Sunday, February 14, 2016

The Enemy

The enemy has gone under a number of names. At one time, they were just thought of as 'the communists,' and they were indeed one faction of the enemy and still are. They've been called the Hive, the cultural Marxists, the politically correct, the counterculture, hipsters, and a number of other things. What they all have in common is a hostility to us — Western Civilization, the United States, Europe, the White race, and Christendom. And that is of course the important thing about them with respect to us — they hate us and want to destroy us. There are different factions of them, some with ideologies other than their basic hatred of us, some without. Most of them at least pretend to have an ideology that proves that we are the bad guys and have to be destroyed. Some sincerely do, some are just using ideologies as a front. As a rule of thumb, anybody who shows hostility to us and minimizes the flaws of others, such as Muslims, and who tries to convince us that we are an evil lot who should back off and let those who hate us take over — those you can consider the enemy.

Steve Sailer has used the term "Coalition of the Fringes," to indicate that the enemy is just an ad hoc alliance of groups who largely hate one another but who hate us more. This coalition includes communists, Black nationalists, the whole civil rights movement, feminists, homosexual groups, self-styled 'antifascists,' and, it may surprise some naive conservatives to learn, much of Wall Street in the sense of powerful international corporations. And, of course, to one extent or another, those countries that are not part of Western Civilization and would like to see it fall. Naturally, there are also some countries that are not a part of the West, like Japan, which are not hostile to the West and can largely be considered our allies, for the most part. Of course, no country is monolithic, and you'll find pro-West and anti-West factions in all countries, including our own. In fact, we seem to be dominated by a distinctly anti-Western political elite that show its hostility to us in varying degrees. The Obama administration and virtually the whole Democratic party has almost entirely given up pretending that it's anything but hostile to our continued existence as a nation, eager as it they are to detroy all our traditions and replace our population with hostile invaders from the Third World. And, as you can tell from witnessing the Republican Party's established elite's hatred for both the Cruz and Trump movements, the neocons are just as much our enemy as the liberals/progressives are.

So, yes, we are slowing being wiped out, and many of us are confused about why and how. At his blog here [link], Stuart Schneiderman explains:

What's Wrong with America?


Regardless of whether you think that Donald Trump is the problem or the solution, his political ascent shows that something is wrong with America. 

Knowing what it is might not tell us how to fix it, but at least it will be a place to start.

Yesterday, Charles Murray offered his analysis in the Wall Street Journal. The past several decades, he wrote, have been very bad for the white working class. For reasons yet to be specified, working class white males in particular have suffered from what I would call a grand social experiment. The nation seems to have chosen them to live out the terms of a countercultural revolution.

For his part Murray believes that we have lost touch with the American creed, with our beliefs in the ideals of equality, freedom and individualism. In his words:

Its three core values may be summarized as egalitarianism, liberty and individualism. From these flow other familiar aspects of the national creed that observers have long identified: equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free-market economics, decentralized and devolved political authority.

But, he also suggests that our cultural revolution came about because people were overly zealous in their commitment to these ideals.

Nations are founded, less on ideals, and more on common rituals and ceremonies. The French Revolution brought forth the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. But worshiping at the altar of ideals, the Revolutionaries demonstrated, does not produce national unity and comity.

Societies cohere when their members share common practices. Multiculturalism disparages these practices as bigoted. More importantly, the American cultural revolution has attacked the social order, has attacked the traditional family and has consistently derided patriotism. We are citizens of the world, members of the human species or, at best, hyphenated Americans. This means that loyalty to country and pride in its achievements have been major casualties of our cultural experiment.

It was done in the name of ideals. We pretend that everyone is equal and we conclude that all outcomes must be equal too. If they are not, it’s a sign of bigotry. We might have lost faith in free markets and individual choice, but we extol the individualism that tells everyone to do his own thing and to let it all hang out. We believe in individual self-expression and even in the right of each individual to define himself and even to decide on his own gender. If you disagree you are a bigot and are unfit for our brave new world.

Today’s culture warriors denounce the 1950s as the bad old days. Way back then, America was on a winning streak and they could not allow that.

