The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.

The ‘preppy’ totalitarians

The story about Charles Murray and his speech at Middlebury College in Vermont is being discussed around the Internet. The fact that a (typically leftist) professor at that college was also assaulted by the ‘student’ thugs adds a twist to it. Surely she is ‘one of their own’, having the correct politics and the kinds of views which are the only kind these apostles of ‘tolerance’ will tolerate.

One thing I’ve noted in the various online comments on the incidents: many are referring to the ‘preppy’ character of the school and the student body, as if it adds to the shocking nature to imagine WASP-y, wealthy students behaving this way. No doubt some of the worst of the ‘social justice’ brownshirts are White students from wealthy homes in the supposedly very White Northeast. But just look at the photo in the linked article; that audience does not look ‘hideously White’ nor very ‘preppy.’ It does not look all that different from the mixed crowd at the community college in the college town near me. So I looked up the demographics of the student body. For a start,  the student body contains only 4% Vermonters. Students come from 42 states, plus the District of Corruption Columbia. They come from no less than 40 countries.

So the student body does not reflect the demographics of the setting, of rural Vermont or New England, or even much of America, come to that.

One other factor: not all the students at that college need be wealthy, considering the prevalence of financial aid. And if diversity is mandatory and of the utmost importance (as these colleges all say it is), then by all means be generous to students without the money to pay the high tuition, but with the requisite amount of ‘vibrancy’, to entice them to come and enrich the diversity-deficient Whites.

If the students of that University are overwhelmingly indoctrinated leftists, as it appears they are, is this because it is in liberal New England, or is that just the nature of college campuses all over America now? I have acquaintances who sent their child to Christian schools (in a non-diverse community) K-12, at considerable expense, and then to one of the most conservative (supposedly) Christian colleges. That college turned their child into a raving SJW in very short order. So it’s everywhere now.

The people who put much stock in Colin Woodward’s conjectures about the ‘nations’ of America place the blame on the old Puritans for the liberalism of New England. In this case, it seems as though the diversity that has been visited on New England since at least the mid-19th century is still having its effect, and the presence of all the ‘diversity’ at Middlebury in 2017 has its effect too. When you introduce outsiders into what has been a homogeneous culture, you make people more self-conscious about the opinions of those ‘Others’ and soon free speech is not so free; we can’t offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. Diversity=death to free discourse and honesty.

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.

Free housing for refugees

Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb, has criticized President Trump’s “crackdown on immigration” and has offered free housing to refugees and “anyone impacted” the supposed crackdown. Similarly, the very left-wing executives at Starbuck’s have announced plans to hire 10,000 (!) refugees in their overpriced establishments.

By the way: Chesky, like the owners of Starbuck’s, fit the typical pattern: immigrant stock, or is that (((immigrant stock)))? And millennial too, in the case of Chesky.

In the social media, one Tumblr blogger who dared to criticize Chesky’s action was promptly called (by a fellow Tumblr blogger) an ‘ignorant racist’ and told that as Tumblr was a ‘pro-immigration site’, people who dissent from that stance must ‘get off’ Tumblr, followed by other profane and insulting remarks. The conservative blogger who criticized Chesky said simply that while our own veterans are often without housing, people like Chesky ignore them and prefer to morally preen and strut by showing their ‘compassion’ towards unknown third-worlders. As the offending ‘conservative’ lady said, we ought to care for our own first, a viewpoint which was the consensus view up until recent times.

