The Way We Are Now—The Campaign
A strongly shared sense of right and wrong has maintained a working peace and harmony within many societies over long periods. This is probably what saw the class-ridden British through an empire and two world wars. It is what kept the South relatively free of violent racial strife before and during the War for Southern Independence and most of the time since. If so, we are in trouble. In the U.S. today the ruling elite are without any sense of right and wrong, having only a self-serving agenda, cynical manipulative techniques, and a shoddy and shallow worldview.
American public affairs are present-centered (an adolescent characteristic). Nobody remembers any past record of a politician. No sense of history, even recent history, is to be found. There was a time when the political commentators who were listened to were newspapermen with long experience and credibility. Our commentators now have no moral authority whatsoever and no earned wisdom. They exist only by media hype. A good many are even foreigners.
Thus our "news" is trivial, amorphous, anonymous, and conformist, for petty ideologues who lack any genuine knowledge and moral authority cannot be otherwise. Who are these people? Where do they come from? Who were their parents? How were they educated? What previous record of character and knowledge have they established? These were questions that used to be asked by civilized people as a matter of course before conceding authority. But Americans have managed to wipe out all except the present moment on the screen. Not only are such questions not answered, it occurs to nobody to even ask them of our politicians or "news" authorities.
Here is something that I have been observing for almost half a century now with only rare exceptions. When one puts forth a proposition, whether about current events or history, mainstream intellectuals (and their vast numbers of wannabe-intellectual lackeys) do not answer with argument or evidence. They merely dismiss you as one who is not smart enough to know the accepted ideas; rather like someone who wears white socks to a formal affair. This is particularly true of academics whose thinking usually reflects fashion rather than actual knowledge.
Obama will be President. The gamblers are banking on it. How can he fail? No Republican will dare bring out any of his numerous negative factors—that would be forbidden "racism." Obama gives millions of people a safe way to express their profound fear of having unrespectable thoughts and their profound hypocrisy—which is itself an expression of their profound and unacknowledged fear of black people.
There are millions of Americans who actually believe that the election of Obama or Mrs. Clinton as President will be a great forward step in history.
A "news" story tells me that reparations for slavery will be a good thing because it will bring about "healing" and "forgiveness." What can this mean? There is no one alive who qualifies to be healed or forgiven in regard to the institution that ended a century and a half ago. Should money be offered to "heal" wrongs known only in imagination? Alas, reporting on imaginary things and emotions like a supposed future "healing" now takes the place of facts in most of our "news."
Presidential candidates. Who among them has pietas and gravitas? Who has any true sense of the law and the Constitution? Who has thought about the proper ends of man and society? Who has more than a superficial relationship to the two millennia of Western culture?
I experienced a perfect illustration of the state of American freedom when I went to vote in the presidential primary. After casting my ballot, or rather touching my screen, I was driving along basking in my virtue. Two blocks from the polling place, I was pulled over by a deputy sheriff with a flashing blue light. I was informed that I was in violation for not having turned on my headlamps for the rain (which had barely started) and traveling 3 mph above the speed limit. And this is one of the least regimented counties in one of the least regimented States.
Entries(RSS)
"Who has thought about the proper ends of man and society? Who has more than a superficial relationship to the two millennia of Western culture?"
It's very telling that these two undeniably essential questions would be met with quizzical looks by the media elite. Obama, Hillary, and McCain are the end product of a civilization that ignores its own history and disparages its own tradition. We have severed the branch we are sitting on from the tree to which we are connected. May God Help Us.
Good article Mr. Wilson..........It is universal in all of Serfdom, that "armed and dangerous tax collectors" wait to ambush the Continental Citizenry" like Lions hunting zebra on the plains of Africa!.....Pirates or Highwaymen, as they were called centuries ago. Perhaps you live in a quite bedroom community, where the city council denied raises? (Always proceded by "Your Department isn't bringing in enough revenue to get one of those tank looking things!")
A few minutes ago, Barck Obama's foreign policy advisor Susan Rice was on the Tucker Carlson show. Susan Rice,an upper class DC mulatto married to a White Canadian ,is pure drek. The difference between McCain's and Obama's foriegn policy is sleight The empire will define the terms of the debate. The empire will be protected. Mostly White teenagers will be required to defend it.
An Obama presidency will speed up the Native Born White Revolt. Worse is better.
Barack Obama is owned by the corporations. Justin Raimondo is fawning all over Obama these days. Raimondo is a fool. Some people are easily fooled
"It’s very telling that these two undeniably essential questions would be met with quizzical looks by the media elite. Obama, Hillary, and McCain are the end product of a civilization that ignores its own history and disparages its own tradition. We have severed the branch we are sitting on from the tree to which we are connected. May God Help Us." -Edward
Okee'doh'kee:
"I AM the tree of Life standing in the middle of the Eternal Sea whose roots sink down to an eternal source...The people are the eternal sea enveloping the huge tree of life and taking its root within."
