Replies

It was not his anti-semitism. The people who fired him hate Israel as much as he does.

True. That doesn't make Pat any less of an anti-Semite, but it's true. Unfortunately, the "palaeos" still see "Zionists" as in control of absolutely everything. Some people in the Ukraine are now complaining about the "Zionist" influence of (wait for it . . . ) George Soros!

It was his expression as a member of a forbidden race - whitey - concerning the current the status of white Americans and the country their ancestors built in light of the Left’s multicultural scheme of diversity racism. It’s not pretty. And no one white is supposed to mention it. Whitey does not get a tribal voice or point of view in socialist multiculturalism. That’s raaaacis! Pat was okay as long as he just targeted Republicans.

I'm got some things I'm going to comment on at length but before I do I just want to say that there are white groups whose ethnic identity is indeed celebrated and encouraged by the Left; the Quebec French, the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Cornish, the Manx, the Bretons, the Basques, and most of the local groups in Spain all have a left wing nationalisms (even the Castilians, who have historically run the place). Then there's the fact that Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula and North African Berbers are lily white, as are most 'Ashkenazi Jews. And I believe were it not for the fact that the Cajuns are implicated in Southerness they'd probably get a "Cajun National Liberation Army" demanding the entire original area of the Louisiana Purchase (all the way to the Canadian border) as their "ancient ancestral socialist motherland." And certainly Irish-Americans get a pass, being the only whites who have been historically allowed (and even encouraged) to celebrate their ethnicity.

Now for my monologue.

I have literally been trying to figure out this "left wing ethnic pride" business for decades. It has never made any sense to me, because logically there should be nothing to hold the Great Left Wing Coalition together. Moslems should not get along with militant homosexuals, nor Hispanic Catholics with radical Reform Jews nor Black Baptists with secularists at war with chrstianity. Yet there is, so far as I have been able to see, not the slightest crack anywhere in the whole gang. In fact, there doesn't even appear to be any fault lines among all these groups.

I mean, Blacks may not be white, but they are chrstian. 'Ashkenazi Jews (who make up the bulk of all Jews in the west, very much including the liberal non-Orthodox "branches") aren't chrstians, but they're white. Yet radical Blacks treat radical Reform Jews as if they were honorary chrstians and radical Reform Jews treat Black Baptists as if they were also radical Reform Jews.

Does anyone know what is going on here? I mean, the closest thing I can find to compare this bizarre alliance to is the "heels" of professional wrestling, each and every single one of whom claimed to be "the greatest" and "the prettiest" of all time, yet never, ever, ever feuded amongst themselves.

You suppose this whole thing is a work? Maybe we could get someone to break kayfabe. If any Illuminati members out there may be reading this, please feel welcome to send me a private Freepmail. I can't share something told me in confidence without explicit permission, you know! (It's the Halakhah!).

Another aspect of this thing that I don't get is the contradictory attitudes towards various rural and traditional communities. If a Brazilian headhunter kills a monkey for food, he's just being One With The Universe. But if Cletus or Clem kill a squirrel, they're the Enemies of Nature. Similarly the Left celebrates what it sees as the "authentic" spirituality of various exotic groups while doing a sudden about-face when it comes to America's counterpart, the snake-handling hillbillies. Suddenly "authenticity" isn't wanted any more. Instead out come the shrines to Voltaire, Comte, Darwin, Hegel, and Marx. Suddenly tradition is bad and something to be liberated from. Suddenly The Past was evil and best forgotten while The Future is Arcadia . . . until another "indigenous activist" shows up to denounce "western civilization," when all the icons and holy pictures of modernist saints disappear and European philosophy is bemoaned as a stain on the Earth's otherwise virgin spirituality.

I have so often wondered this. Just what is it that the haters of religion so identify with in "our contemporary ancestors?" Do they see the Australian aborigines as somehow scientific materialists who have not yet been corrupted by religion? If so, then what do you call the "dreamtime?" Is that just another name for "natural selection?"

Perhaps it's because hyper-modern materialists and mystic shamans, however far apart their praxis, somehow both believe that "nature is all there is." The "indigenous" shaman represents what is allegedly mankind's original naturalism before the "fall" into religion while the materialist scientist represents naturalism restored after the "corruption" of religion has been wiped off. But both essentially (in different ways) "worship" nature. Thoughts, anyone?

One thing I think we all well know: Western leftists are absolutely convinced that "indigenous pipples" have absolutely no sexual taboos whatsoever. Everyone from Margaret Mead on down has insisted that the indigenii (if I may coin a new word) have not yet been corrupted by sexual guilt and possess no non-rational taboos whatsoever, sexual or otherwise. Maybe this is the connection. The shaman and the scientist both dismiss the old social taboo against homosexuality. One has allegedly never known it, the other has "gotten over" it.

Ironically, one thing both white bigots and white liberals believe about traditional Black American culture is that it is "dirty." The Klucker was horrified by the alleged animalistic sexuality of Blacks and lynched them; the liberal actually celebrates this alleged trait and apparently sees its attribution to Black America as a compliment. After all, right in the belly of the beast, the E--vil South, right amidst all those Bible-thumping racist puritans, was this "beautiful" community of rebels (an ironic label) against uptightness, singing dirty blues songs in barrel houses while couples danced naughtily in a way no upstanding white person ever would. Is this perhaps why Fundamentalist-haters love Fundamentalist Blacks? Do they actually create in their imaginations a mirror image of the old white racist stereotype of uncontrolled sexual animals and think that's what makes Black beautiful?

