Jesse Kelly: “It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous”

https://i0.wp.com/thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/11286659155_0103115a70_h-998x687.jpg

This idea of breaking up the United States may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town.

Source: It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous

Let me preface my comments by being clear: I do not wish to see this. Despite my Monarchist and Confederate leanings, I deeply love and respect the American Republic that our Founders bequeathed to us (as Benjamin Franklin perhaps presciently put it, “if you can keep it”), and which my ancestors (including my father and paternal grandfather) fought to defend.

The United States has been far from perfect, but I truly believe that (if you set aside the late unpleasantness of the mid-1860s, and a few other incidents) it has done more good in the world than otherwise. But everything has its life-cycle, and that includes nations – and the ideologies behind them. And like human relationships, though “breaking up is hard to do,” there may come a time when it is the lesser of two evils.

What Jesse Kelly calls “the peaceful solution”: “We can and will draw the map and argue over it a million different ways for a million different reasons, but draw it we must. I’ve got my own map, and I suspect the final draft would look similar.”

It is said that no one (at least, no decent person) breaks up a committed relationship unless or until the pain of remaining becomes greater than the pain of departing. I am not sure we are quite there, yet, but we seem to be heading in that direction. As this essay puts it,

“The history of the world is nations breaking up and redrawing their borders. If we want to avoid this political divide turning into a deadly one, we should do likewise.

“Stop clinging to the past and acknowledge where we are as a country, not where you want us to be, not where things were when your grandpa was storming the beaches of Normandy. Where we truly are…

“Borders move. Countries split and change hands. They do this for a myriad of reasons. Ours would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny…”

“The GOP has many problems, but the Democratic Party has turned into something completely un-American. The United States was founded on two things: Judeo-Christian values and a limited federal government. The entire platform of modern Democrats stands completely opposite both of those.”

Sobering – even depressing! – to think about, this nonetheless carries the ring of truth, in my opinion. I am also depressed to see my home state of Maryland well above the line (and even the “Old Dominion” of Virginia!) but I also, sadly, fear that Mr. Kelly is correct. There has been such an influx of Left-leaning urbanites, over the last several decades, that neither – and certainly not Maryland – is what it used to be. That I may ultimately find myself forced to migrate South or West is a sad likelihood that I have been pondering for a long time before reading this essay.

Mr. Kelly concludes,

“This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town. Our political disagreements have become a powder keg, one that already would have blown if conservatives had liberals’ emotional instability.

“Nobody is expected to cheer for this split. Cheering is not a normal reaction when couples get a divorce. We cheer for old married people on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

“But life is imperfect. Life is hard. We both now agree that living under the other side’s value system is wholly unacceptable. The most peaceful solution we Americans can hope for now is to go our separate ways. So let us come together one last time and agree on one thing: Irreconcilable differences.”

To my great sadness, I fear that he is right. I just wish I had confidence that we could do so, peacefully, before we get to the point beyond which a peaceful settlement may prove not merely difficult, but impossible to achieve.

Advertisements

Life Without Prejudice | The Imaginative Conservative

https://staytuneandalive.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/faceless-man-shst-130205.jpg?w=840

“Life without prejudice, were it ever to be tried, would soon reveal itself to be a life without principle. For prejudices are often built-in principles. They are the extract which the mind has made of experience…” (essay by Richard Weaver)

Source: Life Without Prejudice – The Imaginative Conservative

Indeed. Prejudice, and its close cousin stereotype, does not exist in a vacuum. Prejudice, which simply means “prejudgement,” is most often the fruit of individual or collective experience – a recollection of and response to either one’s own experience, or that of those whom one has reason to trust, or both. It is a process of first learning, and then predicting based upon what one has learned.

Prejudices, like stereotypes, aren’t coming out of nowhere – they do not exist in a vacuum, and even basically false or incorrect ones have at least a grain of truth in them somewhere, else they would not exist. If one has no prejudices, one has either failed to learn from past experience, or one has consciously chosen to set those experiences aside. One may reasonably question whether either is a wise course of action!

