Comment Of The Day: “My Name Is Jack, I Am Not A Racist, And All Of You Are A Disgrace To The Nation.”

Well, you knew this, by Steve-O-in NJ, would be a Comment of the Day. I virtually begged for someone to  issue a manifesto in response to my post. There were at least six likely candidates among the regulars here, but if I had to bet, my money would have been on Steve. Here is his COTD on “My Name Is Jack, I Am Not A Racist, And All Of You Are A Disgrace To The Nation.”

Oh–in a blog with a more diverse commentariat, I could count on at least one rebuttal. I hereby pledge that any reasonably articulate one will have Comment of the Day status.

My name is Steven, and I am a conservative and a Republican. I’ve been a Republican since I was 18 and never once considered walking away.

I believe Europe and the Europeans got to where they are because they learned to be better at navigation, exploration, and warfare than others, no other reasons.

I believe Christopher Columbus was a brave navigator who sailed where no one else dared to go, and that without his opening the way between old world and new, the United States would not have come to be, and the world would be the poorer for it.

I believe that George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and FDR were the right men at the right time to deal with the biggest crises this country found itself in, and lesser men might well have failed, and we’d be worse off for it.

I believe that the Founding Fathers got it right, and that their work doesn’t deserve to be discarded because men two centuries ago did not measure up to the values of less than two decades ago.

I believe that the conquest of the frontier was inevitable, as is always the case when a more developed society meets a less developed one.

I believe that slavery was wrong, that it benefitted increasingly fewer and fewer as time went on, and that the US took longer than it should have to abolish it. I also know that abolition came at a terrible price when it did come, and that if the issue had been forced in 1787 this country would never have come to be. I also know that it now hasn’t existed in this country for 155 years and no one who was a slave or who owned, traded, bought or sold a slave, or did so on another’s behalf, is still alive.

I believe in individual rights, not group rights, and that the color of your skin, your gender, what name you use when you pray (or if you pray at all), or how you work out your sexuality gives you no more and no less rights than anyone else.

I believe that no one owes anyone else anything except by whatever transaction he and another may freely choose to enter into.

I believe that everyone is himself primarily responsible for his success and happiness, and that everyone should make the best use of what talents he has to overcome whatever obstacles he meets.

I believe in individual responsibility, not group responsibility, for wrong acts. No one should be made to answer for wrong acts that he himself did not commit.

I believe the playing field is NOT level and the books of life do NOT balance out perfectly, and that’s just how it is, how it always has been, and how it always will be.

I believe in freedom of speech – and that means I may not like what you have to say, but I will not interfere with your ability to say it. I ask that you reciprocate.

I believe everyone is free to choose to honor or not to honor whoever and whatever he chooses, but not to tell others who they can and can’t, nor to destroy what he disagrees with simply because he does.

I believe it is government’s role to protect people and provide necessary services, not to run their lives, and that includes not trying to enforce civility, kindness, or “right thinking” among citizens.

I believe in freedom of religion, not just freedom of worship. That means the power to compel someone to go against his conscience is very limited, and that if the government can’t compel you to vote for your leadership or to pick up a gun and defend your country, it should not be able to compel you to bake a cake or arrange flowers.

I believe that anyone is free to move about this country and free to move about the world, although other countries may have their own ideas on the matter. That’s all right, each country gets to decide these things for itself. However, if you choose to enter this country with the intention of staying, you must do so by the rules we have decided apply.

I believe that if you want the government to do something, you need to go through the established process, not force it by mob action or vandalism.

I believe society should try to help those who find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. However, I believe there is a limit to that help, and it is meant to be help, not a lifestyle.

I believe those who break society’s rules should receive appropriate punishment. Sometimes that means lengthy confinement or even execution. Justice may be combined with mercy, but there is no requirement that it be, especially for those who persist in breaking society’s rules.

I believe that your success or failure is mainly yours, and one person’s failure does not create a lien on another’s success.

I don’t believe I owe anyone an apology just for being who and what I am. I believe there is always room to do better, but that doing better means increasing your knowledge, your skills, or the good you do, it does not mean thinking the way others want to force you to think.

