Fragile America

Posted by Kubilai on September 05, 2005, 12:31 PM | #

Thanks for the log entry, JW.  Slightly off topic with respect to your entry, the left around the blog world continues in their pavlovian conditioning to try and blame only Bush for his inadequacies and ignore the individual and societal responsibilities of the people involved in the anarchy.  They refuse to lay blame all around, these useful idiots. However, I ran across this article yesterday from the Times on line…

Brute reality changes the liberal mindset
Minette Marrin

Occasionally some glimmers of hope appear on the political horizon. There is a great deal to be pessimistic about at the moment, particularly in the wider world, but on the narrow domestic front there seem to be one or two faintly encouraging signs. It has occasionally struck me recently, and it did last week, that it looks as though the great post-war left-liberal cultural ascendancy may be beginning to question its own certainties. And if, like me, you are inclined to blame those left-liberal certainties for many contemporary evils, such as the approaching crisis in public services or the decline in social mobility or the dangerous uncertainties about identity and belonging, then there is perhaps some reason for afaint feeling of optimism.

What seems to be happening is that views that were once unmentionable or were voiced only by more aggressive types on the much reviled right are now beginning to be sayable; this process began, slowly, after the atrocities of 9/11 and has been gathering speed.

Last week, for instance, David Goodhart, the much-respected editor of the intellectual magazine Prospect and a self-confessed “sensitive member of the liberal elite”, published a debate on whether the Human Rights Act can undermine national security; in his contribution, suggesting that it can, he talked of “a wider fallacy” about the origin and nature of rights. “People are not born with rights,” he said; at that I almost choked in surprise on my globalised Starbucks caffe latte.

“Regrettably, many of the world’s six billion people have few or none,” he went on. “Rights are a social construct, a product of history, ideas and of institutions. You and I have rights not as human beings, but mainly because we belong to the political and national community called the United Kingdom, with its infrastructure of laws and institutions.”

Exactly so. That is what millions of people of the right, the centre right and small “c” conservatives have always believed, not to mention some of the most distinguished of this country’s political philosophers. It may be what Goodhart has always thought, too — I don’t know.

But what I do know is that for as long as I can remember left liberals have entirely rejected that view and sneered censoriously at anyone bold enough to have doubts about universal human rights; they have used the phrases “human rights” and “universal human rights” as knock-down arguments — as if just to mention the words was itself proof of their validity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1763822,00.html

While the useful idiots continue to drone on about one fallacy after another, we probably are seeing the beginnings of a rethinking in the leftist monolith.  With each passing “Katrina” as well as each negative effect on Whites, the winds of change will continue to increase.  There will still be diehard leftists that can never bring themselves to admit the error of their ideology, the more moderates will reassess the error of their ways and be in favor of change.  The pendulum has begun to swing towards the right, in my opinion.  I may be premature or possibly overly optimistic, however, I can honestly say I am feeling the beginnings of this watershed event.

Posted by starfish on September 05, 2005, 12:52 PM | #

GC is on fire in this thread, debunking the feeble arguments of the obscurantist, biology-denying liberals:

http://haloscan.com/tb/raldanash/112578677670802917

Posted by starfish on September 05, 2005, 12:53 PM | #

Oops, wrong link. Oh well, it’s on gnxp.com, about seven threads down.

Posted by Kubilai on September 05, 2005, 01:04 PM | #

GC is always first in line when it comes to criticizing Blacks.  It’s a no-brainer for him and nearly all other South Asians for that matter.  He places Whites above Blacks.  That’s where it ends.  He does not advocate White racial solidarity or preservation of White interests.  Contrary to his feelings about all other non-White interests, which according to him are a necessity and absolute right.

I wouldn’t read too much in his hatred of Blacks.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 05, 2005, 01:06 PM | #

JW,

Good to see you post again.

My wife and I have discussed this incident at great length, we both concluded the USA is a paper tiger.

Futhermore, New Orleans is only 4th in the list of most densly populated Negro cities . Now imagine a “terrorist” incident in which public order is reduced - every city with a black population is a filth column for disorder.

Don’t forget the Mexicans in the Southwest, they too are waiting for their “moment” to slaughter the Whites and take “their” land back into the fold of mother Mexico.

Prepare folks!

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 05, 2005, 01:17 PM | #

BTW, this is good place to start building an ethnic survial kit.

I assume most American readers of MR are armed. If not many locally owned gun stores have used/reconditioned Remington 870 police riot shotguns for under $300.