I - a mere mortal will just add - don't be extreme move again in the correct direction best embodied by Ron Paul and in a pinch Ralph Nader - but is yet too extreme for most Americans who have been set BACK (on purpose) by their media. They will fall soon.
_________________________________________________
Mr Wilson is pinpointing a lot of problems, but he does not mention the real problem. The real problem is that USA is not a democracy any longer, and has not been a democracy for a very long time. It does not matter who is "elected" (or rather selected) president, because the president is only a puppet anyway and takes his (or hers) orders from the shadow goverment. The shadow government springs out from the corporations and the military-industrial complex, and the shadow government owns the president and his administration, the congress and the press. What can be done? Or can anything be done? I don't know, but it is at least obvious that, thanks to the internet, more and more people become aware of the terrible situation that we are in. Maybe the slide into martial law and the police state may be halted and reversed if a sufficient number of brave people take action. Let's pray and hope that it is not too late.
"When one puts forth a proposition, whether about current events or history, mainstream intellectuals (and their vast numbers of wannabe-intellectual lackeys) do not answer with argument or evidence. They merely dismiss you as one who is not smart enough to know the accepted ideas; rather like someone who wears white socks to a formal affair."
Amen, Dr. Wilson. Few are they who can actually construct a rational argument addressing the issues in dispute, and even fewer they who feel the need to. To the ideologue and the ignoramus, who are by nature people who must avoid serious argument at all costs, the salient question is only whether you are of the "in" crowd or the "out" crowd. If you're not one of them, well, "We already know where you're coming from," even when they manifestly do not.
"No Republican will dare bring out any of his numerous negative factors—that would be forbidden 'racism.'”
Myself, I'm honestly not sure that's the reason. Obama's such a genuinely likable fellow on a personal level that I think people are saying to themselves, "He may be a flaming liberal, but he seems willing to listen at least, and in any case both Clinton and McCain turn my stomach." Larry Elder here in L.A., black himself, keeps making the same point on the radio that you make, but no one really wants to talk about it. The conversation always gets dragged back to what a couple of ahemholes C & M are.
In the final end he won the war after losing every battle...
"And yet to times in hope my verse shall stand,
Praising thy worth despite his cruel hand." - Shakespeare
The problem perhaps lies with the people. If the people were properly grounded in the truths of Western religious tradition, we might be more skeptical of politicians in general instead of being overwhelmed and enamored by the quasi-religious movement that is the Obama campaign.
What people truly need to resist is the idea that humanity's salvation lies within politics. Modern American politics is generally concerned with large-scale "solutions" that are inherently inimical to most people's way of life. Politicians like Obama who are always speaking of "hope" and "change" will be met with proper scrutiny once people remove their faith in the religion of democracy and place it in the right Source.
"Thus our “news” is trivial, amorphous, anonymous, and conformist, for petty ideologues who lack any genuine knowledge and moral authority cannot be otherwise. Who are these people? Where do they come from? Who were their parents? How were they educated? What previous record of character and knowledge have they established? "
Patrick J. Buchanan is all over, and I mean *all over,* MSNBC news. Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and Joe Scarborough, however much one may despise them, are hardly "amorphous, anonymous, and conformist." They all talk about their past experiences and how they influence how they think about current events. One MSNBC morning host is the daughter of a certain Mr. Brzezinski. I am not saying that this qualifies her or disqualifies her, only that she is not anonymous. I do not see where Dr. Wilson is coming from. Perhaps he is thinking of some other network? Well, in the case of the one I watch, his observations are incorrect. The network is not in the least bit "anonymous," and most of them do have some genuine information however much you may question their moral authority.
Patrick J. Buchanan aside, MSNBC is the most overtly leftist "news" channel on TV. Not only does Keith Olbermann's channel refuse to suspend it's ideology for the sake of intelligent inquiry, but Chris Matthews recently reported a distinct "thrill going up his leg" after hearing Obama deliver one of his salvific speeches.
Dr. Wilson has precisely described most of the faces that populate our "news" channels: petty ideologues.
Media.
Yes, Keith Olbermann is abominable.
Tucker Carlson is an avid fan of Ron Paul, and makes no secret of this. Is he a leftist?
Is Joe Scarborough a leftist? He actually had Jared Taylor, of all people, on his show.
Are they petty ideologues? Or people you simply dislike? Most people would say similar things about Chronicles writers. Who are they? Where did they come from? If I wish to know where Tim Russert came from, who his parents where, what his experiences have been, I can go read his book, thank you.
Conformism: Isn't the real problem that they conform to a line with which we disagree? If the networks hired only Lincoln-hating, pro-Confederate, seal-the-Mexican-border-and-deport-Moslems, would paleocons be upset with this conformism? Conformity is not the problem, but conformity to what is wrong. I admit that Chris Matthews conforms to the dominant ideology, but he does ask questions and he does refuse to accept mealy-mouthed non-answers. I have seen it.
"Lincoln-hating . . . -deport-Moslems"
Insert "newscasters" at the end of that.
All things to the memory blackhole!
