Death Panels: gateway to freedom and equality

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, 09 April 2010 23:43.

by The Narrator

Everyone I know is fuming over the “unconstitutional” health-care bill that was “un-democratically” shoved down our throats. I have to keep explaining to such people that compared to legislation passed in the 1960’s Obamacare is a minor triviality.

It’s amazing (yet sadly not unexpected) that so many seem to gloss over the rather draconian and spirit-crushing bits of legislation commonly refereed to as “civil rights”. Many seem to prefer to ignore or forget that among the “civil rights” accomplishments have been: legalizing abortion, promoting homosexuality, exalting feminism, attacking and attempting to destroy the family, de-constructing communities, rewriting history, and other equally civilization-crushing acts.

And these were done under the notion of “equality”. And to bring about “equality” our society had to destroy, in theory and in fact, freedom of association.

Since the “civil rights” legislation went into effect, Americans have been told (under threat of government force) who they must live among, who they can do business with, who they can vacation with, who their children must attend school with, and in what company they can congregate. All done to criminalize discrimination. Yet the most fundamental freedom that can be had (either collectively or individually) is the right to discriminate. Take away that right and freedom is instantly dead.

And the critical aspect of this is that prejudices and the discriminations they encourage are generally based on collective historical experience. They are an expression of a society’s hard fought for wisdom, enduring and solidifying down through countless ages of toil and struggle. They are not mere attitudes, but rather moral and social guidelines that define and defend a people.

Demonize the concept (of discrimination) in a society and that society WILL hand over all power over every aspect of its life to exterior (alien and hostile) forces. Because discrimination, at its very root, is the freedom and will of a people to say yes or no: to make an informed choice that is also reflective of a natural, collective instinct. Without it there is neither ability nor will to differentiate between what is good or evil, true or false, beauty or ugliness, hope or despair, man or woman, black or White, up or down and so on.

Most critical of all, without the willingness and encouragement to discriminate, a people will be defenseless against attacks both physical and philosophical. The entire premise of “equality” is the certain erosion of sanity. Thus we have to discriminate or society will collapse into chaos, which, not surprisingly, it has been doing since the 1960’s.

So picking nationalized healthcare as the battlefront at this point is kind of like trying to swat the mosquito on the back of the Grizzly bear that’s cornered you in your own home because you’ve heard they’re disease carriers.

As to differentiating the historical understanding of freedom from the modern concept of “Personal freedom”, it is actually a fairly modern concept without much real historical reality. It doesn’t exist and never has.

It can’t.

“Personal freedom” is anathema to a functioning society. And this we can clearly see before us today, as “freedom” is the rallying cry of the far-left demagogues who seek to take control of every aspect of our lives, even as they wreck them. The “personal freedom” slogans are hung next to the myriad of street cameras watching our every move.

A century of “self-liberating” psychology has resulted in a civilization demoralized through indoctrination of self-hate and strung out on mood-altering anti-depressants and increasingly banal whistle and bells distractions commonly known as entertainment.

It’s such a “free country” we can only move about here and there with the assistance of social engineers, government mandates on minority employment and corporate job placement programs, never forming permanent and historical roots to land and family. Thus we end up alienated, paranoid and securely locked away in our houses behind “security systems” and barred windows.

As our “personal liberty” has increased over the past half a century our society has rapidly descended into chaos. Families are broken and torn apart. As mom and dad trasmute into the base metal mm and step dad or two daddies or two mommies or whatever the Frankenfamily arrangement du jour is, getting their fixes on anti-depressants, the kids have taken to mutilating themselves physically (tattoos, increasingly bizarre piercings, and “cutting”) to mirror their mutilated spirits, which have been crushed by womb-to-tomb propaganda that engenders self-hate and atomization from their people and identity past and present.

The streets are riddled with trash and gangs roam at will. Corruption in politics is a given, and the media’s complicity in it is shrugged off with a “that’s just the way it is” attitude. In the end, this modern notion of freedom (aka, personal liberty) has left a bitter taste in mouths of Western people, even if they’re not quite ready to articulate it.