I don’t believe any of this makes me a racist, and if anyone believes it does, it says more about him than it does about me.

19 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “My Name Is Jack, I Am Not A Racist, And All Of You Are A Disgrace To The Nation.”

  1. I nominated this as a COTD and it’s definitely worthy. I’m not a conservative nor a republican… otherwise I absolutely agree with every other statement you made. I think the new left in America stands against just about everything you listed, and your closing comment sums it up. It’s not us, it’s them.

      • I said effectively the same thing to your original comment. Freedom of speech has become a conservative position. Now we don’t go to the ACLU for freedom of speech cases, we go to FIRE or other conservative legal foundations. Once the left starts trying to censor speech, I’m being forced to embrace the Republican party.

  2. Here’s what I don’t believe:

    -That Black Lives Matter represents black people. Only compliant blacks willing to be used as cannon fodder for a fake race war matter. If blacks truly mattered, the disproportionate rates of black abortion would be addressed. Black on black crime would be addressed. Fatherlessness would be addressed. Black resilience would be highlighted and encouraged rather than resentment and weakness.

    -That the rainbow flag represents gays or bisexuals or transgender people. That rainbow represents a political faction, not people who just want to live their lives in peace. I also don’t believe same-sex attraction has anything to do with gender incongruence and the two shouldn’t be confused.

    -That all whites are supremacists or that all people who appear white are actually white.

    -That women (yes I mean biological) are all marginalized by the patriarchy. In fact as far as I can tell, women seem to be just as competent at devaluing and demeaning women as any male misogynist. Women shouldn’t just blindly be believed regarding accusations and shouldn’t get free passes when they engage in and aid in the abuse of others.

    -That all progressives are Marxist or all conservatives are Nazis (and remember Nazis were socialist). Tribalism and theatrical pandering is equal among extremists regardless of political party. I do believe politics is ever changing and shouldn’t be ones primary hobby.

    -That violence will make much better. I also don’t believe banning guns will stop violence.

  3. Great expression of your beliefs, Steve, and a well-deserved COTD. The part that resonates most strongly with me is the zeroing in on individual rights, responsibilities, mids-deeds, and achievements. I really don’t understand how anyone can not come to that point of view. Whether they view people through the lens of science, politics, religion, ethics, history, or any other viewpoint, they still must see that we all are individuals.

  4. I could not agree more with Steve’s creed. I wish I had the talent and the resources to mount a counter movement. Those of us that agree with this need to do something peaceful but forceful soon before all hell breaks loose. If we simply write about the changes that are happening we will be overwhelmed. If we do nothing we deserve what we get. Hell, even the equivalent Pickett’s charge would be better than nothing. Great Job Steve.

      • Underground communities are forming now, even (maybe specially) in deep blue areas. People who mostly keep their heads down and nod to keep their jobs. It will be a surprise to many if we are ever pushed over the edge.

      • Excellent! I knew reasonable people were out there (and particularly here on this blog), but it’s affirming to see people willing to stand up for sanity. Jack, can you please send me email addresses of those who want in, or vice versa?

        Here’s the summary of the plan thus far:

        Using our understanding of human psychology, my cohort and I are designing a movement to pull people away from destructive politics and signaling, and into collaborative problem-solving.

        The angle we’re looking at right now is to help people develop constructive skills that actually accomplish something for their communities. This approach will get people’s attention because it’s based primarily on results, rather than on empty rhetoric.

        As we demonstrate that we are effective where politicians and popular leaders fail, we can leverage that to get people to start listening to the nuanced concepts that our actions are based on. They’ll realize that arguing back and forth about policy is futile if they don’t have healthy communities that can handle themselves without begging politicians to do things for them.

        At the moment we’re identifying the key practical problems that people and their communities face, and what skills and expertise it will take not only to address them in a meaningful and visible manner, but to scale them up, by recruiting and training more people, and then to present the whole project as a proof of concept that people can solve their own problems by developing skills and responsibility rather than by yelling at each other.