This weapon is an excellent deterrent, sturdy, and is very lethal and easy to to use: photo here

Posted by seelow heights on September 05, 2005, 02:35 PM | #

No doubt the reason order could not be maintained was fear of charges of “racism” and “brutality” for enforcing discipline in the face of the black mobs. Wihout question the media have internalized this fear into nearly all the officers,NCO’s and even enlisted men.
+++++++
“You and I have rights not as human beings, but mainly because we belong to the political and national community called the United Kingdom, with its infrastructure of laws and institutions.”
Of course, the laws and institutions are empty shells if the founding population is replaced and/or prmitivized.

Posted by Svigor on September 05, 2005, 04:39 PM | #

Already, the “heavily armed” Guardsmen are feeling safe enough to start shooting a few looters here and there.  Five out of eight gang-members who launched a failed attack on government contractors were shot dead yesterday.

My understanding was that cops did this, not Guardsmen.

I assume most American readers of MR are armed. If not many locally owned gun stores have used/reconditioned Remington 870 police riot shotguns for under $300.

This weapon is an excellent deterrent, sturdy, and is very lethal and easy to to use: photo here

I recommend the local classifieds.

Posted by Svigor on September 05, 2005, 04:43 PM | #

I second Geoff’s recommendation of the 12 gauge pump for home defense, particularly for families; buckshot won’t penetrate your target like bullets will.

Posted by Phil on September 05, 2005, 04:57 PM | #

JW,

This gets to the nub of the issue. For the fools and the deluded in our nations that cannot see the truth or comprehend it, this serves as an education.

But even so, there are those that are ineducable and beyond redemption. We must do the best we can to retain as much information about these events and keep a complete record for future educational purposes. It goes without saying that public memory is fickle and the media will attempt to do a complete whitewash at the first available opportunity by flooding us with images of suffering to drown out the chaos that lurks underneath.

http://cofcc.org/cutenews/data/upimages/509-woodshot.jpg

I agree with Geoffrey. For white Americans, safety requires either great geographical distance from blacks or a good stockpile of arms and ammunition. Anything less is an invitation to slaughter.

Posted by Phil on September 05, 2005, 05:14 PM | #

For all our readers:

One excellent site for information on what has happened in Louisiana is that of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

http://www.cofcc.org/confederateflagwsnake_ad.jpg

They have a treasure trove (if that is the right word in such ghastly times) of valuable information on Hurricane Katrina that one would have great difficulty getting from the controlled media. Do take a good look at it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2005, 06:23 PM | #

Great link, Phil.  And I like that flag.

Posted by Phil on September 05, 2005, 07:00 PM | #

Fred,

Yes that site is very good. I revisited it today after quite some time.

The flags of the South ought to serve as a good source of inspiration for us in these trying times.

Posted by Svigor on September 05, 2005, 07:23 PM | #

I discovered something amazing about the Confederate Flag (forget the proper name, it’s actually the Confederate Naval Flag or somesuch) in an Amren article: the cross is diagonal because Confederate jews didn’t like the resemblance the upright cross bore to the Christian cross.

How about them apples?  :D

Posted by Svigor on September 05, 2005, 07:26 PM | #

hhttp://tinyurl.com/8cwlh

You guys are gonna love that one.

It seems the black N.O. government is doing everything it can to penetrate the MSM’s wall of racial obfuscation.

Posted by Svigor on September 05, 2005, 08:04 PM | #

Actually, it makes perfect sense that Nagin is removing N.O. cops, firefighters, etc., from the scene.  Note how there’s no exception mentioned for those (a substantial number) who deserted their posts during the aftermath of Katrina.  Simple math; get the useless corrupt black N.O. cops out of the way and secure a few votes in the process.  They need time to recoup and pawn their loot anyways.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2005, 10:35 PM | #

“the cross is diagonal because Confederate jews didn’t like the resemblance the upright cross bore to the Christian cross.”  (—Svigor)

But it looks just like the crosses on the British flag, the two diagonal superposed ones (one of the two being the cross of St. Andrew—that’s all I remember about it).  I’d always assumed that had influenced its design.

Posted by Matra on September 05, 2005, 10:49 PM | #

But it looks just like the crosses on the British flag, the two diagonal superposed ones (one of the two being the cross of St. Andrew—that’s all I remember about it).

The other is St Patrick’s Cross of Ireland.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2005, 11:08 PM | #

And St. George the upright cross, right?

Posted by Svigor on September 05, 2005, 11:20 PM | #

Fred, I’m just going by what the article’s writer stated.  I wish I had the link, but Amren’s search function isn’t the most helpful in the world.

I think we can assume the basis is factual, since Amren is extremely cautious (frequently erring on the side of caution) regarding the JQ.

Of course it’s possible that the statement is wrong.

Posted by Matra on September 05, 2005, 11:28 PM | #

And St. George the upright cross, right?