"Those that refuse to study the past are condemned to repeat it"
Santyana
The only problem is that newscasters such as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert refuse to admit that they are leftists. Do the estimable writers at Chronicles purport the same false facade of objectivity? Of course they don't, and they shouldn't. I do not agree with most of the faces of MSNBC, but the reason I find many of them shameful and not merely men of respectable but divergent opinion is that they claim to be just "after the facts."
If Chris Matthews proclaimed on national television that he was a liberal, I would still find him repulsive to watch, but then it would be only a matter of my personal taste. I would not consider him a participant in the "trivial, amorphous, anonymous, and conformist" news.
Matthews and Russert don't realize they are leftists, but hell, neither do O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, the NR crowd, the neo-cons, and the whole Bush administration. Leftism is the prevailing climate of thought and it is difficult to escape its presuppositions. #5 Roger, for example, states that the real problem is that the US is no longer a democracy. Democracy is one of the core values of the left and the US was never supposed to be a democracy.
"I would not consider him a participant in the “trivial, amorphous, anonymous, and conformist” news."
Once again, it is not anonymous. Rather, it is personality-driven, if anything. Matthews, Russert, and the FOX News crowd all have books talking about their views, their upbringing, etc. Whether you think their lives are worthwhile or not, they are not anonymous. Tim Russert talks about his father all the time. Matthews refers constantly to his upbringing in Philadelphia. One morning Russert, Buchanan, Matthews, and Mike Barnacle were all on TV at the same time and the running joke among the other commentators was that these four Irish-Catholic boys never learned their manners from the nuns in parochial school and they sure weren't going to learn now. If your primary concern is with the newscasters being of obscure origin and obscure pedigree, what more could you possibly want?
Buchanan is on MSNBC several times a week, at least. They let him talk over the other commentators (he has a bad habit of this). So paleoconservatives are overrepresented on that station in proportion to their presence in the American body politic.
"A strongly shared sense of right and wrong... is what kept the South relatively free of violent racial strife..."
Well, yes, but I suspect the selective application of gun control had a hand in this as well. Southerners were 275 years ahead of the rest of the country in that policy area, and no one ever gives them credit for it.
Plus, Tucker Carlson, the avid fan of Ron Paul, has repeatedly said, openly, "Yes, the media gives Obama a free pass and grills Clinton."
And as for last week's stupid and slimy report about McCain by the New York Times, the TV news people almost all rejected the story out of hand on account of its lack of sources, as they should have.
roger (#5) most of what you say is true and I appreciate your sentiment. However, it is because America ceased to be a Republic and instead devolved into a unitary, national democracy that it gave itself over to managerial elite rule -- to those who appeal to the largely uninfomed and short-sighted masses.
Ah, the joys of the universal suffrage....
Capers, I did not say the newscasters are "anonymous...conformist, etc." I said the "news" is.
They all follow the same script as to what is worthy of notice and the same adolescent short-term time perspective. I don't understand where you are coming from in defending these people
These people are part of a tiny minority who have the power to filter and dictate the "news" for millions of people. We have no sayso over their selection or over those who select them. What wisdom have they shown to entitle themselves to such power?
Frankly, I doubt if any of the potential presidents even know what western (read, Catholic/Christian, European) civilzation is, much less how to defend it. Unfortunately, I am not so sure they even believe it is worth defending. I am sure Obama and Clinton don't. AFter all it is responsible for all, and I mean ALL, the world's problems from war, famine, and disease to too-tight underwear. I saw Pat Buchanan get into last night with liberal Bill Press about the fact that it was largely WHITE MALES who died at Lexington and Concord, Gettysburg and Normandy. I told my family that all of us racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, fascist European Americans should say to the rest of the country, "Kiss off. You're on your own. We will no longer work, fight, pay taxes, build businesses or anything else that is required to build a real civilization. Let the hispanic invaders and all the other minority groups do it all. Let's see how long it takes to turn the country into a wasteland." But then I realize that if it weren't for so many European Americans (like Bill Press) slobbering all over themselves about how great it will be to have a mixed-race person or a woman as president we might not be in this mess. The guilt of white liberals (except in regard to the Seven Deadly Sins), is phenomenal. I suppose if Obama is elected they can all gather round at their cocktail parties and congratulate themselves on how open minded they are and morally superior to all the great unwashed.
Speaking of Obama, he may very well beomce president. I will give him this: he is SLICK. As Bert Reynolds put it in one of his more forgettable movies, "He is slicker than cat s--t on linoleum." But then, isn't that what we want? It is apparently what the Democrats want. The GOP wants a candidate who isn't afraid to bomb everyone on the planet. Let's see, what are the qualifications? Obama is "black," Hilary is a woman, and McCain is a war hero. Case closed.
I am rambling a bit here, but did anyone else notice that when Obama was asked to repudiate Farrakhan's support he simply said he rejected "minister" Farrakhan's anti-semitic statements. Two points: (1) to refer to this racist loudmouth as "minister" seems a bit too respectful and (2) he did not repudiate Farrakhan's many anti-white statements. Was that a slip up?