        The reason that we can deliberately build healthy communities where most have failed before is that we have a toolbox of foundational concepts for framing nuanced problems and helping people understand what it takes to solve them. (Some of these concepts I’ve mentioned here before, such as the mindsets of perception, action, communication, and facilitation; the attributes of initiative, resilience, mobility, and intensity; and the virtues of investment, exposure, transcendence, and ethics.) We can give people a place to start, and turn barriers into hills that can be climbed. We can see pitfalls far in advance because we have a checklist of the angles that a problem can approach from, and the skills and habits that go into preventing them.

        If you see any issues with this approach, even just letting us know about them would be a great help. I’ll be pulling in other people from my social circles to help design and coordinate systems that target key community problems to produce benefits large enough to send a message that transcends party ideologies:

        “We can take care of ourselves, and we will take care of each other. We don’t live and die by which party’s in office.”

        How does that sound? I can be in touch for discussing the project in more detail.

  5. My name is Steven, and I am a conservative and a Republican. I’ve been a Republican since I was 18 and never once considered walking away.

    To be a Republican or not be a Republican is not — it cannot — be any sort of answer. A Republican is just a political party. What matters — the only thing that matters really — is one’s inner status. That is, in the sense of being committed to being a citizen. If you never considered walking away from being a Republican then you might not have been paying attention to a great deal that corrupt Republicans have done. Obviously, a critical stance of Republicans — and literally everyone and anyone — is the far better attitude of a responsible citizen.

    I believe Europe and the Europeans got to where they are because they learned to be better at navigation, exploration, and warfare than others, no other reasons.

    Their explorations, and their conquests, and all the rest, could be seen as a consequence of certain ideas they held. For example the Chinese culture (if my history is correct) did not choose to explore nor to conquer the world. They kept to themselves and build barriers to the outside world.

    The Occidental men were moved to venture into the world is an effect of other causes. And it is completely wrong to believe that Occidental success and the high relevance and power of Occidental ideas — their success — came as a result strictly of their navigation, exploration and war ability. Rome conquered the European tribes but they were successful because of larger ideas that *stuck*. Gallic culture was a Roman vestige. It would not be possible to say that Rome was great simply because she had a superior military capability.

    I believe Christopher Columbus was a brave navigator who sailed where no one else dared to go, and that without his opening the way between old world and new, the United States would not have come to be, and the world would be the poorer for it.

    A truism.

    I believe that George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and FDR were the right men at the right time to deal with the biggest crises this country found itself in, and lesser men might well have failed, and we’d be worse off for it.

    Here your self-serving bias enters in. You cannot make an absolute statement about these men, their action in history, nor what they did. You cannot even say that it was *better* that the Germans were defeated and could not have held to their territorial gains. It is quite possible that were they to have been allowed to gain and hold that territory that something valuable — in any case ‘valid’ — might have developed. England sacrificed her empire to fight and defeat the Germans. England lost significantly. It is impossible to say without impossible speculations what might have happened with other turnings of history.

    When you say ‘worse off’ you are expressing your opinion but you have no certain knowledge. No one does in fact. You have ‘belief’ and you have ‘faith’ though. As such that is valid.

    I believe that the Founding Fathers got it right, and that their work doesn’t deserve to be discarded because men two centuries ago did not measure up to the values of less than two decades ago.

    Well, they got many things right. They got a lot of things right. But the things that they did get right — the values they established — were also significantly transgressed by following generations. You cannot rely on them or lean on them to validate your essentially romantic view of America. But you are a romantic (as is Jack). In this sense you live in an unreal world. It keeps you from *accurately seeing* when you must wear those spectacles. You have set your will on turning against what the Founders believed very strongly in certain, specific senses. And that is something that can be brought out and talked about. You are not necessarily the heir to their will and intentions, though you definitely say that you are.

    I believe that the conquest of the frontier was inevitable, as is always the case when a more developed society meets a less developed one.

    A truism.