And yet, those days saw far more income equality than there is today. Murray presents the statistics:

In the 1960 census, the median income along Philadelphia’s Main Line was just $90,000 in today’s dollars. In Boston’s Brookline, it was $75,000; on New York’s Upper East Side, just $60,000. At a typical dinner party in those neighborhoods, many guests would have had no more than a high-school diploma.

Such is no longer the case. Murray continues:

In 2016, a dinner party in those same elite neighborhoods consists almost wholly of people with college degrees, even advanced degrees. They are much more uniformly affluent. The current median family incomes for the Main Line, Brookline and the Upper East Side are about $150,000, $151,000 and $203,000, respectively.

The divide is not just a matter of geography. People in the upper classes, Murray continues, have a separate culture and separate cultural interests. They are isolated in their gated communities and feel limitless contempt for the less fortunate:

The members of the new upper class are seldom attracted to the films, TV shows and music that are most popular in mainstream America. They have a distinctive culture in the food they eat, the way they take care of their health, their child-rearing practices, the vacations they take, the books they read, the websites they visit and their taste in beer. You name it, the new upper class has its own way of doing it.

For its part, mainstream America is fully aware of this condescension and contempt and is understandably irritated by it. 

These observations provoke a few thoughts. Take them for what they are worth.

First, this type of social stratification reminds one of the class structure in South American nations. Many of those countries are run by oligarchies of the rich and the privileged. They are divided between the rich and the rest, with a relatively small middle class.

Second, beginning with the 1960 presidential election a culture that respected the military and hard work was replaced by a culture that extolled celebrity and inherited  (that is, unearned) wealth. 

1960 America more closely resembled the military, where generals did not make hundreds of time the pay of sergeants. Society looked up to soldiers and to the efficiencies and effectiveness of military-style organizations.

Today’s America resembles the Kennedy administration. When JFK took over, he inaugurated a cultural revolution in which a ruling elite, a guardian class, “the best and the brightest” made the decisions. Its leaders were rarely from the military and often held the military in contempt. The guardians knew what was best for everyone and they helped produce a culture where their ideals, their view of what was best for everyone, would be imposed on the nation, whether the nation liked it or voted for it. The guardians were intellectuals and they used legislation and especially the courts to reconfigure the world as they wanted it to be.

As I have suggested, a martyred charismatic celebrity president cast an enormous shadow over American culture. The nation began its descent when it chose to emulate its fallen, martyred leader

Military and corporate leaders know that they should take responsibility for failure. If D-Day had failed Gen. Eisenhower was ready to accept full personal responsibility. The people who ran the Kennedy-Johnson administration, the architects of the Vietnam War, were so persuaded of their righteousness that they did not believe they could fail. If the war went wrong, it could not be their fault. They never apologized for their failure and produced a culture of arrogance. 

“Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” 

Thus, they happily shifted the blame to soldiers and to military culture.

They decided that the fault lay with traditional American culture, the one that enslaved and oppressed peoples. They did not want to reform the culture; they wanted to overturn it, to expunge all evidence of the evil past and do penance for America’s sins. In Vietnam America was punished for its sins.

Thus was launched a grand social experiment. The culture would need to be re-engineered to foster racial integration and gender equity. And yet, the elites continued to send their children to private schools. They were happy to use the children of the rest of the nation is lab rats for their experiment, but they used their influence and privilege and wealth to shield their own children.

Similarly, the feminist war on men, launched in the name of equality, has had its greatest effect on working class white males. In part, Murray notes, the decline of white working class males derives from the fact that  manufacturing jobs have left the country. One ought to ask how much of  the responsibility lies with labor unions and the politicians who support them. Now that working class white males cannot compete in the new economy, the elites feel justified in treating them with contempt. 

Upper class families have not suffered the effects of the feminist revolution as much as lower class families. In fact, the new sexual politics has decimated lower class families. One might blame it on economics, but one suspects that family structure was not destroyed by the far harsher Great Depression.

Murray describes the problem:

Work and marriage have been central to American civic culture since the founding, and this held true for the white working class into the 1960s. Almost all of the adult men were working or looking for work, and almost all of them were married.