Finally, Dr. Wilson is right on (as usual) regarding the media. I watched Keith Olberman (once) and listened to a nearly half hour raving rant that would have had anyone with more conservative (I prefer Rightist, as the neo-cons are the only"true" conservatives these days!!), views thrown off the air in a heartbeat. He sounded like a drunken frat boy. I kept turning to another station only to turn back to him ten minutes later to see if he was still raving. He was. I never liked Walter Cronkite when I was younger, but he seems like a paragon of virtue compared to what is on the air now.
If a law does not align itself with a Constitution, first formed with the belief that some rights are inaliable, ordained by God, and a commentator, newscaster, editorial, Statute, Rules of civil and criminal procedure or "public policy" does not align with the Constitution and Word of God, then it matters little to me how and why we got here. THe opinions of those who deny the existance of God or the foundation of our Constitutional theory for which our law and public policy are bound, then I know those people are not worthy of time or conversation. For they will appeal to some "theory" of man, Marx, Obama, Bush, to form their opinion.
Millions are waking up to the truth that things are not right in river city. What will only and properly form a coalition from the masses is their belief and faith in the Word of God. Those who are incapable of this, will never bond with any group. They will scream injustice and get nowhere.
What is really scary to me, is that those who claim to be leaders under the authority of God are not under the authority of God. Dr. Dobson, is a prime example. Or, many of the christian legal groups defending the rights of parents, (Jay Sekulo). Sekulo appeals to the authority of international courts and Dobson appeals to psychobabble to align the broken home. Though they wear the robe of rightiousness, they appeal to the magistrate of the pharisee. I don't claim to know what is in their heart, I simply align their practices with the truth, and clutch my stomach in pain.
Mr. Wilson experiences and observations are absolutely true. And it warms my heart knowing so many are awaken and alive.
It was Belloc who noted that snobs comprise a large part of many societies. These are people who think and say certain things because they are the received wisdom, because certain things are expectetd to be believed and said, not because these folks have investigated things for themelves. America is awash in snobs.
“Kiss off. You’re on your own. We will no longer work, fight, pay taxes, build businesses or anything else that is required to build a real civilization. Let the hispanic invaders and all the other minority groups do it all. Let’s see how long it takes to turn the country into a wasteland.”
I must say that this idea appeals to me greatly. I live in New York City and if I described the black population here with as much ignorant generality as liberals do with Western Civilization, I would be put before the firing squad by every pseudo-intellectual I attend college with.
Mr. Flinn's other observation that it is usually white, western liberals who are the first to accuse conservatives of being racist, sexist, and homophobic is only more shocking than it is true. As Orwell says of nationalism, "...millions of people can be confidently labeled 'good' or 'bad'." They will forever demarcate the West as morally reprehensible, and it is more than unfortunate that these elitists dominate and manufacture our "news."
"These people are part of a tiny minority who have the power to filter and dictate the “news” for millions of people. We have no sayso over their selection or over those who select them. What wisdom have they shown to entitle themselves to such power?" -Clyde
that you even must ask this question on essentially a site sympathetic - they have NO authority except your congress was bought ... and once the brainwashing begins... then even on your sympathetic site, sadly, you're on the defensive.
why do you put up with it, is what i wonder?
am i missing something?
god's NOT in control of everything...
is it the mistaken notion he is in control of that?
what would be the point of wisdom... what would be the point of Actual others... besides Himself?
Mr. Albert - I think the answer to yours above is that this is a site of culture... if you want one of revolution or whatever - I suppose they are online too.
Although I'll say this - they attack 'themselves' now to prime the pump and pop billions out of the fed treasury -
So if you, for example albert just suggest burning down the networks if we want to stay alive - as I've heard and read you - that may be kind compared to their nuking a city so we'll go to world war III against the so-called "arabs" - The other SEMITES.
I hear you too on that level - funny, - sadly.
________________
We have now arrived at the point where, the only "Manufacturing Base" existing in America is the MSM!
“Thus our “news” is trivial, amorphous, anonymous, and conformist, for petty ideologues who lack any genuine knowledge and moral authority cannot be otherwise. Who are these people? Where do they come from? Who were their parents? How were they educated? What previous record of character and knowledge have they established? ”
Could it be that the majority of Americans that watch the "news" believe what they hear on the "news". I think that any one who is thinking at all, probably is very selective thus not of the majority. I guess my point is if you want to be liked by others (a burning need of insecure people, the majority ) you need to be politically correct and sympathetic to all minorities. You become a hero as defined in post modern terms. To stand up for what is truly right you will not be standing with the majority in America. The people organizing popular "news" are trying for numbers, not moral high ground.
Obama will be President. The gamblers are banking on it. How can he fail? No Republican will dare bring out any of his numerous negative factors—that would be forbidden “racism.”