The rhetoric is getting uglier and uglier on internet spots like Tumblr, which is dominated by maleducated, brainwashed millennials, and only one viewpoint is acceptable there. That group of people are the least tolerant, the most totalitarian, of any age group alive today, probably than any group of people in history. The Jacobins in 18th-century France were probably paragons of tolerance compared to the millennials of Western countries. I see some very worrying trends; it seems that the younger leftists (that’s redundant, by the way; they are almost all SJWs, and the fact that there are exceptions does not negate the rule) are allying more and more blatantly with Moslems. I’ve noticed that they are showing signs of not just ‘supporting’ moslems, but actually have an attitude of adulation and admiration towards them. There is a meme going around with an image of our old friend, that lady of easy virtue, Lady Liberty, with her arm around the shoulder of a burka-clad female Moslem, saying “All Are Welcome.” Yes, it’s come to that. I wonder how Jewish Emma Lazarus, who composed that mawkish ‘verse’ at the foot of the Liberty statue about the wretched refuse, etc., would react to this trend? Actually she would probably approve. The enemy of my enemy, etc., and all too often the perceived arch-enemy, as far as Jews are concerned, is the Anglo-American. Anything that damages us and diminishes our power is ‘good for the Jews’, so they believe.

And the left is increasingly stoking the fires of fear on the part of their minority allies/mascots. The media and the brainwashed leftist mobs are repeating this idea endlessly: minorities (especially the poor moslems), including and especially gays and trans-whatever, are in actual physical danger and are experiencing fear and panic, supposedly — fear of the mythical baying mobs of White ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’ who are lurking around every corner. This is more than just irresponsible, this fear-mongering lie. It amounts to a blood-libel against White Americans, promoting the false belief that Whites are out to commit pogroms against minorities, or that they in fact have done such things. I think they half-believe it themselves, having repeated this Big Lie so often.

This is as wrong and unjust and immoral as it can be. Why do we let it pass so often? Each and every person who perpetrates and passes on such lies is responsible for the mayhem that has happened so far, and that includes the malevolent media, and every ignoramus and fanatic on the left who repeats these canards and slanders. All of these miscreants bear some responsibility for violence that has happened, and for the violence that is undoubtedly still to come if they are allowed to persist.

They are inciting to violence. Their intent is to stoke the fires of hatred towards majority America; they smell blood, and they are openly referring to violence. Yet is it our side, despite the restraint we have shown so far, that is slandered as being ‘violent’ and hateful? Lies. More lies.

I was comparing notes with someone on what we are seeing on the Internet, and it seems that there are people posting almost word-for-word certain ideas: these people are posting to their supposed ‘gay and Muslim friends’ that they must be careful, but not be afraid to go out. Supposedly gays and moslems are cowering in fear behind closed doors, afraid to show their faces outdoors lest they be attacked or lynched or something. As if. As if anything remotely like that is happening, or has happened. These people are either delusional, or just paid disinformation agents. I tend towards believing the latter.

And P.S.: I don’t believe that many people, even millennials, have lots of ‘gay and Muslim friends’ at all; gays don’t make up that big a percentage of the population, contra Kinsey and the mendacious gay activists. Nor do Moslems, as of now. But yet everyone has ‘gay and Muslim friends’? Doubtful, to say the least.

Just another day in the realm of the Lie Machine. But we mustn’t shrug it off; things are escalating, and I have a sense of foreboding. We need to be in prayer, and if we’re not the praying kind, we need to do all we can to stop the momentum of the Lie Merchants and the instigators. Some say that President Trump has already done a lot in that respect — and in some ways he has, but he is in fact leading to a kind of coming to a head. And none of us knows exactly how this will play out.

No ‘strength in victimhood’

Following minorities’ example in seeking ‘strength through victimhood’ is a losing tactic, according to a good piece by Alexander at West Coast Reactionaries.

The writer explains how the left controls discourse by, among other things, calling banter ‘bullying’, and conditioning Whites in particular to censor their own speech and behavior in relation to minorities and to political enemies. He likens this to putting ‘shock collars’ on Whites, so that they learn, by means of unpleasant consequences, to observe the limitations on our speech and expression.

Read the whole piece at the link; there’s some food for thought there. If only most of the ‘respectable right’, also known as ‘cuckservatives’ would take the advice there to heart. For one thing, Alexander points out the misguided strategy of relying on token black ‘conservatives’ to speak for us, which is obviously (to me, at least) a tactic that screams ‘weakness.’

