Archive for the ‘political correctness’ Category

Oswald Spengler wrote in the Decline of the West about the “revolution within the form.”  In such circumstances, things appear to be what they always were.  They have the same names–nations, parliaments, cultures–but their essence is fundamentally changed, like the farce that was the Roman Senate under the Emperors.   Rick Darby of Reflecting Light describes this sad phenomenon brilliantly with regard to the now decadent entity that is Europe:

Old Europe died in 1945. A lot of it was physically destroyed, but buildings can be rebuilt, and in fact some have been re-created exactly as they were before the bombs struck. But Europe’s sense of itself, its individual nationhoods, its links with a past going back to the Roman empire, are gone.

What passes for Europe now is generic and technology-minded, its so-called leaders agreed on only one thing: that its indigenous citizens are cursed with a terrible past best left behind as quickly as possible. The quickest way is population replacement. And the Third World, especially Islamic, is happy to abandon their wretched homelands for Europe’s pleasure garden. But not to abandon the tribalism and belief systems that messed up their states of origin.

The New Europe is to be, officially, anything and nothing. Unofficially, in reality, its future is Islam unless the tide is turned soon.

This indeed is the great swindle of liberalism.  An entire continent exchanges its faith and its ethnic integrity for what? Microwave ovens and the ever-receding goal of forgiveness from the gods of political correctness?  It’s a depressing situation, a crime really, and one where the chief perpetrators will escape punishment.

Read Full Post »

Camille Paglia notes how anti-dissent the left has become:

And I remain shocked at the priggish derision of the mainstream media (locked in their urban enclaves) toward those events. This was a moving spectacle of grassroots American democracy in action. Aggrieved voters have a perfect right to shout at their incompetent and irresponsible representatives. American citizens are under no duty whatever to sit in reverent silence to be fed propaganda and half-truths. It is bizarre that liberals who celebrate the unruly demonstrations of our youth would malign or impugn the motivation of today’s protestors with opposing views.

Of course, this hatred of anyone that upsets the apple cart of liberalism is apparent to anyone who has been to college in the last twenty years. Some hippies went on to live in the hills of Vermont, but a great deal more went on to poison several generations of youth.

Read Full Post »

Every revolutionary regime from time immemorial has made it a priority to control the media and to control the educational system.  The far left has succeeded in both in the United States without firing a shot.  The change even in my lifetime is quite noticeable; Lawrence Auster links to a number of ridiculous textbook covers in use in college and high school history classes.  The message of inclusion is clear:  ours is an unjust society, whose traditional elites are evil and must be displaced, and that displacement of what Jeremiah Wright calls “rich white people”  is underway.

In 1987, a very long TV miniseries called Amerika considered what might happen to the United States under Soviet control.  Consider the following sequence showing Soviet “brainwashing” in public schools.  In 20 years time, the same result has come about voluntarily through manipulation of education departments in universities, textbook politicization, and a deliberate attempts by highly indoctrinated teachers to “raise consciousness” in young people.

Read Full Post »

Vanishing American provides some welcome data in reference to a passing comment I made at Takimag.com about Katrina.  Apparently it’s now conventional wisdom that the atrocity stories from the Superdome were myths or made up, even though numerous contemporaneous accounts with double and triple sourcing were featured at the time.  Since New Orleans had the highest murder rate per capita of any city in America, it’s not exactly surprising that the brokest of the broke who made it to the Superdome were disorderly, violent, and sinking into their worst habits.

There was no Rodney King verdict to attribute the savagery post-Katrina.  And the violence in New Orleans had no parallel in outlying suburbs and other parts of the Gulf Coast.  So this tale of black criminality has been erased from our collective memory banks.  Now it’s just a story about George Bush’s incompetence.  It was that, no doubt, but that incompetence was magnified by the incompetence of Ray Nagin and the lawlessness of too many residents of New Orleans, something quite apparent to anyone who has spent time there.

Read Full Post »

Apparently, John McCain is seriously considering Condy Rice to be his Vice President, and she wants the job. I can’t say I’m surprised, but I do think she will do little to help him with moderates, and such a choice will further alienate real conservatives.  This issue is unusually important because of McCain’s age and health; his vice-president stands a reasonably good chance of assuming the office.

First, I think he is likely to choose her because he’s expressed unease about attacking Obama.  He can’t muster the same passion against him that he could against an Edwards or Clinton.  (Could you imagine McCain firing a staffer for an anti-Hillary youtube video?)  For McCain, Obama’s race is like a shield, and McCain acts like any other guilty white liberal on race, as evidenced most dramatically by his embrace of America-destroying immigration policies.  Condy gives him a get out of jail free card and also allows him to further his own vanity, proving to himself and everyone how progressive he is on racial matters.  

Second, there is no daylight between McCain and Condy on the war. It’s true the war is unpopular, and McCain’s reprise of Bush’s ’04 electoral strategy appears less likely to be effective this time around, but it’s clearly something the two of them are very sincere about. Far from balancing the ticket, McCain seems disposed to pick a lackey type who will not challenge his oversized ego and unorthodox ideas.