Not just racism. The greatest negative factor is his pernicious dissimulation. Born to America-despising parents, married to a woman with no sense of patriotism, he nevertheless attempts to appear one of the liberal establishement. We will find out too late what his real agenda is.
In Mohammedanism the concept is known as taqiyya.
Re Mr. Wilson's individualist attack on the idea of reparations for blacks: agreed that talk of "healing" etc. is fatuous, but the demand for reparations should be taken seriously by anyone who takes white racial identity seriously. Mr. Wilson himself apparently does not, but the late Sam Francis did and some Chronicles readers do. If a group identity entails pre-voluntary loyalty and obligations among its members, then it also entails the possibility of collective responsibility to other groups. In some cases that means responsibility for actions committed by dead individuals to whom you're related only by virtue of group membership.
European-Americans committed a horrible crime against African-Americans. For those who reject Lockean individualism (for want of a better word) and believe in group identity, European-Americans as a group owed (past tense), and perhaps still owe, compensation to African-Americans -- again, as a group -- for slavery and other crimes. The fact that, today, wrongs are "known only in imagination" does not invalidate the claim. There's a question whether that debt has been re-paid. Some say it was paid in blood in the Civil War, which had the effect (whatever its cause) of abolishing slavery. There's plenty of room for argument on points like this, but for those who (unlike Mr. Wilson, apparently) do believe in non-voluntary obligations to their own ethnie or race, the question of black reparations can't be dismissed so glibly.
The fact that, today, wrongs are “known only in imagination” does not invalidate the claim....35Ploni Almoni
Re...A “news” story tells me that reparations for slavery will be a good thing because it will bring about “healing” and “forgiveness.” What can this mean? There is no one alive who qualifies to be healed or forgiven in regard to the institution that ended a century and a half ago. Should money be offered to “heal” wrongs known only in imagination?
Dr.Wilson is bang on! I am from one of these groups. I am an Acadian , my ancestors were uprooted from there homes, imprisoned and sent to foreign lands. I have no recollection of this event in 1755. Many Acadians have been told that the English owe them something, and are thus convinced that they are some sort of victims. Once this victim mentality is embraced, a target for their personal anger and resentments is created. This is only learned and not remembered. My Acadian brothers and sisters have gone so far with this that they refuse to participate in Sunday Mass if it is in English.
I have no recollection of the deportation. I have no desire to be compinsated for a past atrocity against my ancestors, I have no desire or need to become a victim on behalf of my ancestors. Acceptance of this would only make me a weeker person.
#35 "If a group identity entails pre-voluntary loyalty and obligations among its members, then it also entails the possibility of collective responsibility to other groups. In some cases that means responsibility for actions committed by dead individuals to whom you’re related only by virtue of group membership."
Firstly, you would have to prove somehow that people are affected today by crimes committed towards their ancestors. After so many things have happened in this country since slavery ended, including the Civil War, I think it would be near impossible to demonstrate this. Secondly, group identity is not defined along absolute lines. My family and I came to this country in the early 20th century along with millions of other immigrants who bear no group responsibility for slavery. Your logic might work if you were speaking solely of families who owned slaves and their descendants, but in America describing the guilty party as "European-Americans" is too sweeping a generalization.
"Once this victim mentality is embraced, a target for their personal anger and resentments is created."
Amen.
Secondly, if you are right, this reasoning should work both ways. I live in New York City, which has been destroyed by black people. So much crime and poverty is not only here but in many urban cities in America. I had a friend who, when I was fifteen, was beaten to a bloody pulp by a group of blacks who were specifically looking to target white boys. My mother was viciously mugged 4 times in her life while living in the Bronx and Manhattan. Black people are responsible for most of the crime in this city and country, so if anything "European-Americans" like my family and I are owed something.
"American freedom", " American dream", American sainthood and righteousness, American MORALITY AND , as we now know, TOTALITARIANISM, they ALL sound as they have been presented by the ALMIGHTY HIMSELF. The catchy AND deceptive phrases have been concoted by the government in Washington itself some time ago in order to glorify and promote its own agenda and rule over the world without regard to the rule of international laws. They themselves have been effectively clothed in as the norms and desirable behaviour to adhere to , to strive to, so to reach the ultimate in life and living. However, over some period of time, it has been discovered and uncovered, that the above moral preachings to the world BY American Presidents and their puppets, ARE just EMPTY PHRASES AND SELF DELUSIONS that are bound to surface soon or later . Hallelujah!!!
The latest election charade sounds more like the death knell for this country than its revival. Democratic policies are nearly irrelevant since the message of both Hillary and Obama can be reduced to "getting even." Every loser, ugly hag, fruitcake and creep in this country is foaming at the mouth at the chance to get even with his or her betters so long as the burden falls mainly on others. Some of these old women are passing out and wetting themselves at Obama rallies, and even the females present appear overcome with emotion.