“This weakness is also on the Alt-Right in how they wheel out black conservatives to fight B.L.M. (e.g. Thomas Sowell). They have their own personal mandingos in reserve because they believe that having a black man support their arguments makes them innocent of any thought crime, but they accept the crime and so are being mentally dominated — the same can be said of Milo Yiannapolous‘ fans. The fact that Milo is a liberal Jewish homosexual with a fetish for black men is perceived as a form of armour in the Alt-Right. God forbid if a straight white traditionalist asserted himself, he’s totally exposed with no victim status. The Alt-Right has accepted the maxim of “strength though victimhood” and “weakness is strength.” P.E.G.I.D.A. view Europeans as victims, and even well known YouTuber Millennial Woes seems to be falling into the trap of “save the white race” nonsense.”

As this piece points out, many Whites, even segments of the Alt-Right, have come to embrace the minority strategy of using weakness and ‘victim’ status as a means of wielding power in an underhand, manipulative way. The subtle manipulative approach is, obviously, often a typical feminine method of wielding power while appearing helpless. To me, it’s disturbing that some of the right, which tends to express masculine energy in contrast to the feminized left, has fallen for this idea. As the writer points out, this does not work for the majority, because the White majority cannot outdo minorities at this game. Some people instinctively recognize this, but the effort to use victim status on the part of Whites persists in some quarters.

The ‘liberals/Democrats are the real racists‘ cliche is still in active use. When will the right learn that this does not work, and that it merely displaces blame onto other Whites, which still leaves Whites in general (not just liberals) in the villain role? It’s conceding, in effect that [some] Whites are to blame for the woes, real or imagined, of blacks and other POCs.

There has to be an effort to try to overcome this mental/verbal domination of the right by the left and their minority minions. We’ve all been so thoroughly conditioned to this frame of mind, that many of us don’t realize that we, too, are not exempt from it.

Let California secede

Somebody named Jared Huffman, apparently a California state representative, claimed to be outraged and ‘shocked’ at the sight of Confederate battle flags at a Veterans Day parade in Petaluma.  Peaceful parade-watchers were displaying the flags.

“It was just so out of place that I had to do a double-take,” said Huffman, who appeared in the parade riding an old WWII-era Jeep with Petaluma resident Steve Countouriotis, a decorated war hero.

Huffman implies that his ‘decorated war hero’ companion was likewise shocked. Now, I don’t know how old this veteran is, but one does not have to be very old to remember when the Confederate Battle Flag was a frequently-seen symbol that did not spark any outrage, faux or genuine. Even Huffman, himself a Gen-Xer born in 1964, is old enough to remember that the flag was not always condemned or shunned, much less banned from public display. If he truly has never seen this alien and ‘shocking’ flag in a public place, he is remarkably unobservant. However no sensible person would believe that the flag was so utterly alien to his eyes or so ‘offensive’ that he had to take a photo of the ‘offenders’ holding the flags and immediately tweet his shock and horror to the world, or at least to whoever follows his Twitter feed.

I’ve been in the Petaluma Veterans’ Day Parade for the past 12 years. I’ve never seen anything remotely like this. pic.twitter.com/oU3iXSPycD

— Jared Huffman (@JaredHuffman) November 12, 2016

Mr. Huffman, 12 years ago that flag was not banned in your state or in most states. And to act as though you’ve never seen anything remotely like it? Please! You must not get out much. California (though maybe not your SWPL corner of California) is a state that received many, many Dust Bowl migrants during the 1930s, and has long had a  population of Southron transplants and their descendants. So no doubt you have seen that flag before and maybe even heard a song called ‘Dixie.’ Did you get the vapors then, or is this something new for you?