This is not a radical (or reactionary) concept, nor is it anything remotely new in the human experience: as this article accurately points out,

“in the controversial literature of a hundred years ago—or even of a couple of generations ago—you do not encounter the sort of waving of the bloody shirt of prejudice that greets you on all sides now. Men did not profess such indignation that other men had differing convictions and viewpoints. They rather expected to encounter these, and to argue with them as best they could.”

In other words, the underlying assumption of socio-political argument – however vehement it may have been in practice – was along the lines of, “I understand that you have these beliefs, these prejudices, but I want to offer evidence to convince you that you’re wrong, or at least to offer additional points to be considered.” People were not, by and large, thought to be horrible human beings simply because they had – quelle horreur! – analyzed and learned from experience, and used that experience to make predictions about other people and events, which might or might not be in error.

Richard Weaver, author of this insightful article, argues that the shift in perception of prejudice as an innate human characteristic – and by and large a helpful one, although one must be open to having one’s presuppositions challenged by facts on the ground – to something unacceptable and anathema stems in large measure from the influence of communism, in its cultural manifestation: that is to say, cultural Marxism.

Weaver points out that this ideology (which, much as Islam is much more than a religion, is much more than an economic system) insinuates itself into a culture, a society, by inducing “a general social skepticism.” Not, he notes,

“that the communists are skeptics themselves. They are the world’s leading dogmatists and authoritarians. But in order to bring about their dogmatic reconstruction of the world they need to produce this skepticism among the traditional believers. They need to make people question the supports of whatever social order they enjoy, to encourage a growing dissatisfaction and a feeling that they have inherited a bad article…

“To this end, what it knows that it must overcome is the binding element, or the cohesive force that holds a society together. For as long as this integrative power remains strong, the radical attack stands refuted and hopeless. This will explain the peculiar virulence with which communists attack those transcendental unifiers like religion, patriotism, familial relationship, and the like.

“It will also explain, if one penetrates the matter shrewdly, why they are so insistent upon their own programs of conformity, leveling, and de-individualization.”

However paradoxical it may appear at first sight, he goes on,

“we find when we examine actual cases that communities create a shared sentiment, a oneness, and a loyalty through selective differentiation of the persons who make them up. A society is a structure with many levels, offices, and roles, and the reason we feel grateful to the idea of society is that one man’s filling his role makes it possible for another to fill his role, and so on…

“[T]oo little attention is given to the fact that society exists in and through its variegation and multiplicity, and when we speak of a society’s ‘breaking down,’ we mean exactly a confusing of these roles, a loss of differentiation, and a consequent waning of the feeling of loyalty [to one another, and to society itself]…

“The point is that their hostility to distinctions of all kinds as we know them in our society conceals a desire to dissolve that society altogether. And we see that practically all traditional distinctions, whether economic, moral, social, or aesthetic, are today under assault as founded on a prejudice.”

Go ahead and read the rest of the essay. It’s worth it!

 

Banning Civil War Re-Enactments Will Only Increase Ignorance, Prejudice | The Federalist

Civil War Reenactors – Confederate

It’s a mistake to ignore the complexities of history in the name of social justice. Obscuring the past will not make our country better or more just.

Source: Banning Civil War Re-Enactments Will Only Increase Ignorance, Prejudice

“The rush to obscure the past will not make our country better and more just. It is a tremendous mistake to refuse to examine the complexities of history in the name of social justice. It is culturally suicidal to reduce life into the binary categories of ‘correct’ and ‘unmentionable.’ Furthermore, it is a mistake to fail to recognize the benefits that historical reenacting can and does bring to America.”

It is truly disgusting, depressing, heart-breaking, and yes, anger-inducing to see the depths to which we have plunged as a society in only a couple of years, to the point that the idea of banning reenactments – living history – is even thinkable.

The ignorance, arrogance, and authoritarian attitudes demonstrated by (some of) those who call themselves “liberal” or “progressive” are a disgrace to the terms. Such people, and such a worldview, have more in common with Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, or today’s ISIS than they do with classical liberalism or progressivism.