We all know that for some thirty five years now Black culture has been reduced to "hip hop." Never mind that the original "hip hop" was just about having fun, with no ideological axe to grind (people making rhymes about how good they were at making rhymes). Now the only "authentic" Black culture is not just "hip hop" but "gangsta" hip hop. How did the "urban gangsta" become the embodiment of a people that had existed for almost four hundred years? What happened to the spirituals? Dixieland jazz? Country blues? Duke Ellington? Nat "King" Cole? Now you're not "Black" unless you're "bad."

Is this what liberals see in a group they should otherwise hate for their Fundamentalist chrstianity? A whole race of "bad boys" and "bad girls" rebelling not only against whitey, but against morality itself?

I suppose if liberals can see Southern Blacks as self-conscious sexual rebels in the midst of religious puritanism, it doesn't take much thinking to also see Blacks as enlightened materialistic scientists surrounded by obscurantist rednecks. So does that mean that Blacks are more European than superstitious "crackers?"

I know I've taken this post a long way from Buchanan (whom I'm not a big fan of), but all this has really been on my mind lately, and it seemed as good a place as any to ruminate about everything.

I'll close by going back to Buchanan now. It seems to me that Buchanan, like Black leftists, places his ethno-cultural identity ahead of his religious identity. Honestly, he seems to identify more with Nordic Protestants than with Mexican Catholics who are supposed to be his co-religionists (just as Al Sharpton would never consider himself a co-religionist of Pat Robertson). In this area chrstianity has a problem that other religions don't, and has had it for a very long time. Before there were the Blacks and the whites there were the Latins and the Greeks (and the Copts and the Assyrians and the Ethiopians and the Syrians and the Armenians and the Jacobites). Because of its incarnationism, its insistence that G-d became a human being, chrstianity is susceptible to a radical localization. Not only does G-d become a human being, he becomes a Black human being, or a white human being, or a Spaniard, or a Georgian, or a Ukrainian. In chrstianity every people becomes "the chosen people" and every traditional chrstian country becomes "the holy land."

Well . . . I'll stop now. I guess that's enough for everyone to misunderstand for now.

Because of its incarnationism, its insistence that G-d became a human being, chrstianity is susceptible to a radical localization. Not only does G-d become a human being, he becomes a Black human being, or a white human being, or a Spaniard, or a Georgian, or a Ukrainian. In chrstianity every people becomes "the chosen people" and every traditional chrstian country becomes "the holy land."

As opposed to Judaism? Or Islam? Or paganism? Perhaps some Eastern religions are immune to this sort of ethnocentrism? Japanese Shinto certainly wasn't. Nor apparently is Hinduism. That's not necessarily to say that they see God as a person of their own ethnicity, but certainly a lot of religions produce "holy lands" or "chosen peoples."

I don't think Christians actually see God or Christ or Jesus in that way either. Of course Black and White artists have different ways of depicting Jesus and of course churches reflect the thinking of local populations, but few Christians would seriously argue that Jesus was Ukrainian or Irish or Spanish.

If you're willing to repudiate ideas of "chosenness" you can go after those ethnocentric traces, but you seem to be hung up on them, while willing to excuse other forms in other peoples which may be stronger.

Any coalition has more to do with what what it opposes than with what it supports. I'm not at all sure all these groups actually get along at all. They just tend to vote together.

Think of 19th century America. The old evangelical Protestant groups (many of whom have now become the "Mainstream Protestants") voted together as a bloc as Whigs or Republicans. Everybody who wasn't in the bloc voted together against them. There were some exceptions, the most notable being African-Americans.

Many German Jews voted Republican with German Protestants before FDR, and many Italians, fed up with Irish control of the Democrats, also voted with the GOP, but by and large you had this alliance of Irish and German Catholics, New York Dutchmen, and troubled Western farmers with White Southerners, rich and poor, against the dominant Northern White Protestant group.

Fault lines appear when the coalition wins power and wields it for an extended period, or when one group becomes much more powerful than the others. And of course, groups have moved from one coalition to another. Orthodox Jews, once heavily Democrat, have moved to the Republicans. Muslims have gone the other way: Bush swept the Muslim vote in 2000.

One thing I think we all well know: Western leftists are absolutely convinced that "indigenous pipples" have absolutely no sexual taboos whatsoever. Everyone from Margaret Mead on down has insisted that the indigenii (if I may coin a new word) have not yet been corrupted by sexual guilt and possess no non-rational taboos whatsoever, sexual or otherwise. Maybe this is the connection. The shaman and the scientist both dismiss the old social taboo against homosexuality. One has allegedly never known it, the other has "gotten over" it.

You heard a lot about that in the 1960s. Since Mead died you don't hear it so much. Now the idea is that indigenous peoples are "greener" than Westerners, which isn't necessarily true: whatever damage they did was just on a smaller scale.

The idea of sexual liberation and the absence of taboos as natural and the association of them with "primitive tribes" is probably there in the background, but except for where homosexuality is concerned you don't hear it expressed much nowadays.