Yes. The English seem to fly it a lot more now than they did when I was a kid. 

Here’s the cross of St Patrick of Ireland (and Alabama!)

http://flagspot.net/flags/ie-stpat.html

St Andrew was supposedly crucified on a cross that was like an X. Russia’s naval jack is also the St Andrew’s Cross - blue cross on a white background. I’m not so sure though that the Confederate battle flag had anything to do with St Andrew. That might be a myth though Southern nationalists here who emphasise the Celtic origins of the region’s people will no doubt challenge that.

Posted by Andrew L on September 06, 2005, 02:33 AM | #

The best we could do down here is find an old Spud Gun, Only the bad bastards are allowed to carry or hold any weapon, usually they are ethnic.

Posted by JW Holliday on September 06, 2005, 04:44 AM | #

Geoff,

To be blunt, I’m having some problems with some things going on in this blog and have eschewed participation for that reason.  But the New Orleans situation was too ‘ripe’ a target to miss commenting on.  You cannot get a more perfect refutation of the ‘strict policing’ argument than that.

Furthermore, the ‘lessons’ to be learned from Katrina for the establishment will *not* be that we need more “strict policing” and that “crimimal blacks must be sent to jail.” No, the ‘lessons’ to be learned will revolve around this:- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050905/us_nm/katrina_race_dc

Those who promote ‘strict policing’ as a panacea for our problems are just DREAMERS.  With respect to “GC” and whatever he’s saying elsewhere about New Orleans: who cares?  He rates up there with Paris Hilton and Oprah Winfrey as one of the most over-rated people on the face of the earth.  Although, to be fair, I will give him credit for inventing a term that I plan to make good use of: “the politics of exclusion.”  Now, there is much that can be made out of that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 06, 2005, 08:11 AM | #

The most elementary-yet-brilliant “Emperor’s New Clothes”-type common sense from, respectively, Steve Sailer and one of his readers who e-mailed him:
______

“

Of course, it’s

particularly disastrous that the media encourages African-Americans to blame their troubles on white racism, rather to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. Scapegoating whites doesn’t do blacks any good, no matter how useful it is for some whites to blame other whites for black crimes in the endless status struggle among whites for moral superiority.”
______

“

My sense is

that on a whole range of issues, the more something is at variance with obvious reality, the more fervently people attack those who suggest that fact. This was pretty similar to what happened for two or three generations in the late, unlamented USSR.

“I think a secondary element in this is that people who’ve worked/trained very, very hard to ‘doublethink’ their way around reality are bitterly resentful at some indication that maybe all that training might have been wasted. After all, given the nature of human evolution, pretty much *everyone* can see reality, while only highly-trained elites can manage to (pretend to??) avoid seeing it.

“As I’ve said before, I suspect that almost everyone in the world is actually a human biodiversity realist, though the highly trained make enormous efforts to pretend not to be, much like the religious zealots of the Middle Ages sometimes did and claimed to believe all sorts of peculiar things, partly to demonstrate their elite status. Compared to flagellating oneself every Easter (or on Ali Martydom Day, as the Shiites do), just ‘lying’ a lot on TV for lots of money doesn’t seem particularly difficult.

“By contrast, I’m almost sure that the simply-educated Latinos who work at my morning coffee shop watch TV and say to each other ‘those dangerous blacks are rioting again in New Orleans—-Boy, I’m glad I don’t live there!’

“Careerism is an important part of it (is it really so crazy to say silly things on TV about black rioters so that you yourself don’t actually have to live in a neighborhood near them??) and so is ‘fashionability.’

“Consider the latter. Fashions come and go each year, in partially manipulated but partially mysterious ways, and most people mostly go along with them. Near as I can tell, they’re approximately random (e.g. the fashionability of hair length over the last 50 years).

“If all the fashionable people are saying what seem to be silly things, well then, you, too, should probably also say those same things, lest you be considered unfashionable. And if all the smart people (e.g. Harvard professors) say those things, then maybe you’re just not smart enough to understand it properly. And any Harvard professor who might consider saying otherwise would worry about getting in trouble with the Harvard President. And when the Harvard President (accidentally) said something different, well, he learned never to make that same mistake again.”
____________

[Those two simple statements by themselves can replace at least, what, five hundred books published in the last forty years purporting to explain what’s been going on.  Maybe a thousand.  Ten thousand?  Probably that many too ...  A lot, at any rate ... A lot of hypocritical, dishonest, lying, play-acting, “oh-I’m-so-morally-superior-to-you” hot air ...]

Posted by - on September 06, 2005, 11:23 AM | #

JW,
To be blunt, I’m having some problems with some things going on in this blog…

huh?