And it is appallingly ironic that some of those who claim that it’s possible, even admirable, to be “non-binary” where “gender” is concerned, have no trouble insisting on, as Ms Mussman accurately phrases it, reducing life into the binary categories of “correct” and “unmentionable.” If we continue down this path, we are doomed as a society. Doomed.

In such an environment, this essay by Anna Mussman is a ray of light and hope. Her list of the benefits of reenacting / living history to society are perfectly on-point. Kudos to her for writing this excellent essay! I just wish I didn’t have the sinking feeling that she’s preaching to the choir…

Feminists are set on making us all victims | Comment | The Times

Image result for women oppressed iran

MeToo protests on behalf of free and privileged women, ignoring those who are truly powerless.

Source: Feminists are set on making us all victims | Comment | The Times

It is refreshing and, to be honest, more than a little bit of a relief, to see a woman in the position of a relatively mainstream commentator like Melanie Phillips making the points she makes in this essay. It is not necessary to – as indeed, she does not – deny the fact that some men, sometimes, have behaved abhorrently and even criminally badly, to perceive that some of the allegations and assertions being made by the feminist Left are not only overstated, but in many cases cruelly wrong. Such vitriol does no good to either men or women, nor to society as a whole.

“Sophie Walker actually claimed that we were living in a patriarchy. [Yet] Britain has a woman prime minister, a woman home secretary, a woman director of public prosecutions, a woman head of the Supreme Court, a woman running the Metropolitan Police. Political parties have all-women shortlists. Education has been feminised through collaborative coursework and the denigration of competition.

For many women, men have been reduced to little more than sperm donors and walking wallets. They have been told that all the characteristics or roles they value so highly such as valour, leadership or breadwinning are dangerous, pathetic or demeaning.

“All this is apparently irrelevant. Declared Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, QC — a member of the UK legislature, principal of Mansfield College, Oxford and former chairwoman of the Genetics Commission, the Power Commission and the British Council: ‘Power is coded male.’ Should one laugh or cry?”

Meanwhile, as “the great protest against their own alleged victimisation and oppression is being mounted by women in the West, the most free, most independent, most educated and most wealthy women in the world today and in the history of the human race,” Ms Phillips points out,

“There are indeed women who really are powerless and institutionally victimised by men. Yet no MeToo movement has sprung up to protest against their oppression. What is the feminist reaction to women victimised by Sharia, subjected to female genital mutilation or “honour” killings or stoned to death for adultery? Silence. What is the feminist reaction to the Iranian women ripping off their headscarves and putting their lives on the line to get rid of the clerical regime that tyrannises them? Silence. What is the feminist reaction to the poor white girls of Telford or Rotherham who have been pimped, raped and enslaved by mostly Pakistani-heritage Muslim gangs? Silence.”

It is, quite frankly, an outrage.

“Shocking Stats Reveal Decline of American Men” – with reflections on the implications thereof

You hear a lot in America about the “war on women,” but it’s men in America who are failing. We have some shocking statistics…

Souce: Shocking Stats Reveal Decline of American Men | Tucker Carlson Tonight

This informative and disturbing report confirms what observation has suggested to me for years: we who are men are in trouble. As Carlson points out,

“Something ominous is happening to men in America. Everyone who pays attention knows that. What’s odd is how rarely you hear it publicly acknowledged. Our leaders pledge to create more opportunities for women and girls, whom they imply are failing. Men don’t need help. They’re the patriarchy. They’re fine. More than fine…”

Statistics, however, tell a different story. When you actually look at what’s going on, it becomes all too sadly apparent that

“American men are failing, in body, mind and spirit. This is a crisis. Yet our leaders pretend it’s not happening. They tell us the opposite is true: Women are victims, men are oppressors. To question that assumption is to risk punishment. Even as women far outpace men in higher education, virtually every college campus supports a women’s studies department, whose core goal is to attack male power. Our politicians and business leaders internalize and amplify that message. Men are privileged. Women are oppressed. Hire and promote and reward accordingly.