    I believe that slavery was wrong, that it benefitted increasingly fewer and fewer as time went on, and that the US took longer than it should have to abolish it. I also know that abolition came at a terrible price when it did come, and that if the issue had been forced in 1787 this country would never have come to be. I also know that it now hasn’t existed in this country for 155 years and no one who was a slave or who owned, traded, bought or sold a slave, or did so on another’s behalf, is still alive.

    Here, of course, as a Northerner, you begin to slide into mendaciousness. To the degree that you actually support the North’s war on the southern section is the degree that you slide into misrepresentation and mistruth. It is a false claim to say the War Between the States was primarily about slavery nor to abolish it. So, here the Northern bias enters in. This is an infection of the intellect. It spreads from this lie into other areas of lying. It must be corrected.

    I believe in individual rights, not group rights, and that the color of your skin, your gender, what name you use when you pray (or if you pray at all), or how you work out your sexuality gives you no more and no less rights than anyone else.

    Here you have come under the sway of Hyper-Progressives like MLK. This is largely a post-Sixties set of *beliefs*. You have *internalized* these views and ideas into a neo-conservative article of belief. It is far more important in a definite sense to place on a higher rung of valuation the necessity of preserving the integrity of one’s people, and that involves a form of recognition and self-understanding that you have not lost completely, but significantly. It is far more important to recognize what has happened over the last 60 years more or less that has brought about a negative change.

    The ‘color of your skin’ is a trick phrase in certain ways. It reduces the really important to what seems superficial, and thus ridiculous. A rock could be tan or it could be gray but it remains a rock nevertheless. But that sort of categorization is rendered silly when it comes to defining the sort of people that will make up a nation.

    But I do understand that you are trying to counter certain excesses in Hyper-Liberal and deviant culture.

    And ‘the name you use when you pray’ is another tricky phrase. Your use of it shows that you have, in fact, left your own religion. You do not really believe it. You have in a sense replaced it with a pseudo-religious model: the wide and ever-filling tent of Liberalism.

    The fact of the matter is that the *name* does indeed matter — it matters tremendously. Here, you demonstrate how far you have wandered into relativism. Again, you cannot defend yourself (what made you you) because you have failed to understand what is there and what is at stake.

    This is one of the reasons I say *you are part of the problem, not part of a solution to it*. And there are numerous areas where you (plural) evince this.

    I believe that no one owes anyone else anything except by whatever transaction he and another may freely choose to enter into.

    This sounds good — it is designed to sound good — but in a sense it is sophistic. I could make a countervailing statement and say “We owe each other a great deal and what we ow to others does not depend on a transaction“. But of course I would say such a thing because of my sense of a religious commitment. The things that we have been given and what we have received — perhaps even in the majority — came as gifts.

    But I think I grasp that you are saying that there are many people who abuse generosity. And this notion of generosity can be extended far and wide and far away from transactions.

    I believe that everyone is himself primarily responsible for his success and happiness, and that everyone should make the best use of what talents he has to overcome whatever obstacles he meets.

    A truism, largely.

    I believe in individual responsibility, not group responsibility, for wrong acts. No one should be made to answer for wrong acts that he himself did not commit.

    I have a feeling that your view would fall apart, or be tossed to the side, when it came to the ‘group responsibility’ of an enemy. I had been reading about the American-led Nuremberg *show-trial*. The notion that ‘the German people must pay’ and pay dearly for what they did and what they allowed was a very strong motive. What you may be saying is that “I do not want to accept any responsibility for the actions and choices of previous generations”.

    It is not that I disagree with what I think you are saying. It is that you-plural have taught me, better, how to notice and point out hypocrisy. And it is not that I condemn hypocrisy necessarily! It is just that I think one should be an *honest hypocrite*.

    I believe the playing field is NOT level and the books of life do NOT balance out perfectly, and that’s just how it is, how it always has been, and how it always will be.

    A truism. But isn’t there more I am supposed to read into this? What else are you saying? What if a man robs another man? What about the age-old debate about *justice*?

    I believe in freedom of speech – and that means I may not like what you have to say, but I will not interfere with your ability to say it. I ask that you reciprocate.

