Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.” – Robert A. Heinlein
First, have a piece that appeared at “Liberty’s Torch V1.0” two and a half years ago:
My sainted father, may he rest in peace, was the source of many a sad wisdom. He wasn’t an educated man – he’d dropped out of high school after tenth grade – but he was an intelligent and observant one. He saw clearly, remembered what he’d seen, and drew the appropriate inferences from the patterns. One of those patterns, which he conveyed to me during one particularly memorable conversation, was in the lies we’re told by persons with a shameful agenda.
A shameful agenda – i.e., one designed to defraud – requires lies. It requires a lot of them. And they must be driven home with blows. They who reject the lies must be made to suffer. The suffering must be painful, prolonged, and highly visible to others.
The bigger the lies, the bigger, more prolonged, and more visible the suffering they’ll require for “reinforcement.”
People are pain-averse. (Say, I’ll bet you didn’t know that.) If a man can’t somehow avert suffering, and is incapable of fighting it off, he’ll seek an analgesic. The Left’s intent is that the only analgesic available to us is meek submission to its agenda. So its mouthpieces lie continuously, voluminously, at a pain-threshold volume, and from every corner of the informational environment. As we are told repeatedly by the media that these…persons are of high status and stainless reputations, this maximizes the pain from the intense, sustained cognitive dissonance their lies produce. Escape is deterred by the threat of punishment: ostracism, condemnation, loss of income, and violence.
Submission excepted, there are only two routes out of the agony. One of them would require mass bloodshed.
The above is only the logic of a dead man whose name you’ve never heard, except that I bear it as well. Feel free to dismiss it if you please.
Dystopic / Thales’s brief essay is ultimately a sermon about the use of cognitive dissonance to induce submission. The people wielding that whip are evil, not stupid. They are not honestly mistaken individuals who mean well; they are deceivers in the pattern of Satan Mekratrig himself.
Their end is power. This is their means. And it works if not resisted.
The only escapes are submission and revolt. Submission is unpalatable to the great majority of Americans. Revolt involves not merely resistance but going on the attack. As we’re in the majority, the prospects for a counterattack, using the same conduits the Left uses to spread its lies and the same deterrents it uses to enforce compliance, are favorable. In this, the age of the Internet, there’s really nothing to impede us. Why, then, do we sit here idle?
The answer varies from person to person and community to community. Some feel too vulnerable. Others are too comfortable. Others yet are already too beaten down. Still others deem themselves secure against the tide, whether correctly or mistakenly. Very few take up their cudgels and stride forward to do battle.
It’s not in me to condemn those who abstain from the battle. But more of us must take up arms if we’re to have a fighting chance of retaining not just our country but our sanity. No one is strong enough to withstand an unceasing, undiluted, unopposed barrage of lies and come out whole.
It’s been said that political correctness is fascism with a smiley face. It calls to mind the cover of Jonah Goldberg’s blockbuster Liberal Fascism.
Smiley face or no, political correctness – the insistence that certain indisputable truths must never be spoken and when spoken must be punished with maximum harshness – is the point of the Left’s spear. Here is where the counterattack must begin. Those “unspeakable truths” must be spoken at maximum volume, and damn the torpedoes. Here are a few that deserve trumpeting:
- There is an American culture. It is infinitely superior to all the other cultures of the world, past or present. No other land produces anything remotely comparable to our general standard of decency, justice, generosity, or good humor.
- The races, as conventionally defined, differ in various ways, including:
- general intelligence,
- family feeling,
- willingness to break the law,
- and propensity toward aggression.
The importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
- The sexes differ in various ways, including:
- individual versus consensus decision making,
- capacity for abstract thought,
- and propensity toward aggression.
As with racial differences, the importance of those differences is topical and contextual.
- Homosexual sodomy is self-destructive, but in certain cases, sexual orientation can be changed.
- There is such a thing as general intelligence, it is at least partly inherited, and it varies widely.
- There is such a thing as an innate propensity to aggression, it is at least partly inherited, and it varies widely.