“That would be fine if it were true. But it’s not true. At best, it’s an outdated view of an America that no longer exists. At worst, it’s a pernicious lie.

“Either way, ignoring the decline of men doesn’t help anyone. Men and women need each other. One cannot exist without the other. That’s elemental biology, but it’s also the reality each of us has lived, with our parents and siblings and friends. When men fail, all of us suffer.”

University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, Carlson’s guest, while not the most dynamic speaker, nonetheless has some very good things to say on the subject. He rightly decries the “ideological world view that sees the entire history of mankind as the oppression of women by men,” which he sees – again, accurately, in my view – as “a very dreadful way of looking at the world, a pathological way of looking at the world.”

It is indeed. But thanks to the dismaying success of the radical Left’s “long march through the institutions,” it is a worldview which is mostly dominant in today’s culture, in the U.S. and in the West, generally, deeply enshrined in our intellectual and political elites, and particularly in academia – both public schools and institutions of higher learning – and in the equally-influential media.

As a result, it has become in many respects the animating mythos of our contemporary world, and plays itself out in all sorts of often damaging ways: pitting men and women against each other, denigrating any past achievement that can be seen as “masculine” or “patriarchal,” and discouraging boys and young men from seeking excellence for fear of being accused of “toxic masculinity.”

Is it any wonder that many men have become embittered and disillusioned, and dropped out – from relationships (see MGTOW), and even from active engagement with society – in anger or despair?

Yet this dropping out, while on one level entirely understandable, is ultimately counter-productive and damaging, both to society and to men ourselves. To be healthy and whole, a culture needs a balance between male aggressiveness and female nurturing (and yes, I know some men are naturally nurturing and some women aggressive, but we’re talking trends, here), between the typically male drive to expand and explore, and the typically female drive to settle and put down roots.

And while this may be more controversial yet, I believe that for our psycho-emotional health, men and women must be willing and able to embrace – in a constructive, and therefore necessarily real, way – their own distinct and complementary natures. Again, I am quite fully aware that some men are more nurturing (I tend to fall somewhat toward that end of the spectrum, myself) and some women more aggressive.

But by insisting that (all) women should take on the aggressive tendencies of men, or that (all) men should take on the nurturing qualities of women, there are a large number of both who are being repressed, and even bent and twisted, psycho-emotionally. And that is exactly what is happening, in today’s “interchangeable parts” environment of gender-bending social theory.

It’s no wonder that transgenderism is a major issue these days, because transgenderism is simply the (il)logical extension of an extremely prevalent ideological viewpoint: that women should be more like men, and men should be more like women. Of course, the dirty little secret here is that there is something essentially or fundamentally “man-like” or “woman-like” to become, but no one on the Left wants to talk about that…

While I am in no way justifying or rationalizing them, is it possible that today’s rash of school- and other mass-shootings are on some level a cry for help – or at least, a manifestation of a deeply diseased society? As Carlson points out, they are almost exclusively a male phenomenon (one shooter did have the help of his wife). Is it at least possible that if masculine aggression is consistently and aggressively repressed and not allowed productive and constructive outlets, it will fester, and eventually explode in socially and culturally unproductive, unacceptable, and even horrifying ways?

I am going to go out on a limb, here, and suggest that one of the prime motivators (or perhaps I should say, de-motivators) of our contemporary Western malaise is the devaluation and repression of just about everything that has traditionally served as spurs to pride, greatness, and accomplishment. Among these are race, nationality, sex (in the sense of male and female, not the sexual act!), and religion.

In other words, pride in one’s “roots” is the essential motivator for accomplishment in the future.

If one is no longer allowed to take pride in one’s ancestors, one’s country, one’s sex, or one’s religion, and be inspired by their achievements to accomplish still more in the future, if everyone and everything is to be viewed as not only equal-in-principle, but fundamentally equivalent (even identical) in principle, with nothing and no reason to prefer one over the other, then one has no impetus to preserve one’s heritage or to care about one’s descendants: it’s all the same, after all, so what does it matter?