    This is a tough one. Not because I do not agree, essentially, but because he notion of what is ‘speech’ has been perverted tremendously. The capacity to *speak* and to be heard certainly depends on having access to those means of communication. But if those who control those means of communication are communicating *evil* — how shall I deal with that? What if this *evil* (not an entirely subjective category but one with some subjectivity certainly) has the power to get through all the *fences* I might put up against it? How then to look on *free speech*?

    To have that conversation, in fullness, is an involved topic.

    But I think that what you are saying is that now, today, entities and groups and persons are curtailing certain forms of political speech. And objecting to what they are doing is important.

    It gets very little attention here on this blog. That is, the vast number of people who are being *silenced* and excluded.

    Part Two is coming soon!

    • Aliza

      What Steve wrote is a personal creed. He has formed opinions based on his life’s experience. You negate his beliefs with conjecture but allowing the Reich to flourish was the policy of Neville Chamberlain until the Battle of Britain. My ancestors came from Bavaria and my grandfather fought the axis powers at Anzio while my uncle fought the SS at the Bulge. They would disagree with you based,on the atrocities to which they bore witness. If you are saying that we would be better off if the Reich was able to complete its final solution then you have a seriously warped view of political economy.

      Why not develop a list of what you stand for instead of taking issue with the beliefs of others. Knowing exactly where you -and not others stand on the same topics might advance the dialogue. Offering only intellectual critiques without taking a stand is at best sophistry and at worse cowardly.

      • He has formed opinions based on his life’s experience. You negate his beliefs with conjecture…

        I do not in any sense negate his beliefs, I do not have such power. What I do — what I am doing generally — is working in critical angles and with a critical frame of mind. I define myself (or I am beginning to define myself) as a “Dissident Right critic of American Conservatism”.

        Another thing: none of this should be personal! In my world — political philosophy, the philosophy of the present, call it what you will — the *personal* cannot enter in. This is impersonal. It has to do with ideas.

        We are — obviously — at a critical juncture. Not just America but Europe too. A time like this demands seriousness, not weak-hearted sentimentalism.

        Steve’s credo is more than his possession. It is a posture within conservative Republicanism. It is rather common really. It also has its flaws and its blind-spots.

        If you are saying that we would be better off if the Reich was able to complete its final solution then you have a seriously warped view of political economy.

        You miss my point and here restate it in some other way. You are pulling me into very very controversial territory. This is what you — you Americans in this case — always do!

        What I say is that it is not possible to have any definite knowledge about historical alternatives. What FDR did is the only historical route that was taken. Speculation as to what may have happened had he not been a player . . . is vain. There are no historical alternatives.

        The general idea that I work with — having graciously been allowed to participate here on this blog despite my contrary ideas (for which I am appreciative) is that you-plural have a very hard time entertaining any contrary ideas to your ideological formulations and your opinions. Both Jack and Steve are, to my mind, *emblematic* of this stance or this internal configuration.

        We are adversaries in some senses but I choose in no sense to see them or anyone as an enemy. What you do is your (plural) choice. I remain ezxactly the same either way.

        Easy-going, cheery, in short basically wonderful. 🙂

        My object is to a) learn all that I can here and also learn through entertaining oppositional, contrary ideas, and b) do this politely while c) having tremendous fun!

        This is really great fun.

  6. Sorry to have kept everyone waiting! We had to polish our Hitler statue and then spent the whole afternoon looking to those black candles that emit that lovely sulfuric aroma so warming to the Nazi heart. They are getting harder & harder to find! (It is a conspiracy).
    __________________________________

    I believe everyone is free to choose to honor or not to honor whoever and whatever he chooses, but not to tell others who they can and can’t, nor to destroy what he disagrees with simply because he does.

    Again, a fundamental liberal tenet. It would work if the views and ideas of those who made up the democratic-liberal society tended to think and believe and desire within shared general categories. But as I have said in other places: the liberal *agreements* are coming apart at their seams, and not only in America but in Europe (and in other places as well I reckon). The problem is that when you allow a society to be created in which disparate people attempt to function together, or when they are thrown together, they conflict with one another.