You are also old enough to have been taught a different version of American History in school, a version in which the mutual bad blood of the War Between the States was put aside, at least officially. For most of America’s post-WBTS history, Southron heroes like Robert E. Lee and Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson had a place of honor in most history texts — up until the age of darkness which Political Correctness brought. Now, of course, suddenly that flag is anathema — why? Because the NAACP launched a campaign to vilify and discredit that flag, which effort went into high gear in the 1980s and is still rolling on. And because Cultural Marxists have gained complete control of education K-12 as well as ”higher education”, not to mention the biased media which relentlessly accuses all Whites, especially those of the South, of ‘racismbigotryhate’.

The town where this event took place is a town that, according to the data I found, is 80+ percent White, and a minute percentage black — less than 1 percent. So who, precisely, would there be there to be ‘traumatized’ by the sight of the Battle Flag? Mexicans, maybe — they make up 19 or so percent of the town now — but then they can display their Vulture-bedecked flag freely as they march down California streets these days. Free speech, free expression — for some.

Tellingly, the SF Gate article tries to blame Trump for ’emboldening’ the evidoers who had the flags. All about the agenda, the narrative, isn’t it? And all about ‘virtue-signalling’ to your fellow travelling progressives.

 

 

The list of ‘dumb phrases’

James Madison University gave its incoming freshmen a list of 35 ‘dumb things well-intended people say“. The list was based on a book by a Dr. Maura Cullen,  which describes such phrases as things that ‘widen the diversity gap’, and which work against the all-important goal of creating a ‘safe and inclusive environment.’

Some of the ‘dumb things’ which allegedly might make certain protected groups feel ‘threatened’, (as in ‘unsafe’) include phrases like:

“I don’t see color,” “I’m colorblind” and “I don’t see difference. We’re all part of the same race, the human race” were all advised against. “If you are going to live in this country, learn to speak the language” also made the list.”

More of the potentially offending or threatening to feelings of ‘safety’ or included-ness were phrases like the following: ‘Some of my best friends are…’, or ‘What do your people think?’ and ‘You speak the language very well.’

I agree with the stupidity of many of these statements on the list — but for different reasons than those given by the Social Justice Warrior makers of the list.

For years the ‘some of my best friends are... [fill in the blank with some ‘special’ group] phrase has been ridiculed as an example of White, straight liberal hypocrisy — but is it always? Some people actually do have good friends (or at least people they believe to be good friends) from among some ‘protected’ group or other. It’s likely the people who use this phrase are naive or foolish but they are not necessarily being hypocritical or condescending; in many cases they honestly consider such people from various races, ethnicities, or religions their ‘good friends’, and genuinely harbor amicable feelings towards these people. However I would never use that phrasing or make any such attempt to ward off accusations of bigotry or ‘racism’ or whatever-phobia — not because it might offend some delicate feelings but because I know it’s wasted effort to try to appease or protest against the label they are trying to pin on you.  The appeasers should save their breath. Nobody should feel a need to apologize for not having a ‘diverse and inclusive’ list of ”friends”; we are still, in theory, free to associate with people of our choice, without regard to whether they represent some fantasy cross-section of every ethnicity, religion, race, ‘gender’ and sexual predilection known to man.

Another phrase which is condemned: ‘I don’t see race; I’m color blind.’ I also condemn that phrase — but because it is just plain stupid and worse, it panders to the liberal/lefty race denialists. It concedes the left the prerogative to control the terms of the discussion.

Anybody who seriously believes that race does not exist or that it is a ‘social construct’ is in need of help; they are deficient in normal human powers of observation as well as so weak-minded as to believe all the shallow, self-contradictory propaganda out there.  But no matter how  many times the White leftists and their minority mascots sneer at the protestations of the ‘color-blind’ Whites, the Whites never get the message, and can only flail around in response, saying ”the Liberals are the real racists! It’s not fair!