Mobocracy is too elevated a term for what we are about to witness in this country. Unspeakable sexual perversion, baby killing, brainwashing of children, confication of property, censorship of Western culture and arts, and other, lesser refinements of servility like insurmountable personal debt, are now the American way. This is the America Hillary and Obama appeal to, and it is the America of the future. As for the Republicans, McCain is a dangerous, narcissistic madman, who never saw a liberal's rear end he wouldn't kiss for personal gain. To paraphrase Jefferson, it is not possible for a true war hero to have lost so much of his manhood.
Does anyone read this far down on the comments? In any case, I have not wasted a single minute of my time on the debates, most certainly will not vote for any presidential candidate, and feel that life is worth living no matter how degenerate my country has become. Americans are a "good people?" I believe the average American is a morally depraved coward willing to mortgage his children's and grand children's future in return for "having fun." It's ironic, too, that those least able to handle hardship are the ones demanding more repression at every turn. Just wait until it comes knocking down their own front door in the name of social justice.
"I believe the average American is a morally depraved coward willing to mortgage his children’s and grand children’s future in return for “having fun.” "
Amen. As Pope John Paul II said, "Democracy, cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality .... Its `moral' value ... depends on conformity to the moral law."
In the U.S. today the ruling elite are without any sense of right and wrong, having only a self-serving agenda, cynical manipulative techniques, and a shoddy and shallow worldview.
It would help both them and our country if after office they would go and volunteer to serve with American troops in some of these wars they initiated in defense of "vital American interests.". Imagine the wisdom Bill Clinton and Mrs. Albright could obtain by living along side and serving with troops in Kosovo and Serbia--just for a year or three after office. Or imagine the real support the troops could see and receive if Mr. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were serving right along side them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if they just road along side the soldiers, never dismounting the helicopter but just showing their support for a volunteer enlistment of say two years ? Immediately after leaving office next January. Imagine the intel they could provide, the hardships they could share with their fellow Americans and the wisdom they might obtain.
More on black reparations.
woodcutter is right that, especially in today's climate, the idea of collective responsibility can be taken way too far. That doesn't invalidate the principle, though.
Edward is right that African-Americans today may be better off as a result of slavery. However, that misses the point of *group* responsibility. If you're talking only about *individuals* alive today, then obviously no one owes anyone for something he didn't do. Does the African-American situation today compensate for the suffering they endured as a group during slavery? Zora Neale Hurston, who of course was born after the end of slavery, put it beautifully: "Slavery is the price I paid for civilization." Note the first person singular.
The idea of *group* responsibility is also missed with the phrase "solely of families who owned slaves and their descendants". I'm not talking about family responsibility, though I think that's valid in principle too. Most of us are members of an ethnie called "European-Americans". By identifying with that ethnie, we identify with its history (but see below). To say that "my ancestors weren't even here during slavery" is not an argument, it's just a re-statement of the individualist position.
The argument that the high disparity of black crime against whites balances things out is also wrong, because this is generally *individual* crime, even when race is part of the motivation. Racial slavery and Jim Crow were crimes committed by European-Americans against African-Americans as *groups*.
Finally, note that ethnic identity is crucial here. Group responsibility presupposes group identity. If European-Americans don't identify *as* European-Americans--with the group interests, history, etc.--then as Edward suggests there's nothing to connect us to a bunch of dead white people, and the European-American ethnie can plead that it now owes nothing, on the grounds that it no longer exists. Conversely, someone claiming compensation from whites must acknowledge the"right" of whites to identify as whites, to pursue white group interests, etc. Group responsiblity presupposes group identity.
If it be true that 13% of the people are terrorizing 87%, then I respectfully submit that there must be something seriuously wrong with the 87% (as the confusion of the above discussion would seem to indicate). Are the 87% stupid?, cowardly?, suffering from some strange delusions about the nature of the world?, unable to choose good leaders?, incapable of learning anything from history?. unworthy to govern themselves? Problem can't begin to be solved until you admit that the problem is not them, it is us.
Look at it this way. If they tax whites to give money to blacks, or otherwise confiscate - steal - the hard earned wealth of poor and middle class whites, and try to justify this with a guilt trip propaganda campaign, it could turn out to be a good thing. Whites will know they are being robbed under false pretenses, and if this includes whites whose ancestors came over after the war, then so much the better.
It could be a nail in the coffin of multiculturalism and leftist traitor hegemony over society. It could be the beginning of the end of race baiting politics as we have known it for sixty plus years.
In practice, democracy doesn't work like it is supposed to. The typical American is driven less by rational calculation of self-interest than he is by the slogans, spin, and manufactured disinformation that he picks up from the media. Power is denominated less in votes at the ballot box than it is in the ability to structure mass opinion through propaganda and artfully manipulate status perceptions. This is why the sites of cultural articulation - the universities, public schools, churches, the news and entertainment media - and the monied interests that finance and control them are central to understanding the prevailing power structure in the United States, as opposed to celebrated phantoms like "will of the people" which in any case is routinely engineered through discourse poisoning.