    So, though it is admirable that peoples who are *roughly similar* in their basic ideas choose to have toleration for the slightly-different neighbor, it is quite another thing when different people have radically different notions of *the good* and also the *necessary*.

    You say that ‘everyone is free’ and should be free to ‘honor’ who they wish to honor yet I doubt that you yourself would carry though on such honoring. Again the *you* I use here is general, In any zone in America, in any platform of communication be it liberal or conservative, can I genuinely and freely ‘honor’ David Duke or the American Nazi Rockwell? The answer is ‘no’. You describe yourself as a Conservative but it is definitely true that there is no conservative platform anywhere in America that would ‘honor’ David Duke or for example Lothrop Stoddard or Madison Grant. There came a moment when so-called Conservatives jettisoned and excluded (and vilified) those naughty ones who it was necessary and expedient to push out as conservatism *sold itself out*.

    So when I read such a statement I tend to be suspicious of it. It sounds right and looks right but it covers over certain facts and truths that need to be seen with clarity.

    I believe it is government’s role to protect people and provide necessary services, not to run their lives, and that includes not trying to enforce civility, kindness, or “right thinking” among citizens.

    Yet this denies that the American Liberal State has indeed moved into that role. So what the Conservative says about small government and limited government is rendered completely absurd given what has actually taken place over many decades. When one examines the tenets of the Liberal State of today one uncovers a sort of *beast* that has broken all the liberal rules and has extended itself tremendously. The declared object(s) of Liberalism is to create a tent where disparate peoples can successfully get on without too much conflict. But that same state when it moves into the *hyper* status becomes totalizing in its own ways.

    And what you say here also denies that America — that is, private interests within the body politic — have neo-imperial interests all over the world and they require and use the State to expand and protect those interests. It is not the citizens as a generality who have any stake at all in those global interests, and yet the massive State serves those powerful private interests. Your statement is rendered absurd because you won’t or perhaps simply can’t see and understand *reality*: what has happened and what has been done.

    Are you a romantic or are you simply *willfully ignorant*? Again, these are some of the reasons to be profoundly suspicious of so-called Conservatives. They do not tell the truth.

    I believe in freedom of religion, not just freedom of worship. That means the power to compel someone to go against his conscience is very limited, and that if the government can’t compel you to vote for your leadership or to pick up a gun and defend your country, it should not be able to compel you to bake a cake or arrange flowers.

    But that is only the *surface reading*. The issue of if a person will or will not be compelled to serve some other person is a superficial aspect of a far larger issue. That issue is how a liberal culture foments in certain senses the extremes of perversion. Then, the perverts start to demand their *rights* and in respect to this you have no *voice*. Once the perverts have gained enough power in their numbers they can and they do parade through your town displaying open perversions that a few short years ago would have been shunned (they likely would have been beaten actually). But you can say nothing. You have to *accept*. And also certain insidious philosophies that defend certain sorts of perversion are taught to your children. These perversions become *marketable* and profitable. And then they become woven into the economic fabric.

    But as a Liberalist you have no defense against it. Because liberalism while supporting one value-set must necessarily nullify many others. It is really a quite complex issue. As I say American Liberalism is in a crisis which it does not seem to be able to name and see. The same is true in Europe. It takes defining power away from the individual and renders that individual ineffective. Then, the environment of Liberalism (the State essentially) intervenes when it needs to to enforce the rules of such liberalism.

    I believe that anyone is free to move about this country and free to move about the world, although other countries may have their own ideas on the matter. That’s all right, each country gets to decide these things for itself. However, if you choose to enter this country with the intention of staying, you must do so by the rules we have decided apply.

    Though you may believe this, and I can say I respect your belief, the actual facts about coercive Americanism and the Americanopolis are very different indeed. But you can neither see it and therefore you cannot talk about it. You are unaware of a critique of the Americanopolis — for example among those in Europe who feel a need to resist it. In all frankness there are times on this blog when I feel I am talking to children, not to citixen-adults. Your forced romanticism, your willed ignorance, about the role and effects of your own *hyper* culture is something you cannot see.