Another condemned statement:  ‘I never owned slaves.’ What’s wrong with that sentence? It is absolutely true for every White person living today, as well as our parents and grandparents and so on for generations back. Why then can’t we say the plain truth? Well, though it’s factually true, I object to people saying it because again, it is playing their game by their rules. It does not matter to them that you or I are not guilty of owning slaves personally, and even less does it matter to the lefty ideologues that no black American today was ever a slave, nor that their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on were not slaves. It.Does.Not.Matter. The idea is to emphasize generational guilt, racial guilt, racial ‘karma’ — because most lefties are New Agers who subscribe to the Hindu/Buddhist idea of karma; you inherit bad karma from your forebears. It is a burden you are born with. You carry racial guilt and karma in your DNA and your skin color is the signifier of your bad karma, your guilt, your ‘karmic debt’ as they put it. There is no escape for you, Whitey; no amount of ‘colorblindness’ and adopting children Of Color or going on missions to Africa can wash you clean of your genetic/karmic guilt. So don’t bother protesting weakly about how you never owned slaves, and that your ancestors were poor people who never owned slaves (unlike those rich Cavalier plantation-owners — collect reparations from their descendants! Not me!) or that your ancestors fought to free the slaves in the Civil War or that your forebears were poor Irishmen who arrived long after the Civil War. It won’t absolve you. We’re all in this together, kinsmen, and we have to learn solidarity.

One more ‘dumb phrase’ is the frequently-used ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin.‘ Many Christians are fond of this one; it sounds virtuous, at least in the liberal sense. After all, what’s more virtuous than being ‘non-judgmental’ towards transgressive people?  Being non-judgmental brands one as more-virtuous-than-thou. And there are still Christians who actually believe this statement is from Christ himself, or that it is in the Bible somewhere. But it is not in the Bible, nor was it said by Jesus Christ, or any of the Apostles.

Why, then, is it used as if it were Scripture? Because Christians/Churchians have absorbed the spirit of the Age, and they don’t know their Bibles as they should. I confess that I said it myself in the past until someone gently reproved me and told me that it wasn’t a Biblical command, and it’s not in the Bible. Further investigation showed that it apparently came from Mohandas Gandhi.

So yes, I object to that phrase being used, as it usually is, to avoid a charge of ‘homophobia’ or some ‘phobia’ or other.  The subject deserves a blog post of its own, but suffice it to say I would like to see that quote avoided by Christians or ‘conservatives’. But the SJWs want it to be stopped because, I am guessing, they think it implies that, say, homosexuality and abortion are sins. They believe those acts to be the ‘right’ of everyone, and they don’t want any moral judgment applied to those people who practice those things. In fact they seem to think such things are positive goods, and that homosexuality is proof of ‘courage‘ on the part of the practitioner. Homosexuals ‘coming out’ in churches — in churches, mind you — have been greeted with applause and standing ovations! Such bravery! So perish the thought that such behaviors are sins, or the doers, sinners. No; they are brave and courageous.

Maybe this wrong-headed list of ‘dumb phrases’ can be turned to some good after all, if the ‘conservatives’ and churchians who are guilty of using those phrases realize that these efforts to appease and to dodge condemnation are just backfiring on them. And maybe they might stop and consider that appeasing never works. They might try honesty and integrity for a change, standing by their convictions rather than trying to protest their innocence of these invented ‘crimes.’

Less freedom for honesty

Increasingly, there is no place left for free expression as in politically incorrect (read: honest) ideas, opinions, or images.

On Vox Day’s blog, a report of one Pinterest user having her board on Nationalism deleted as ‘hate speech.’ The fact that it was labeled ‘hate’ indicates, if there was any doubt, that the nationalism at issue was White people’s nationalism. I sincerely doubt that black nationalism or Jewish nationalism/Zionism would be designated as ‘hate’, and such a board would not be summarily deleted, and the owner warned of possible account suspension.