As to real, historical freedom, we are born bound and obliged to a thousand infringements upon our “personal liberty”. Freedom, in the historical since, was the ability to carry out the obligations of the station in life which the web of history had placed upon you; obligations to parents, wives, children, friends, clan and so on.

Being “the captain of your own ship” or “master of your own destiny” are slogans appealing to the selfishness of those “weighed down” with obligations to wives, children, parents, siblings, clan, friends, community, ancestors and posterity. And true enough, in that sense (the true sense of the notion) death or slavery are the surest ways to “personal liberty”. Because life is obligation. To breathe is to find limitations on your “personal liberty”.

Thus death (of the nature of tribal/ethnic history and collective and personal identity) and slavery (to political correctness, government enforced social engineering, etc) are similar in that both prevent you from fulfilling your obligations to your people. But in that sense they both liberate you from those obligations as well.

Those now fretting over government mandated “death panels” should relax, as it represents the apex of everything America has fought for over the past 40+ years. After all, Death is not only the surest way to “personal freedom” it’s also the state most assuredly conducive to equality among all peoples.

Tags: Oh Tempora, Oh Mores

Comments:

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:39 | #

I’m surprised at the lack of response to this posting, which, imho, is first-rate.
I suppose everyone’s at their devotions.
I refrained from commenting earlier, because, frankly, I can’t keep it up for ever: but I do think this is a good one!
UK readers could base their responses to door-stepping candidates on it.

Posted by Intervenor on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:07 | #

This entry is particularly emptyheaded. Even the basic premise doesn’t hold air:

Since the “civil rights” legislation went into effect, Americans have been told (under threat of government force) who they must live among, who they can do business with, who they can vacation with, who their children must attend school with, and in what company they can congregate. All done to criminalize discrimination. Yet the most fundamental freedom that can be had (either collectively or individually) is the right to discriminate. Take away that right and freedom is instantly dead.

People are free to live wherever they can afford to and with whatever neighbors are in similar circumstances. People are free to do business with whomever they wish within certain legal requirements, such as age and competency. What they cannot do is exclude customers for no rational reason, such as their race. But, what reasonable businessperson would want to? People who do not want their children in diverse environments can send them to private schools. There is no requirement anyone vacation with anyone else. If you’re not invited to hang out with the Obamas at Martha’s Vineyard, that is a personal problem, not one caused by the laws. Why would anyone even bother to build all these straw men scenarios?

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:52 | #

Thanks Gorboduc.
The piece includes some redundant points that have been covered here before, only rephrased in a topical way.
I didn’t expect it to generate much commenting for that reason. But it’s there if anyone wants to reference it or take its themes and expand and better them on their own.
.
.
.
.

What they cannot do is exclude customers for no rational reason, such as their race. But, what reasonable businessperson would want to?

Posted by Intervenor on April 12, 2010, 06:07 AM

Evidently a great many, since recent and radical, constitutional-altering legislation was required to keep them from doing it.

And for good reason.

Detroit, that towering symbol of post-White America (being 81% black), is void of a single chain supermarket, despite it’s nearly one million population. detnews.com/article/20070705/METRO/707050349/Grocery-closings-hit-Detroit-hard

More non-Whites means more crime -inside and outside the stores- which means more costs for security (camera’s, security and so on) and fewer paying customers who don’t want to get mugged in the parking lot.

.
.
.

People are free to live wherever they can afford to and with whatever neighbors are in similar circumstances

Posted by Intervenor on April 12, 2010, 06:07 AM

Nope. Wrong.

Perhaps you’ve not head of “Fair Housing” legislation?

Up until the 1960’ people, Realtors, renters and so on would refuse to sell or rent to blacks, hispanics etc… to keep neighborhoods exclusively White and thus prosperous, clean and safe.
Since the 60’s the federal government has intervened in such transactions and thus forced people to allow blacks and others into their towns and neighborhoods.