The major design flaw of liberal capitalist democracy and its ideology of Freedom-Equality-Tolerance is universalism; the embrace of which erodes the traditional in-group vs. out-group distinction, and leaves the native population vulnerable to internal subversion and misdirection by race parasites. Unfortunately, the conservative appeal to tradition is not a remedy to this situation, as American traditions like Protestant Christianity and republicanism suffer from multiple internal flaws which are easily exploited by crafty, intelligent ethnic opportunists (see the Bush administration); a phenomenon that paleos should well understand by now, seeing as how they have been fulminating about the hijacking of the conservative movement itself for about twenty years now.
"White Nationalism," or more broadly "racialism" in its various guises, shows promise because it takes this essential observation as its starting point. Interest is clearly defined (and easily calculated) as biological reproductive success, influence, and power instead of appeal to hoary romanticisms (various) or abstract principles which are emptily asserted to be "natural." This is a solid foundation which a civilization can be erected upon. The individual who embraces this worldview (such as the founding American settlers) will usually reason out the correct cultural conclusions, as opposed to conservatives who never seem to make it past second base, mumbling about symptoms instead of root causes.
"In the U.S. today the ruling elite are without any sense of right and wrong"
If the US ruling elite are anything like the ruling elite here in the UK they have a pretty strong sense of right and wrong; it just differs from the sense the rest of us has. Obama, Clinton and McCain all have a pretty similar and pretty clear sense of what's right and wrong to them.
"Obama will be President. The gamblers are banking on it. How can he fail? No Republican will dare bring out any of his numerous negative factors—that would be forbidden “racism.” "
Racism, however defined, is of course the ruling elite's greatest Wrong of all.
Dr. Wilson,
Your words:
"Presidential candidates. Who among them has pietas and gravitas? Who has any true sense of the law and the Constitution? Who has thought about the proper ends of man and society? Who has more than a superficial relationship to the two millennia of Western culture?" ....
" In the U.S. today the ruling elite are without any sense of right and wrong, having only a self-serving agenda, cynical manipulative techniques, and a shoddy and shallow worldview." ....
"American public affairs are present-centered (an adolescent characteristic). Nobody remembers any past record of a politician."
On the last leg of a journey home from an excellent conference in climes beyond the frontiers of our state, my friend and I found ourselves back in Louisiana listening to a discussion about "ethics" reform in Louisiana. Three quotes, cited supra, from your article are very relevant to this debate.
The host and his guest were rightly outraged at the farce call "ethics reform" which is going to Governor Jindal in the form of a bill to be signed into law.
It was rightly pointed out that Governor Jindal serves two masters: one with his rhetoric and the other with his soul; the former is the State of Louisiana to which he was elected Governor; and the latter the Republican Party through which he aspires to be, some day, President. The "ethics reform" package was a prearranged deal between the Office of the Governor and certain members of the legislature on the one hand and "ethics rating institutions" on the other. The legislation was tailored to meet the standards and specifications of the aforementioned entities to improve Louisiana's ability to getting better bonding for borrowing money and for enticing industry into the state. Thus, the "worthy" goals were not ethics but taxing and financing. In addition, the Governor and the legislature now has campaign talking points: we cooperated and through that cooperation we got meaningful ethics reform. One can already hear Mr. Jindal in 1212 or 1216, as he runs for President, citing his ability to work in a bipartisan way with the Louisiana legislature and his ability to get "meaningful" ethics reform.
The radio host and his guest took the discussion even further; they showed that despite the "reform" which meets all of the standards of the rating agencies there is no meaningful enforcement, the financing of the existing enforcement agency are not enough for it to do its work and the agency itself, the ethics commission, has been politicized in that it is no longer a group independently installed and bipartisan but is now appointed by the Governor himself.
The radio host and his guest rightly pointed out, to link this to your quotes cited supra, that the current ethics reform in Louisiana have naught to do with right and wrong and that they are, therefore, all eyewash; however, even the host and his guest fail to recognize a deeper truth: when an electorate lacks the discernment or the will to place ethical men in office, when the prevailing party system undercuts ethical behavior and when the fiscal system of a polity tempts even the most ethical of men, the talk of and the attempt to implement "meaningful" enforcement and a "politically-neutral" (impossible) ethics committee themselves constitute a farce!
"The argument that the high disparity of black crime against whites balances things out is also wrong, because this is generally *individual* crime, even when race is part of the motivation. Racial slavery and Jim Crow were crimes committed by European-Americans against African-Americans as *groups*."
Whether a group commits atrocities explicitly as a group is irrelevant. Simply being a member of the group entails responsibility by the entire group. If I am from a tribe and murder a man from another tribe, it matters little whether I murder 'in the name of my tribe'; who I am determines what group is held responsible.
"The idea of *group* responsibility is also missed with the phrase “solely of families who owned slaves and their descendants”. I’m not talking about family responsibility, though I think that’s valid in principle too. Most of us are members of an ethnie called “European-Americans”. By identifying with that ethnie, we identify with its history (but see below). To say that “my ancestors weren’t even here during slavery” is not an argument, it’s just a re-statement of the individualist position."