I requested that my Pinterest account be deleted, though it appears that accounts can’t be deleted at the user’s request, only ‘deactivated.’ You can enter but you can’t fully opt out of the Pinterest world. Just as with google, or, come to think of it, with the sacred American Union.

For some time I’ve thought of deleting my Pinterest boards and account, finding it to be time-consuming and rather pointless. Now, I never had a political board there, really, but I did have items related to controversial history and images of the Confederate Battle Flag, which is now being designated as a ‘hate’ symbol. As wrong as that is, the fact is, the enemies of the flag and of the South and her people are now winning, easily, with very little resistance or pushback from our side. Sad. But other than those images (which I expected would sooner or later be the occasion of complaint from some SJW or ‘aggrieved victim’) my boards were innocuous and non-controversial. Actually my reason for being there was for sheer escapism; the desire to divert my mind from all the disheartening news and the lack of an outlet through which to channel my frustration. I just enjoyed looking at, and pinning, examples of beauty in some form or other, something to counter all the ugliness of this upside-down world we inhabit.

And, as John Keats said, beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Our current world, this present darkness, has banished both.

Am I caving to the politically correct commissars? You might look at it that way, but why just sit and dread the inevitable? I’d rather depart of my own free will and not wait to get my warning letter or notice of suspension. Better to leave by the front door than to be kicked out. Pinterest just isn’t that important to me.

One of my first exposures to Pinterest was when a pro-White woman spoke of it as a possible venue for sharing pro-White views, as she said she was doing. I now have my doubts as to the value of doing that; it seems the majority of users are either apolitical women (from all countries, by the way) and the rest, people with an obvious ‘social justice’ agenda, people who constantly post multicult ‘diversity’ propaganda. I had to unfollow a number of people who constantly pushed that kind of thing. Pinterest may not be as blatantly leftie/globalist/antiWhite as tumblr, but it is still not friendly to White ethnonationalists, as we are seeing.

I don’t think I will miss Pinterest, but the thing that troubles me is that it is becoming more obvious that by design there are fewer and fewer places online where people may speak freely and honestly. I am surprised that the major blogging platforms still allow free speech at all. Soon we may be reduced to speaking in whispers, in secret, as in the old Communist regimes. And with today’s high-tech surveillance, which spares no one, there really is no private communication between individuals anymore — at least if we are to believe the Snowden revelations.

One last thing: the question that occurred to me was: who owns Pinterest?

‘Dixie’ banned at Ole Miss

‘Ole Miss’ has caved again.

The University of Mississippi’s marching band will no longer play any variation of the song “Dixie” – a tradition some seven decades old at football games and other sporting events.

The University’s Athletic Department confirmed to Mississippi Today on Friday that the song, which was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, will no longer be played at athletic events.”

The Confederate Battle Flag gone, ‘Colonel Reb’, the school mascot/symbol gone, and now the song ‘Dixie.’ What next? What will be banned next? Because, I assure you, ‘they’, meaning the South-hating SJWs, and Southern-born ‘cucks’, plus Northern transplants who should have stayed in their home states where they needn’t be offended — plus the ever-aggrieved blacks, will not rest. They go from strength to strength because they are unopposed. Why are Mississippians, real Mississippians, so passive in letting this go unchallenged? Are there no people who simply want to defend freedom of expression as a principle, even if they don’t care about the South?

What will be next to fall?

The songs “Dixie,” “Dixie fanfare,” and a pregame arrangement containing themes of “Dixie” will no longer be played by the band, known as the The Pride of the South.”

The Pride of the South? How have they let that name stand all this time? The South is not supposed to have any pride, according to the heritage-destroyers and the rewriters of history. If there is any pride of the South, or pride in the South and what it represents, it must be PC-whipped out of the Southron people.  That seems to be the agenda. And it seems to be right on schedule.