I guess you’ve also never heard of White Flight, which was a subsequent reaction to such draconian legislation, and is ongoing to this very day.
.
.
.
.

People who do not want their children in diverse environments can send them to private schools.

Posted by Intervenor on April 12, 2010, 06:07 AM |

That has nothing to do with the point. But even at that few have the financial means to spare their children from “diverse environments”.

Besides, private schools are forced to take non-White students as well.
.
.
.
.

There is no requirement anyone vacation with anyone else.

Posted by Intervenor on April 12, 2010, 06:07 AM

You really don’t understand this subject, do you?

Yes, there is such a requirement.
That is what anti-discrimination legislation is all about. It requires institutions, organizations and commercial transactions to include non-Whites. And not just as a potential, but as a literal number; quotas, affirmative action, etc..

But you contend otherwise, so please tell us of some clubs, resorts, cruises etc.. that are free to advertise and serve a Whites only clientele for summer vacation destinations?
.
.
.
.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:29 | #

That’s OK, Narrator:
imho, Intervenor has got it wrong.
Yes, technically I can live wherever I like: but I’m gettin on a bit, my earning capacity/job-getting ability isn’t what it was 20 years ago, when my neighbourhood was 95% white, and as the incomers are driving property prices down and the place looks dirtier and tattier, my chances of moving to a better locale are diminishing.

Truth - I’d typed that in before I realised that your post went on to deal with exactly that point!

For me, legislastion has nothing to do with it: I’m just pissed off at being the only white o the bus, in my carriage on the Underground.
I’m finding hospital personnel harder and harder to deal with, as they have so little English.

Perhaps Intravenous has enough cash to buy himself out of trouble: and if he DOES do that, he’ll have madfe all your points for you.

Your post is an good concise summary, and your point that the acceptance of certain “liberties” means that you’ve handed over the primal ones to get shit in return is very good.

Posted by Intervenor on Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:30 | #

That is what anti-discrimination legislation is all about. It requires institutions, organizations and commercial transactions to include non-Whites.

Are you really this stupid? Discrimination would be excluding people from the rights conferred upon citizens of a country because of their ‘race’ or other immutable characteristics. You have it backwards. Non-discrimination maximizes opportunity for all citizens. It also prevents societies from wasting human capital.

What you confuse with ‘freedom’ is white supremacy - declaring people superior based on an accident of birth and conferring unearned benefits on them as a result. Feeding the delusion of racial superiority deprives everyone of freedom, including the deluded.

We’ve been reminded of that recently with the alleged murder of neo-Nazi homosexual pederast Eugene Terreblanc in South Africa. The few thousand remaining hardcore white supremacists there clearly live in a fabricated alternative reality.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:04 | #

What they cannot do is exclude customers for no rational reason, such as their race. But, what reasonable businessperson would want to?

John, whose neighborhood is turning black.

A crisis of violence

John is white. He is married with two children. He wears a blue collar when he leaves his shabby, inner-city house to go to work. Life has been a struggle for John, but now he faces his most difficult challenge. John’s neighborhood is turning black.

In John’s city, neighborhoods do not integrate, they go black. He has seen it happen elsewhere. He knows what to expect. John and his family will soon face intolerable hardships. They will have to move. Inevitably the last whites able to leave, will. High among their reasons will be fear—fear of becoming victims of violent crime. As his neighborhood turns black, John and his family will notice many changes, but none will be more dreaded than the prospect of being violently victimized.

We will model violent crime in John’s neighborhood, tracing its evolution as the community goes from all white to all black. We will chart the course of victimization from insidious beginnings to the threshold of intolerability. We will show that initially the swelling danger will be barely noticeable, but from the beginning there will be an underlying acceleration that ultimately will drive the risk to extreme levels.