Then things started to change. For white working-class men in their 30s and 40s—what should be the prime decades for working and raising a family—participation in the labor force dropped from 96% in 1968 to 79% in 2015. Over that same period, the portion of these men who were married dropped from 86% to 52%. (The numbers for nonwhite working-class males show declines as well, though not as steep and not as continuous.)

He continues:

In today’s average white working-class neighborhood, about one out of five men in the prime of life isn’t even looking for work; they are living off girlfriends, siblings or parents, on disability, or else subsisting on off-the-books or criminal income. Almost half aren’t married, with all the collateral social problems that go with large numbers of unattached males.

In these communities, about half the children are born to unmarried women, with all the problems that go with growing up without fathers, especially for boys. Drugs also have become a major problem, in small towns as well as in urban areas.

The different currents of the counterculture have converged in political correctness. Through it, in schools, in news reporting, in television shows, people are being told what to think. They are being barraged with politically correct opinions. They are being told that if they do not think the way the elites want them to think they are bigots or worse. 

Then, their children go to school and are told what to think. If they do not toe the party line they receive lesser grades. Since everyone wants to belong to the intelligentsia and the moneyed oligarchs, they go along.

When it comes to controversial social issues, voting no longer counts. If your state votes against same-sex marriage, the courts will simply dismiss you as a bunch of bigots. If citizens feel disenfranchised, their voices silenced, they have good reason not to trust the system.

Often enough the courts do not decide cases based on the law. They decide based on the pressure from the media and from the intellectual elites. When they have to choose between the law and ideals, they tend to choose the latter.
Quibcag: Found the little commie girl on the net

6 comments:

  1. A big part of the problem was the precedents set by the courts to get rid of Jim Crow. I can understand why it was done (the whole situation was a legal logjam) but those precedents were used, among other things, to stuff gay marriage down the throats of the 50% or more who don't like it, in the name of Sacred, Holy EQUALITY.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bring on Civil War II. Let's get the party started already.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah let me explain to vidiots like Chuck Murray and the feingold gilded ratatoulies. White men don't need you, Motherfucker. Your cardboard sheepskins don't impress me rumplesmalldick. We built the World and you fuckers with fake degrees in social stupidity can't even understand it, much less run it. You haven't taken over, you've ruined what was left when we gave you all the one finger salute.
    We're coming back to take what is ours. You can fight or you can run, it doesn't matter to me boy. What was ours before will be ours again. If I do it over your dead bodies, good. Cause that's the WAY I LIKE IT. LETS DO THIS. LETS GET TO RUMBLE! LETS GET IT ON! CAN YOU GET IT UP RUMPLESMALLDICK?

    ReplyDelete
  4. and, it may surprise some naive conservatives to learn, much of Wall Street in the sense of powerful international corporations.
    I know, despite all the flap over Chick-fil-A, Wall Street is very 'LBGTBBQWTF friendly' as is the tech sector and, of course, the entertainment industry.
    The reason is twofold, first the left-'libertarian' doctrine of ''what one does in the bedroom (with the standard ''providing it doesn't involve children or animals'' caveat) doesn't matter'' (trouble is, they don't ''keep it in the bedroom'' of course) and second, most LBGT types aren't encumbered by children - which means they have much more flexibility in work schedule, and more time available in general to devote to their employer.
    It's also why the tech sector and entertainment industry love H1bs and strive to bring in as many as possible. Again, 'Apu in IT' doesn't have a wife and kids (in the US) to tie him down. If faceberg needs him to code for 70+ hours a week, he's up for it.
    For most other companies it's the standard ''throw the 'gimme group' a bone to make them shut up and go away''.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know, they say people who don't know how, teach. And these experts learned everything from these ignorant incapable morons. They can't govern, or manage, or balance a budget, but they can pontificate for hours about insane untested theories based on willful ignorance and misguided policies.
    They say politics is show business for ugly people. Isn't that what porn was for? Of course those ugly Kardashian mongrels make those kind of distinctions irrelevant now. Kind of like the entire farce of voting when people who can't read, don't work, pay taxes, are citizens or have any stake in the outcome can vote a hundred times without showing the kind of ID you would need to get a fiching license. What could possibly go wrong? Better yet. What could possibly go right. Not much. Collapse is inevitable. You can ignore reality but arguing with Math is just stupid.

    ReplyDelete