Group identity springs from a shared culture and tradition. It is incorrect to use the term 'European-American' because people define the their groups in different ways. Europeans were warring with each other for centuries using group identifications much more specific than 'Europeans.' It was Frenchmen and Austrians or Russians and English. To say that my ancestors were not here is not to restate the individualist position, quite the contrary, it is an admission that I would assume responsibility for my kin's actions. I am a New Yorker, so does that mean that I owe in proportion to what other New Yorkers did? If so then I hope it is considerably less than what a Southerner would owe.
Why does no one bring up the fact that the Southern states were unjustly forced to pay off the Yankee war debt? That amounted to a hundred years of taxes stolen from poor whites barely getting by after the criminal invasion and destruction. This is a real debt owed to Southerners by the fedrral government. Why dont we Southerners just hand a bill to the federal government? 'Alright, you want to talk reparations? Here's what YOU owe US!'
"If it be true that 13% of the people are terrorizing 87%, then I respectfully submit that there must be something seriuously wrong with the 87% (as the confusion of the above discussion would seem to indicate). Are the 87% stupid?, cowardly?, suffering from some strange delusions about the nature of the world?, unable to choose good leaders?, incapable of learning anything from history?. unworthy to govern themselves? Problem can’t begin to be solved until you admit that the problem is not them, it is us." -Clyde Wilson
What you say is true and actual. It's why we all on the old SF site deconstructed xianity to see if it was too good a religion in terms of putting folks on too much of a pink cloud. We decided well, yes but that had been needed in the past to counterbalance the more rigorous realities of mother Nature for the general population; and also that getting rid of xianity or throwing the baby out with the bathwater was suicide for the civilization, which would be worse.
Although the 13% in their stupidity and greed if it ups profits for TODAY would chuck out the baby and is why they push i.e. the putsch in that jacobian direction is incessant.
And always in the talking points because 'it's what the people want'... yaddah, except when they want out of iraq... yaddah. ... Hamilton led to Lincoln led to the social security number since it underwrites banks. ... It's ALL about the fed tax pool... priming the pump popping out billions etc. getting theirs and/or getting one's own. The country now is like an amoeba too big.
It's larger than the European Union's market for example. Our leaders have NO idea what 'trade' even means anymore it's so much about the fed tax pool every year. ... I watched a show on t.v. the other day where the 'pundits' thought it was proof "free" trade and globalism were a marvel good for "America" because a kentucky fried chicken store was opening up every week in China... Except precisely THAT is not trade. All the pundits thought it was 'trade' and that such a phenomenon as that made their point. ... wow. ... In reality they're not different than either Obama or Greenspan. McCain says he 'knows nothing' [putting one in mind of the character Sergeant Shultz on that old t.v. program Stalag 13] ... McCain admitting he knows nothing about the economy (he's only a Senator)... so he's reading Greenspan's book. Gives new meaning to the admonition 'duck and cover.' Probably also a more accurate title for the book.
Back to the amoeba that's too big in [my] paragraph 4 above... The first one celled organism when it became too big I suppose billions of years ago it divided and became two healthier amoebas. That was attempted via our Civil War.
What's next? ........... Duck & cover?
Is that a minute rice - isn't it-?- "duck and cover a San Francisco treat..." !?! Are they opening now too in China? Can we go on t.v. now or we're not the 13%?! Duck & cover... everybody's got the beat... enjoy.
____
#50: Edward, describing group responsibility, says: "Simply being a member of the group entails responsibility by the entire group."
That's one concept of group responsibiilty but it's not the one I'm talking about. It can work at the clan level but would be a disaster at the scale of a race. I mean more or less what Alasdair MacIntyre means by it, which is closer to your "shared culture and tradition" (MacIntyre would emphasize "narrative"). In _After Virtue_, by the way, he uses the case of "American" (sic--not "white American") responsibility for slavery explicitly, attacking the attitude of "I never owned any slaves" as an example of the "modern individualism" against which his book is an argument. Seems to me that some writers at this site (e.g., Thomas Fleming) are fairly compatible with MacIntyre in general, while others (e.g., Mr. Wilson) are not.
On "European-American", whatever their histories in Europe, Americans of Irish, English, Jewish, Italian, etc. ancestry have pretty much assimilated into a group called "white", which is perceived as a group by all other groups if not by itself (and as I said, the "not by itself" is crucial to my way of looking at this). Equally important, this group called "European-American" has been grafted onto the olive tree of "English (or British)", the ethnie which constituted America until about a century ago and which both established and abolished racial slavery.
On your question whether you'd "owe" in proportion to your fellow New Yorkers, the contingent answer is No. The group "New Yorkers" was not salient in the history of American slavery. Even so, I think that present-day southerners are responsible for slavery only as whites, not as southerners, for more than one reason. But that's getting farther off subject. My rather modest claim was that *if* you reject modern individualism and identify with the group "European-American", then you can't glibly dismiss the idea that your group owes compensation for slavery, or for the conquest of the Indians either, for that matter.