- There is such a thing as an innate respect for the law, it is at least partly inherited, and it varies widely.
- The diseased, disabled, disordered, and disadvantaged should receive our sympathy and compassion as individuals toward other individuals, but they are not entitled to more as a matter of right. This principle covers any difficulties anyone might ever experience, whether physical, mental, emotional, financial, or social. (Pace Jackson Browne, “Nobody owes ya nothin’.”)
And we must stand our ground when assailed on them.
I could go on. Sometimes I do. But if the point isn’t established by now, it can’t be established by any means known to me. Besides, there are other things on today’s agenda:
It’s Time To Stand And Fight.
There is no middle ground. Indeed, between truth and lies, there never was.
Now, in the above are assertions that will get you called, in the idiom of a former colleague, “everything but white.” That’s the bien-pensants’ reflex reaction to having any of their pieties challenged…especially with “a nasty, ugly little fact.” I could go off on a cometary tangent about how this relates to such idiocies as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, “social construction of reality,” and the subliminal tendency to solipsism that infects so many on the Left, but I’ll spare you. The point is that to one who has embraced the Left’s mode of pseudo-cognition, facts are irrelevant. All that matters are whether your feelings and intentions align with his.
That deeply embedded, semiconscious premise helps to explain what Frederick Crews called “Left Eclecticism:” Leftists’ readiness to seize upon any “cause” they espy and add it to their list of issues to be relentlessly championed regardless of the cost. Feelings, to a bottom-tier / cannon-fodder Leftist, are superior to evidence, causation, and the laws of Nature. Look! There’s a group whose feelings are hurt because they can’t do this or acquire that on terms they deem acceptable. Therefore we must add their banner to our own!
But reality always gets the last word. Its laws are self-enforcing. As Margaret Thatcher has told us, “The facts of life are conservative.” And no one can shout reality down.
However – and this is as important as the Left’s militancy and propensity for attacking anyone who gainsays their beliefs – one cannot expect to stem a tide powered by falsehoods without directly and stridently challenging the falsehoods. Men who choose to live by facts and sound, unbiased reasoning will survive, rise, and flourish. Men who refuse that course will fail, fall, and die. There is no third way.
Yet some excellent, well known, and well regarded thinkers refuse to face the conclusions inherent in the results of their researches. This is a tragedy of Olympian proportions. Far too many people will accept the fruits of their reluctance as a “Here There Be Dragons” sign, beyond which no one must venture.
The recent book by Dr. Charles Murray, Facing Reality, comes with implications that Dr. Murray resists. The most important of those implications is that the Negro race (which he refers to in the book as “Africans”) is sociopolitically incompatible with the Caucasian (“European”) and Mongolian (“Asian”) races. Yet Dr. Murray shies back from that conclusion, and from the closely related conclusion that black identity politics can only be fought back by white identity politics: the deliberate and unashamed assertion of American whites’ rights to the nation they and their forebears have built. Have a few snippets:
Preferential racial policies have been eroding the nation’s commitment to impartiality for decades. Identity politics accelerated that erosion. The threatening new development is that Whites increasingly agree that identity politics is the way to go….
Blacks, constituting 13 percent of the population, are telling Whites, 60 percent of the population, that they are racist, bad people, the cause of Blacks’ problems, and they had better change their ways or else….Ordinarily, you can’t insult people into agreeing with you, but White guilt is a real thing….
Meanwhile, many middle-class and working-class Whites have not been insulted into agreement. They’re just insulted, and to their minds unfairly insulted. I’m not talking about White nationalists and White supremacists – their numbers are relatively small. My concern is the extremely large number of Whites who don’t think of themselves as racists and have not behaved as racists….
I can think of only one measure that is practicable and might make a significant difference: To restore the American creed as the ideal shared by a consensus of the electorate.
Implicit in the above, and in all Dr. Murray’s recommendations, is the assumption that racial divorce – the separation of the Negro race from the Caucasian and Mongolian races – would be unjust, impossible, or both. Millions of people would agree with that assumption. Questioning it renders one inadmissible to “polite” society.