The data

The data reveal two causes of white victimization by blacks. First, a black is 3 times more likely than a white to commit violent crime. However, as a neighborhood turns black, this factor could increase black-on-white violence at most by a factor of 3, and then only when a neighborhood is virtually all black. The observed level of white victimization is much too high to blame on general tendencies of blacks to be violent. A more important reason is simply that blacks prefer white victims.

The best and most complete evidence comes from the Justice Department. Its annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) canvasses a representative sample of about 80,000 Americans, from roughly 43,000 households. From this survey, a picture of crime is painted by its victims. The last full report of the NCVS was issued in 1994. From it we learn that blacks committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against whites. In the same year, whites committed 165,345 such offenses against blacks. Despite being only 13 percent of the population, blacks committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial crime. Less than 15 percent of these had robbery as a motive. The rest were assaults and rapes.

The asymmetry of interracial crime goes still deeper. More than half the violence committed by blacks is directed against whites, 57 percent in 1994. Less than 3 percent of the violence committed by whites is directed against blacks. Population and NCVS statistics reveal that in 1994 a black was 64 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. In the city, the races live mostly apart from one another, so that the most convenient victims of thugs are others of the same race. Only a hunter’s mentality could account for the data. Given a choice, a black thug will select a white victim. Ironically, so will a white thug.

http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:14 | #

Are you really this stupid? Discrimination would be excluding people from the rights conferred upon citizens of a country because of their ‘race’ or other immutable characteristics. You have it backwards. Non-discrimination maximizes opportunity for all citizens. It also prevents societies from wasting human capital.
>Intravenor

“Non-discrimination”, “human capital”, race in scare quotes. We have a commie on our hands.

Isn’t it funny how these fanatics view all humans as mere commodities, and yet somehow we racialists are the ones denounced as insane?

What you confuse with ‘freedom’ is white supremacy - declaring people superior based on an accident of birth and conferring unearned benefits on them as a result. Feeding the delusion of racial superiority deprives everyone of freedom, including the deluded.

We’re sick of you fanatics dictating to us what to think. We aren’t obliged to help a bunch of sullen non-whites who are only here to suck off the public teat. We don’t care that you label it “white supremacy”, because the current ideology is anti-white supremacy and anything is better than that as far as we are concerned. This is just so much moralizing from some commie twit, you lot are a dime a dozen these days - a shame to have so much rabble running about unchecked.

We’ve been reminded of that recently with the alleged murder of neo-Nazi homosexual pederast Eugene Terreblanc in South Africa.

Ha ha ha. Yeah, you’d have to provide some evidence beyond the say-so of the chronically lying, jew-and-commie-controlled “mainstream” media to get anyone here to believe that load of guff.

The few thousand remaining hardcore white supremacists there clearly live in a fabricated alternative reality.

And this from a moralizing humanist. How ironic.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:14 | #

Are you really this stupid? Discrimination would be excluding people from the rights conferred upon citizens of a country because of their ‘race’ or other immutable characteristics. You have it backwards. Non-discrimination maximizes opportunity for all citizens. It also prevents societies from wasting human capital.

Posted by Intervenor on April 14, 2010, 08:30 PM

Sorry, I already shot that argument down in the previous post. Attempts to forbid people from excluding others based on racial/ethnic differences has been a determent to economic growth. In fact it is one of the leading causes of the housing bubble which nearly (as yet, may still) destroyed our economy.

The fact is, more non-Whites = lower quality of living conditions.

Jump up and down all you like, that’s just the way it is.
.
.
.
.
.

What you confuse with ‘freedom’ is white supremacy - declaring people superior based on an accident of birth and conferring unearned benefits on them as a result. Feeding the delusion of racial superiority deprives everyone of freedom, including the deluded.

Posted by Intervenor on April 14, 2010, 08:30 PM

An accident of birth?

You’re religious I take it….well,

No, none of us are accidentally born to a certain race or in a certain location. That’s why, for example, Chinese couples don’t give birth to Irish children or Robins give birth to Crows or vice versa.