The article notes that the Band Directors chose not to comment on this announcement. I don’t know who they are, but I would guess that they are probably not Southern-born or Southern-bred, just as with the Ole Miss Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. It seems that few Southron people are in positions of influence and authority so that outsiders now determine their future, people with little to no understanding of the Southron people and their unique history and heritage. And that is probably by design. The South is now occupied territory, since 1865.

My late uncle, a rather tough Marine, told of one time, back in the 1990s, when he was on the highway driving home and the song, I Sang Dixie by Dwight Yoakam played over his car radio. It was the first time he heard it, and he told of how he had to pull over until he could dry his eyes. The song is a tearjerker for those of us who understand what ‘Dixie’, the place and the song and the people, mean to us. I had the same reaction to the song when I first heard it, and it still affects me, even more so, considering that soon, singing “Dixie” will be ‘hate speech’. Probably even the name ‘Dixie’ will be forbidden, eventually.

Our forefathers are turning in their graves. That they fought so hard and so bravely, against such odds, only to have their heritage erased bit by bit and their descendants demoralized and alienated from them would be more than they could endure.

.

Conservatism and ideology

Where to begin?  This piece is in response to a lengthy discussion here, and as I can’t usually get a blog comment published on Blogger, and as a blog comment can’t cover the subject, I’ll say my piece here.

Recently I wrote a piece about the necessity of some countervailing force to the ‘progressives’ who are demolishing our country. Especially is this true in our decaying society wherein the Left has been careening out of control, unchecked, so that our society is unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. If those who say that ‘conservatism’ per se is useless and must be destroyed offer no alternative to it as a preserving force in society, what will check the hell-bent-on-change ‘progressives’?

Firstly, the comments I linked above seem mostly to agree that conservatism is useless because it has ‘no ideology’, being based only on ‘feelz’. But is this true? Is it true that conservatism has no ideology? The paleocons (are there still any surviving?) would say conservatism has no ideology, because ideology is opposite from conservatism and vice-versa. I’ve never encountered an old-time conservative who said otherwise. It is only the neocon, present-day Republican faithful who always rattle on about “conservative eye-dee-ology“, insisting that it’s what new immigrants (and black Americans) must adopt to succeed. I’ve had my share of disputes with such typical Republican, neocon, pro-war ‘conservatives’ over this ‘conservative eye-dee-ology’ which is a sine-qua-non. In my experience it’s only those now labeled ‘cuckservatives’ who yammer about ‘conservative ideology‘ and its paramount importance. It is the Cruzbots and the Never Trumpers who are the ones who always go on about the ideology of conservatism. Cruz was their guy because he is a ‘strict Constitutionalist’, a devotee of the Ideology.

As they believe in the ‘proposition nation’ they have to believe in ideology; that’s after all what holds a ‘proposition nation’ together, however tenuously.

An ideology is needed where there is no natural, organic bond and consensus among a people.

By contrast, most paleocons (who, for the uninitated, were the conservatives who are most closely akin to the Alt-Right, being racially aware, noninterventionist, against open borders, and anti-free trade and globalism) disagree.

I’ve said that conservatism is an instinct — a gut instinct, nothing to do with feminine-type feelings, or ‘feelz’, but visceral and bred-in-the-bone. Certain peoples are more conservative by nature, just as some individuals. Some seek change for its own sake, seeming to crave novelty and the exotic, loving risk and danger, while some are innately averse to such things. I believe this because it comports with what I’ve observed in my years of living and working, not because a psychiatrist says it and invents pseudo-scientific labels for it. Needless to say, liberals are often risk-taking types with all the ‘dysfunctions’ that implies. Conservatives are people who prefer order and stability over thrills and unpredictability. And though there are exceptions there is still a general rule. And we as a people (even ”conservatives”) show evidence of the risk-taking, thrill-seeking temperament, compared to our forefathers. (Yes, they took risks and braved dangers beyond the endurance of today’s coddled thrill-seekers, but that’s not the same impulse.)