And that is not only destructive of culture in and of itself, but leaves us acutely vulnerable to being invaded and subjugated by those who still do take pride in the past accomplishments and present identity of their people, who laugh at our low birth-rate (if we have no real hope or inspiration for the future, why bother to bring new children into the world?) and scoff at our unwillingness to actually stand up and defend those few values we still claim to hold.

As I have commented before, there’s a reason those on the far-right refer to the “liberal” Leftists, social-justice warriors, and cultural Marxists – and their acquiescent followers – as “cucks” (short for cuckolds): they are willing to simply watch passively as what should be their “beloveds” – their patrimony, their ancestral and cultural heritage – are violated, taken from them, even raped before their eyes, and do nothing, either out of sheer passive compliance, or because they take a certain sick pleasure in the act, due to persistent and pernicious indoctrination that everything Western is evil.

If that is truly the best of the West, in this age, then perhaps we deserve our fate. Those who are unwilling to defend what is valuable surely do not deserve to retain it. But I do not believe that is all we have left. And we have a responsibility, both to our ancestors and to our descendants – if any! – to pass down our patrimony, our heritage, unstained, undiminished, and intact, to the best of our ability. If we fail, we have failed them, and even the God that made us, and gave us our distinctiveness.

Men of the West, will we go silently and meekly into that dark night, passing into history with barely a whimper? I hope and pray we will not!

“What happened to America?”

This came across my newsfeed today:

What happened to America

It is a good question – one to which I have at least a partial answer.

What happened is that we are dealing with a decades-long (centuries-long, if you trace its origins back to the Enlightenment) dominion of Jacobins – or as some call them, cultural Marxists. Anti-Christianity, anti-family, and anti-tradition are their stock in trade. Islam is their battering-ram to break down what bastions of tradition still remain.

But Islam is an un-trusty weapon that can turn in the hand, and an ironic choice for people who are radically secularist and opposed to tradition. They appear to think they can control it, but they have about as much chance of that as Gollum did of controlling the One Ring of Sauron. They do not realize – or perhaps prefer not to admit, even to themselves – that they’d be among the first to be beheaded, if Islam ever did take control in the West.

Then we have the horde of otherwise well-meaning people who are not – quite! – Jacobins, but who have made an idol of “multiculturalism.” That means that Islam is not only okay, but admirable because it is a “non-Western” culture, while anything that smacks of tending to support, promote, and preserve the solidity, cohesion, and tradition of Western culture is at least suspect, if not anathema.

I pray the pendulum may swing back, before it is too late! There are signs that it is swinging. But will it be in time? Only God knows. Thankfully, He is in charge of history, and ultimately, His will shall be done. But that’s ultimately. His time is not our time: let us not forget that the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula took 700 years!

I hope and pray we are given the sense and the determination to defend the culture, history, and heritage of Western civilization, a.k.a. Western Christendom, so that our descendants do not need to spend the next seven centuries, or more, trying to get it back.

When Britain was Great | Britannia Rules the Waves

Source: (15) Tony Roach – When Britain was Great. If this video clip offends…

Please note, this was from when Britain was relatively unified and homogeneous: demographically, religiously, culturally, linguistically. Therefore, the British people were capable of working together to accomplish great things. The same may be said about many other nations and cultures!

The socio-political Left – the cultural Marxists – have to be given credit for one thing, they have figured out how to destroy the West: play off our sense of compassion and fair-play to force the importation of large number of people who are alien to us in basically every way, fragmenting our cultures and placing us in a state of constant internal conflict that saps our energy, our resources, even our enthusiasm for living and our hope for the future (look at the plunging birthrate among Europeans and Euro-Americans). And if we protest, accuse us of “racism” and “xenophobia.”

“Diversity is our strength” is not only a lie, it is a dangerous lie; it is a pernicious falsehood; it is the very opposite of truth. But so many people continue to swallow it, hook, line, and sinker. It is beyond sad.