    This is referred to as the Globo-Homo Culture. But such a term and the ideas standing behind it have very little role in American Conservative thought. Or they do but more toward the ‘fringes’.

    But fear not! I see it. And I will talk about it until the sun and the moon fall out of the sky.

    I believe that if you want the government to do something, you need to go through the established process, not force it by mob action or vandalism.

    People that begin to riot and burn need to be shot in the streets by the hundreds and by the thousands. Kind of like that WikiLeaks video of the attack helicopter firing on those assembled people in Iraq.

    [Oooops. That just burst out.]

    I believe society should try to help those who find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. However, I believe there is a limit to that help, and it is meant to be help, not a lifestyle.

    The problem here is with a economic class that has all the means to increase its wealth as-against people who don’t and whose wealth-base is *systematically* reduced with every passing year. This class, if you will permit me to use such a vulgar term, does not give a fig about the well-being of people in their communities, nor their families nor their children in any of the important senses. So, to all appearances, the divisions in ownership and access to wealth (and thus to well-being) are becoming notably increased. You could I guess blame those who suffer at those lowest levels (there are vast homeless camps in all of America’s cities with all the attending problems) but that is sort of the *old-school* way of looking at it.

    How did this come about? What has happened in America that things have got to this point? I think that that needs to be the Question of all time. My own theory is that America’s absolutely immoral recent wars have a large part in it. But also that America has been turned into an ‘investment portfolio’ of interests who really have no interest in it as a society.

    And can you — can anyone writing on this blog — actually talk about these things? I don’t think so. You are muzzled and silent in so many important categories.

    Ah, yes, you’re Conservatives! You conserve nothing.

    I believe those who break society’s rules should receive appropriate punishment. Sometimes that means lengthy confinement or even execution. Justice may be combined with mercy, but there is no requirement that it be, especially for those who persist in breaking society’s rules.

    That is true. But I am led to wonder — philosophically — if there are not also higher laws of society, of decency and civility, that are not broken as a rule. As established practice. That is what happens in a corrupt society. And I am at least somewhat certain that the Republican Establishment had its role in *selling out America*. Again, I can talk about this freely and without constraint. You cannot.

    I believe that your success or failure is mainly yours, and one person’s failure does not create a lien on another’s success.

    This sounds right but it is not really right. Systems are created that favor those who create them. This does not deny that hard work can overcome many obstacles. Yet there are some systems that are slanted. America seems to be moving increasingly in these directions. That is to say that a class with all the means and knowledge to increase and expand its wealth can dominate the culture in a large sense. (Yet still, from my Third World perspective, America still offers astounding opportunity so do not misunderstand what I say here).

    I don’t believe I owe anyone an apology just for being who and what I am. I believe there is always room to do better, but that doing better means increasing your knowledge, your skills, or the good you do, it does not mean thinking the way others want to force you to think.

    What you are saying is that you have recently been made to feel culpable because you are White. And that a movement of anti-Whiteness is afoot. Who stands behind this? Who put this in motion? You do not have any idea because to examine that involves highly forbidden research.

    This is why I often say *you focus on superficials*. You see *surface* but you cannot see depth. You are *mystified* in so many ways! But to say this offends you. And then you fortify your status within that mystification.

    I don’t believe any of this makes me a racist, and if anyone believes it does, it says more about him than it does about me.

    Using the term ‘racism’ in the anti-Whiteness war is really just a game. You are amazingly susceptible to being called a *racist* that you (plural in this sense) collapse when it is used.

    Be not a *racist* but definitely be a *racialist*. Understand that race has some part in this but is not the totality. Defend Europe and also *being White* without any reserve. Smash the teeth and break the teeth of anyone who minimally insults yourself, your ancestors, the Founders, and kill them if they even try to topple your monuments and statues.

    I say this just to provide an example of a necessary intolerance. The fact is that it is likely best, at least right now, not to do this. But the social climate Is beginning to shift. Slowly & surely there is less and less willingness to put up with destructive nonsense.

    See, my view is that it is you, in some definite senses — not in all senses but in some senses that can be talked about fairly and rationally — who are profoundly complicit in *what has happened*.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.