Finally, Condy is a messianic liberal who, like Bush, is able to paint the imperial policing job in Iraq in the grandest of terms:  the installment of sacred democracy and the expiation of our national “birth defect” of slavery.  McCain likes this sort of talk; it elevates his merely instinctual “politics of duty” to grander historical purposes.  Rice frequently ties this back to her own life, equating slavery and Jim Crow with any recognition of group differences, including the conservative criticism that Iraqis cannot profitably handle democracy and self-government.

Rice has no apparent leadership qualities, is a weak public speaker, is totally out to lunch on the Palestinians (often comparing their treatment to black civil rights activists) and has accomplished literally nothing at all as Secretary of State.   She is a race-obsessed liberal and incompetent, but McCain may still pick her.  Her race, her minimal qualifications, and her hawkish views on Iraq are enough for him.

Consider her record.  She failed after 9/11 to be a voice of reason by not defending racial profiling of Middle Easterners and distinguishing this from the Jim Crow policies of America’s past.  She failed as National Security Advisor to pull Bush off the rails by saying, “If we’re to pursue this ambitious course, we need many more troops regardless of what Rumsfeld is saying.”  In works like Fiasco and Cobra II, she appears to have done very little in her role at the NSA, being bulldozed and parried by aggressive folks like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, and Feith.  Since becoming Secretary of State, she has been tone deaf in our dealings with Serbia, Russia, Israel, China, and many other parties, the worst example of the “ugly American” we’ve ever seen in this role.  

Worst of all, when she is not insulting foreigners, she insults America and its past with half-educated bromides, usually dealing with slavery and discrimination.  Her habitual appeal to these examples show that she is far too traumatized and alienated by her youth in Alabama to be entrusted with stewardship over the country as a whole.  The United States is still a white majority country, where most of its people see much to admire in our history.  Most of us, particularly on the Republican side, view the Founding as a glorious chapter in our history, the exact opposite of a “birth defect.” 

Read Full Post »

In public schools, feminized churches, and our popular culture, a uniform standard of good behavior has emerged:  just be nice.   This is not enough.  It ignores te unique excellence and distinct roles to be played by men and women in a healthy social life.  But this is no matter to advocates; for them, sex differences are merely a social construct designed to subordinate women.  Differences must be hammered out.

Boys who show energy and initiative are labeled as sufferers from attention deficit disorder and quickly put on Ritalin.  Worse, older masculine ideals are put down as archaic, oppressive, “sexist,” and barbaric.  This has led to a degradation of both sexes.  Men are increasingly predatory or useless, fathering kids they quickly abandon, leaving their older wives with children, and retreating from responsibility with a cynical demand for equal treatment.  If they are less anti-social, they are wimpy, insecure, and superfluous figures.  Women, in the name of equal rights, find themselves barren and unattractive after investing their prime years in a career that does not live up to billing in terms of fulfillment.  Even if they manage to settle down, masculine virtues like emotional self control and bearing are in short supply among their mates. 

English Professor Anthony Esolen reminds us of what we have lost:

Many millions of boys in America, for instance, are growing up in homes without fathers, so they find “fathers” of their own on the streets or in the diseased and silly fantasies of mass entertainment, musclemen who can take down a city, or charismatic gang leaders who move caches of drugs and make exciting things happen.

They miss the more subtle fortitude of moral vision and farsighted self-sacrifice. Male heroes in popular literature for boys, 80 or 90 years ago, might be all right with a gun or a sword, but they might also be bespectacled dons like Mr. Chips whose discipline was a form of love.

I see manhood as the drive to lead — to serve by leading, or to lead by following loyally the true leadership of one’s father or priest or captain.

The man exercises charity by training himself to be self-reliant in ordinary things, not out of pride, but out of a sincere desire to free others up for their own duties, and to free himself for things that are not ordinary.

The man also must refuse — this is a difficult form of self-sacrifice — to allow his feelings to turn him from duty, including his duty to learn the truth and to follow it.

A man loves his own family, but he also loves his family by refusing to subject the entire civil order to the welfare of his family; he understands that if he performs his duty, other families besides his own will profit by it.


Read Full Post »

It’s ordinary, normal,  sensible, and perfectly fair to love one’s own, that is, one’s friends, family, religion, and countrymen.  It’s also normal to be suspicious of people that are strange looking, speak another langauge, have weird habits, disrespect the laws of one’s nation, and show every intention of colonizing one’s country.   Even people that are reasonably cosmopolitan and well travelled quickly change their tune when their guests turn out to be invaders.  Indeed, for the ancients, the two feelings, liberality and jealous regard for one’s way of life, went hand in hand.  Hospitality to strangers was an obligation of near religious significance, while the abuse of hospitality was one of the greatest sins.

People use these intuitions all the time in making personal decisions, such as whom to date, which neighborhood to move into, or whom to trust in business and personal affairs.  But in public life, we’re supposed to forget that we are a people with habits and feelings, including feelings of justifiable hostility to illegal immigrants.  

The Vanishing American criticizes the au courant requirement that we have an antiseptic immigration debate, where most of our vague feelings of unease about Mexicans and other foreigners remain unspoken. 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »