street thugs to intimidate and attack opponents. The secret societies (which probably have little in common with their present-day counterparts, the ones so ”feared” by the likes of the $PLC) were in response to the reign of terror that was Reconstruction in the South. Those vilified groups arose as a reaction to real dangers to members’ families, neighbors, and property. Not everyone who resorts to force is an aggressor; the left has succeeded too often in blaming those who act in self-defense, in response to the left’s violence and coercion.

And from the article:

At any rate, don’t let anybody pull the “the leftists are the real fascists” line on you. They’re nothing of the kind. Fascists had principles, and for all their failings, had a much more realistic and less ideological view of the world than the Berkely thugs do.”

Communism produced a reaction in fascism. Today’s communists (‘progressives’ or whatever they like to call themselves at any given moment) are causing the appearance of a counter-force, the various new permutations of the right, whether they know it or not.


Our PC prison

So much has been written and said about how we have reached this state of things wherein certain truths are ruthlessly stifled and banished from public discussion, and worse, there are civil and/or criminal penalties for those who violate the taboos on discussing these truths.

Brainwashing, mind-conditioning, 24/7 propaganda, much of it under the guise of ‘entertainment’, sugar-coating for the lies. But is there not at least another factor at work, a simpler and more familiar factor?

During the latter part of the last century, during the heyday of the social ‘sciences,’ someone coined the term ‘peer pressure’. Most often it’s been used in describing adolescents, who are generally the age group most susceptible to seeking security within their age-group, over against adults. Adolescents tend to be the most conformist in their thinking and dress and behavior, even their language; most slang terms seem to start as youth argot, specifically black youth argot which quickly permeates the speech of White teens as well as that of others who emulate blacks.

But let’s be honest: it isn’t just teenagers or over-aged adolescents who succumb to peer pressure; Americans in general, in my observation, are very prone to be followers and to ‘go along with the crowd’, not wanting to be the odd ones out, or to be thought weird.

In my lifetime I’ve seen time-honored social standards and taboos disappear almost overnight, as in the early 70s when the ‘old morality’ regarding sexual behavior went out the window. Cohabitation, premarital sex? No problem. Crude, obscene language? No big deal.

How could the old standards and mores crumble so easily and so completely? Obviously people’s ideas of right and wrong were not firm principles; they were merely ‘outward professions’. The majority seemed entirely flexible with their morality; whatever their peer group appeared to accept, they would acquiesce in.

As sexual morality (derided as ‘puritanism) became a non-issue for most conformist Americans, the focus shifted to one’s attitudes on racial issues. One’s character became defined by attitudes toward Others — mostly blacks and Jews. If one did not hold the ‘right’ attitudes towards the protected Others, one was declared a bad, immoral, undesirable person. As time went on this criterion for judging people became, seemingly, the be-all and the end-all. It became a requirement that we praise and honor groups that had formerly been ‘victims’ — (think: MLK Day, and the ‘White Guilt Month’ of February).Lack of adequate praise or deference toward blacks and other minorities, including Jews, as well as homosexuals, ‘womyn’, etc., would be considered proof of ‘hate’ or bigotry.

It still amazes me, how thoroughly many Americans accept that our attitudes towards a group (or groups) of people are allowed to define our very worth and character. Nothing else seems to matter in defining us as good or bad.

Obviously as this monster called ‘political correctness’ was fed and coddled and allowed free rein, it has grown ever more insistent and tyrannical, and a greater price is being exacted from those who violate its sacred commands.

Granted, the election of our President has ‘shifted the Overton window’ and emboldened quite a few people to stand up to the PC dictatorship, but only because there is safety in numbers (and the publicity given to the Alt-Right gives an illusion, perhaps, of greater numbers than actually exist) and sadly most people seem to need to have ‘permission’, from those they deem their peers or from some admired authority to deviate from the group mind or the Crowd.

In other words they are still, in a sense, servile where the opinions of others is concerned. Few people will stand alone and defy a taboo, and when they do, they find few others that are willing to risk condemnation by taking an unpopular stand.

It could be said that this passive and dependent attitude that has allowed PC to grow and to cow us into submission is nothing deeper than simply following a ‘fashion’ or a custom; to be accepted people feel they must adopt the shibboleths, go along to get along. A need for others’ approval is the factor that has allowed us to be tyrannized by the ‘PC vigilantes’ as I used to call them.

Interestingly, writer Doris Lessing is quoted as using the same analogy:

“Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”

Having read some of Lessing’s books, I judged her to be a leftist, but maybe she was one of the last of a dying breed, an honest liberal.

If people allow the ‘vigilantes’ to impose their views, it is, again, fear of being a heretic or a rebel, declared anathema. For some people, their ideas and standards are completely fluid, and shallow. They will go whichever way the wind blows. This is one of the dangers of democracy; someone described as ‘democratic censorship’ this coercive influence of public opinion. Although the government has become increasingly intrusive and overbearing, it is mostly the force of leftist domination of the popular mind that has led to this state of things.

It seems to come down to something as shallow and slight as ‘fashion;’ Leftism and PC have become ‘the’ accepted posture for most people, especially the sheeplike younger generation. It’s the fashion to be politically correct, to hold racial minorities, Moslems, and ‘The Other’ generally in adulation, and to be an ethnomasochist, a ‘wigger’, a miscegenist.

So we are in a sense being bullied, allowing ourselves to be bullied into silence, by nothing more than political ‘Fashionistas’, for whom it’s all an outward pose, meant to signal not so much virtue, but simply being part of the ‘in’ crowd.