But what if the assumption is false?
One commentator who was roundly denounced by others on the Right, despite their agreement with him on virtually everything else, was the late Lawrence Auster:
The very manner in which the issue is framed — as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other — tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice — as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism” — that our nation faces.
Another is still with us: the courageous and clear-sighted (and therefore universally reviled) Jared Taylor:
Whites built a promising country. They thought they could manage a small number of blacks, but that small number of blacks became looming majorities of non-whites from everywhere, who are increasingly united in their contempt for whites. As Dr. Murray admits, whites are second-class citizens, but it would be terrible if they actually did something about it.
No thanks, Dr. Murray. I’m glad you wrote some interesting things about race and IQ and crime. But I am appalled to learn that you agree with the people whose ideas you oppose: In America, the real problem is white people.
There are others…and we had better start listening to them. The gospel of “We all have to learn to get along” has been rejected with prejudice by American Negroes. They teach their children that “Whitey keeps us down.” They speak of being “unfree” even as their progeny riot, loot, and render our cities unlivable. And they habitually vote for preferential treatment, subventions, set-asides, and giveaways that perpetuate the very worst aspects of the American racial nightmare.
Either there will be a more-or-less peaceful separation of the races, or there will be a racial civil war…followed by something like this.
There is no third way.
The subject of IQ is raising its head, and some few commenters are timidly acknowledging the hard fact. Intelligence is heritable. So is stupid.
What I’ve yet to hear discussed is the issue of temperament. Anyone who has seen the difference in temperament between even two siblings raised in the same household knows that temperament is inborn. Two individuals, even brothers, may reach an identical score on the IQ test, but have vastly different outcomes in life based on how they respond to adversity, the strength of their work ethic, or their ability to ‘play well with others’. The macro reflects the micro. A whole lot of low functioning people are going to create a low functioning society.
I remember reading, a few years ago, about the Saudi air force having lots of low-light / night vision issues from untold generations of first-cousin marriages (permitted under Islamic law) bearing bitter genetic fruit.
Here’s the issue:
It takes a genius to conceive of and flesh out relativity, or gravity, or develop a new miracle-cure medication, et cetera, et cetera. A functional moron can wield a club or a gun.
Which do we have more of in this world – regardless of race?
My argument has been that our test samples are flawed, because for sixty-plus years we have not bred for intelligence or wisdom. And in fact, I would argue that the policies of the ‘war on poverty’ have actively bred against those traits.
That being said, though, it doesn’t change the fact that we have a very, very bad problem. You can complain about what caused the flat tire; it doesn’t change the fact you have a flat.
In my mind, any discussion over ‘why is this so’ is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is what to do with hordes of ferals who have no interest in even mouthing the basic platitudes of polite society, and who see their fellow citizens as nothing more than prey.
“The state system which exists in our country is terrible not because it is undemocratic, authoritarian, based only on physical constraint – a man can live in such conditions without harm to his spiritual essence.”
“Our present system is unique in world history, because above and above its physical and economic constraints, it demands of us total surrender of our souls, continuous and active participation in the general, conscious lie. ”
“To this putrefaction of the soul, this spiritual enslavement, human beings who wish to be human cannot consent. When Caesar, having exacted what is Caesar’s, demands still more insistently that we render unto him what is God’s – that is a sacrifice we dare not make!”
“The most important part of our freedom, inner freedom, is always subject to our will. If we surrender it to corruption, we do not deserve to be called human.”
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, from the essay “As Breathing and Consciousness Return” published in From Under the Rubble – October, 1973
Sadly, the solution is racist in the extreme, fascist in its execution, and loathesome in its implications. But I think it is necessary to isolate those who cannot and will not assimilate into a modern culture on the continents from which they came. It is the most humanitarian course. Send ’em back.
Your mileage may vary.
“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.”
— Thomas Sowell.
The prime question is “At what cost to our own souls if we do… versus what cost to our souls, and civilizations, if we don’t?”
One thing explains the current “hesitency”:
“Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. ”