Conservatism is a temperament. But ideology? It’s a systematic set of beliefs codified by some person or persons, not an organic set of principles that grows amongst a  people based on shared innate tendencies. Some modern dictionaries give more liberal definitions, implying that an ideology is more of a spontaneously-arising group consensus.

The word ideologue, for most people, implies rigid beliefs, dogmatic and doctrinaire tendencies. Notice that leftists by whatever name had purges of their peers who are found guilty of wrong-think, violation of the Sacred Ideology which must not be questioned. ‘Correct’ ideology is a must with leftists. And lately we’ve seen ”conservatives” or cuckservatives doing this as Trump and his supporters have been ‘read out’ of the conservative ‘movement.’ Personally I hate that term ‘the movement’ because I associate it with the radical left. The Sixties left always referred to itself as The Movement.

So the conservatives being condemned in the discussion thread are really liberals or ‘neocons’ in conservative clothing, not people who would have been by any measure considered ‘conservative’ in previous eras. They simply subverted the Republican Party (and that was one of the stated ‘Goals of the Communists’ as reported by Cleon Skousen in his writings) and proceeded to destroy it from within and discredit the very label “conservative” by polluting it with their own un-conservative policies and, yes, “ideology.” The neocons are ideologues par excellence, as are their leftist brothers.

Part of the neocons/cuckservatives ideology is the idea that everybody everywhere is capable of ‘democracy’ and that if we only send our armies in and ‘give’ them democracy, they will be good Jeffersonians in no time. Another tenet is that blacks and all immigrants can be real Americans if they salute the flag, wave the Constitution (like Khizr Khan, that good American) and thus celebrate Conservative Eye-dee-ology.

Obviously, their “conservative ideology” shares the blank slate, magic dirt tenets with leftist-liberals.

One of the better conservative thinkers, Russell Kirk, was adamant that conservatism is not an ideology, though I see that the commenters on the VP thread don’t like Kirk for the most part, lumping him in with today’s  ‘cuckservatives’. But if you read Kirk, which I have, he was very opposed to multiculturalism, globalism and political correctness, and he was racially aware, though in the context of his time. I recommend reading his work if you haven’t already, though he must be read with an open mind, not a mind already made up against him.

Kirk, while not ‘perfect’, perhaps, in the eyes of today’s impatient Alt-Righters, could be seen as a forerunner of Neo-reaction. He was not a ‘neocon’ by most measures.

In the earlier years of this blog, we had some lively discussions among the then-regulars; hard to believe, I know, but true. Many were young, and there was kind of generalized clamor among some of them that ”we need a manifesto.” I disagreed with that sentiment. I find the clamor for an ”ideology of the Alt-Right” to be the same, and while it’s understandable to a degree, I think it’s unnecessary and wrong-headed. There would no doubt be many different opinions as to what would constitute a codified set of Alt-Right principles or beliefs. There would be squabbles, considering that the Alt-Right or Neo-reaction includes some very different groups, groups who do not play well together. There are so many divides, even among American Alt-righters, for example the pro-Confederate Southrons vs. many Northerners who still blame slavery on the South, or consider Southrons ‘traitors’ for seceding. Then factor in religion or lack thereof, the divisions based on sex, ethnic nationalists vs. WNs or pan-Europeanists, Identitarians, and so on. Could such disparate groups with so many inter-group grievances work together and agree on much of anything?

It has to boil down to making survival a priority; what is good for us at this point in history — this very crucial point.In essence, our gut instincts have to take over;  our natural, God-given affinities, not some set of abstract principles. People who put abstractions and disembodied human reason above gut, natural instincts are what I call ideologues.

People won’t naturally sacrifice for abstractions; will not defend abstractions to the last man. Ideas cannot unite people, not for long anyway. Our country worked as long as it did (and yes, it did work, for a good while) because it was founded by a people with a common origin, sharing common ancestors, and a common religion — paraphrasing John Jay.