You didn’t pre-exist as some sort of spirit that just happened to fall out of the sky and into your mother’s womb.

We are each the amalgamation of tens of thousand of years of evolution -of genes passed down through our ancestors one generation at a time.

Our personalities, temperaments, moral/social proclivities and so on are pre-determined by the flow of genes that are passed onto us from our biological ancestors.

No “accidents” there.

And the inevitability of the outcome is, as well, obvious. Thus there is not one single solitary place on planet earth with an overwhelming black majority that isn’t riddled with crime, poverty and disease. From Detroit to Haiti…

But superiority or inferiority has nothing to do with it. Because there are no universals, either of standards or morals. So that what Whites would term superior or inferior will be completely different from how blacks or Asians would define them.

The different races have inherently different notions of right and wrong, law and order, good and bad and so on.
That’s why, despite the attempts of social engineers to the contrary, the races remain so glaringly incompatible and continue to self-segregate.
.
.
.
.

We’ve been reminded of that recently with the alleged murder of neo-Nazi homosexual pederast Eugene Terreblanc in South Africa. The few thousand remaining hardcore white supremacists there clearly live in a fabricated alternative reality.

Posted by Intervenor on April 14, 2010, 08:30 PM

Considering your prior talking points, I’d think South Africa would be the last thing you’d want to bring up.

You’re not very smart are you?

Anyway, as to Mr. Terre’Blanche and the notion that discrimination is bad for business,

From AlternativeRight,

Those of us who’ve been studying the systematic, race-based extermination of farming South Africa know too well the telltale signs of a farm murder. Without exception, Mr. Terre’Blanche and all 3,149 farmers murdered since “freedom” were slaughtered in ways that would do Shaka Zulu proud.

The brutality of the racially motivated murders of white farmers in South Africa, and, increasingly, of whites in general, is one aspect of these crimes. Mr. Terre’Blanche was unrecognizable. Two weeks before he was slaughtered, 17-year-old Anika Smit was raped, her throat slashed 16 times and her hands hacked off and removed from the scene.

Both acts of butchery were unremarkable in Mandela’s South Africa.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/elsewhere/war-on-white-south-africa/

.
.
.
.
More on post-Apartheid South Africa here, http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/south_africa/
.
.
.
.

Isn’t it funny how these fanatics view all humans as mere commodities, and yet somehow we racialists are the ones denounced as insane?
Posted by Gudmund on April 14, 2010, 10:14 PM

I think it really bothers and frustrates them that America was founded and prospered upon the very principles they now denounce as being bad for business. And that since America has outlawed discrimination she has begun to sink economically and socially on pretty much every level.

Liberalism is essentially a declaration of war against reality. That is why its adherents are compelled to arguments so gratuitously hypocritical.

That and simply repeating themselves over and over.
.
.
.

...

Posted by scott bool on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:55 | #

Dear Narrator,

I think your analysis of the concept of slavery and „personal liberty“ is succinct and refreshing:

Slavery and bondage, on the other hand, often “liberated” individuals personally from their responsibilities to their people. It limited their obligations to physical, daily, duties that asked nothing more of them than to complete an assigned task.
Being “the captain of your own ship” or “master of your own destiny” are slogans appealing to the selfishness of those “weighed down” with obligations to wives, children, parents, siblings, clan, friends, community, ancestors and posterity. And true enough, in that sense (the true sense of the notion) death or slavery are the surest ways to “personal liberty”. Because life is obligation. To breathe is to find limitations on your “personal liberty”.

If you are feeling “weighed down” with obligations, I would be happy to own you as my slave. You will work all daylight hours toiling my farm but you will have Sundays free to socialize with other slaves. Of course if I catch you reading, writing, or discussing any of your “ideas” with other slaves you will be physically punished or even killed. But I am sure you will be happy to be relieved of this cumbersome duty…

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:05 | #

In other words, just another day in the life of a tax paying White American.

.
.
.
.
.
.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”
—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments