Hmmm

If "Civil Rights leader" Al Sharpton were White, how would he be different from "White nationalist leader?"

---

Too fine a point

Burnham's Law is at the heart of Liberalism: whoever occupies the victim position, wins.

When he named Liberalism as "the ideology of Western suicide",  what is implied in "Western" and which Ex Cathedra --and other evil people-- makes explicit is that Western = White.

Liberalism is the ideology of White suicide.

As I was walking home from my office earlier, I passed a Sikh on the street. He works at the local Indian restaurant. He's probably in his late sixties, dressed in a workaday suit, open shirt and great grey beard and moustache, with the characteristic turban. He is darkish (a Bronze Caucasian) and makes no eye contact with anyone who passes him by.

My job, as I pass him, is to make believe that I do not notice how out of place and exotic he is. That is what White people's job is, when faced with racial strangers. He owes me nothing; I owe him proof that I am not a racist.

I thought of this because I went food shopping down in Serramonte yesterday --Target has the best prices for staples. I was in a largely Philippino part of the Bay Area. Both Whites and Blacks stand out in the sea of Pacific Islanders.

Walking my cart back to my car, I watched a very tall Black man in his 60's, ostentatiously dressed in a pin striped three piece suit, a fedora with a feather and a cane, as he walked past a family of either Philippinos or Chinese gathered around their cart, talking loudly about something.

He slowed down and stared and them, but kept on moving, turning his head and quite obviously perusing them as if they were some strange intrusion into his world. His face was fairly calm, but it was a display of body language which clearly showed his sense that it was his right to stare at these Others.

Now try to imagine a White man or woman doing that.

Or as earlier in the store, when the one Black family in the long checkout line started a bout of yelling, centered on their pouty and agitated 10 year old.

It would be "a racial incident."

Completely against the rules. For me.

When it comes to race, Whites have only moral and social obligations. No rights. Non-Whites must be treated with (in Shelby Steele's brilliant distillation) license and deference. Whites may demand nothing of Non-Whites, neither the most dysfunctional and self-destructive ghetto dweller nor the most recent alien immigrant (legal or illegal). All the adapting and all the respecting, all the license and deference, is a one way proposition.

That's why I find the "White Privilege" game so fraudulent. And why I say that while we have most of the wealth and some of the power, we have all the status of a log cabin infested with termites or a rich uncle on his deathbed.

This is one more step on the downward spiral of Liberalism, the ideology of White suicide.

--

Adventures in civilizational decline

Pentagon's Chief Personnel and Readiness Officer: Diversity and Inclusion Critical to Mission Success | National Review Online:

"Diversity", probably the most skin-crawling word in contemporary English. Especially when spoken by a White. It reeks of, "See what a good boy I am, massa?"

'via Blog this'

Big surprise.

Somalis in America Sympathize with Somali Pirates, Not Americans | FrontPage Magazine:

'via Blog this'

Ideological joys

One of the pleasures of the egalitarian faith is that you never really have to pay attention. You already know the answers beforehand. Everyone is equal. End of story. Don't bother me with actual facts.

And the other, of course, is that it makes you morally impregnable. Wanting everyone to be equal absolves you of any taint of selfishness. Of course, few egalitarians actually live out their "values" --which are usually just opinions about how other people should think and behave.

---

He

and She, the 1935 movie based on H Ryder Haggard's 1887 novel.

He is Randolph Scott, its star and one of the handsomest of the Americans.

Shared a Malibu beach house with Cary Grant for twelve years...

Watching the old flick as I go to bed.

--

Good question

Neo-tribalist and pro-man advocate Jack Donovan, at a Washington conference this past weekend on the future of identity:

“Do black people as a group care what happens to white people as a group? Does a Mexican dad with three babies care about whether some white kid from the burbs gets a summer landscaping job? Of course not,” Donovan said during his presentation, adding later, “You cannot play fair with people who don’t care if you get wiped off the map.”

How many Whites still labor under the illusion that everyone thinks that fairness is important, even if it disadvantages you?

Only they do.

Nobody else does.

The Most Foolish People On The Planet (c)

---

Duh

Jack Donovan, author of Androphilia and The Way of Men, reports on some of his recent experiences. A sample (slightly re-formatted):

On July 20, an intern from ABC emailed me and asked to speak with me on the phone about the “manosphere.” I agreed, and a couple of days later, the two of us had a nice talk about my work... 

I offered to appear on-camera for this during my phone call with ABC’s summer intern. She was actually rather sweet, and naively said to me, “my producer wanted me to find a bunch of angry guys who would say crazy things, but so far you all seem very calm and your views are much more well thought-out than I expected.”

This reaffirms everything we already know about how the media really works, so I hope that nice girl finds another line of work, before the business turns her into a sociopathic whore who will do or say anything for a trashy story. 

ABC never got back to me about an on-camera interview.

---

Rocks and hard places

Provoked by a gay Evangelical Christian blogger, a very nice woman, who accepts the traditional teaching about the immorality of her sexual desires, I have this to say:

Reading blogs like this, I sometimes feel like King Herod, who enjoyed hauling John the Baptist up from the dungeon to preach at him for his wicked ways, even though it left him puzzled. (Mk 6.20). You may feel similarly after I've added my two drachmas. Well, more than two. 

If the last 40+ year post-Stonewall years are any indication, the opposition between orthodox Christianity and the "LGBT" community (evidenced by Anon2478) is irreconcilable. Several decades ago, I chose my self-respect as a homosexual man over the teaching (the Catholic version in my case) that when I shared my heart and my body with a man I loved, it was actually something violent, a disfigured and sordid counterfeit that cut me off from God. On the contrary, even with all its human flaws and fallenness, making love keeps me from atheism. My thoughts in flagrante delicto :) are often "How can there NOT be a God?"  I fail to understand how gays or lesbians who accept the teaching can keep from loathing themselves or, as in my case, wear down their souls to the nub trying to avoid that feeling. 

But in the ensuing decades, tho I remain happily homo and well entrenched here in San Francisco's Castro, it became clear to me that there were far far more important issues facing us than the "LGBT" issue. After all, "we" are no more than 4% of the population. Plus, the very particular and historically constructed shape which this identity had taken --wedded to victimhood, submerged in leftist dogma and deeply ambivalent, at best, about manhood-- was part of a larger societal problem: the use of "equality" as a compulsive moral absolute, in the service of (Gramscianly conscious or not) dismantling Western culture and civilization.  

The history of labels and nomenclature exhibits this. First it was "gay", then "gay and lesbian", then "lesbian and gay" and eventually "LGBT", and even more letters in this alphabet-soup sexual Yugoslavia. The inclusion of the infinitesimally numbered T's --and who put that to a vote, by the way?--gave the game away: the commonality is not shared same-sex eros, but shared gender dysphoria. I'll pass, thank you very much.  

If you look at those churches, the Protestant Mainline for example, who have embraced their LGBT members, you'll see that this was only possible because they had previously chucked a lot of their historical identity and that afterwards, the process only accelerates. The LGBT agenda requires unconditional surrender; anything else is excoriated as "H8." (Anon2478 is quite typical: either embrace us completely or we will blame you for our deaths.) What do these dying churches really have to offer but "inclusion" in a club that no one is interested in joining? Aside from sentimentality, habit and vesture, I find less and less difference between them and Unitarians. Why would any intelligent and aware and self-confidently orthodox Christian church want to head off in that self-erasing direction?  

So I find myself in the post-Herodian position of valuing traditional Christianity as a historical bulwark of an embattled West --although increasingly turning traitor under guise of "social justice"--while finding it personally uninhabitable as a man who loves men and loves that about himself. 

Although your Protestant/Evangelical style is quite alien to this ex-RC, your deep attachment to your faith and your community is evident. I remember how that felt and I honor it and sympathize with your struggles. But I fear that you are in an inescapable quandry, a literal dilemma: The Scylla of a radically condemnatory religion on one side and the Charybdis of a deeply compromised "LGBT" socio-political movement on the other. 

And here endeth the Lesson.

PS. My response to another commentor who responded to me.

Just two thoughts.

First, condemning homosexuality does not at all require orthodox Christians to hate homosexual people, but I find it hard to see how it can avoid making orthodox Christian homosexual people hate themselves. 

(BTW, I regard the now fashionable use of “hate” –or “H8″, as the CA Prop 8 activists put it– and “hater” as a blanket dismissal of any belief or attitude unacceptable to the Left as yet one more rhetorical fraud, amounting to “Shut up.”) 

At least in the Catholic tradition, this condemnation is a side-effect of the combined Biblical and Natural Law focus on marriage and family as the sacramental value in human sexuality. Fornication, adultery, masturbation, contraception…all non marital-and-procreative uses of sex are beyond the Pale, homosexuality being just one of them. But what makes Christian rejection of homosexuality so problematic for homosexual people is that it does not condemn an occasional or even habitual behavior only, but it theologically pathologizes the only kind of eros that we know, root and branch. At least for modern people, this goes to a question of personal identity, not just bad behavior. 

So the choice–or dilemma, IMHO– is not between Christian H8ers vs crypto-Unitarian cultural submissives, but between the self-hatred that orthodox Christianity willy-nilly creates in homosexual people vs. the castrated, as you say, reduction of a 2000 year old civilization-founding Faith to gutless “inclusion”, for the sake of pleasing religion’s cultured despisers. 

Second thought. 

I don’t share your dichotomy between grubby Power and saintly “underground.” Although their styles and fields of action were outside the hierarchy’s, St Francis, St Ignatius and Mother Theresa were all fiercely attached to the “Papal Cathedra.” They are two sides to one coin. I might be a non-practicing Roman Catholic, but I’m no Anabaptist :)  

As for the Mainliners, am I alone in assessing their transformation as reducing them to conditionally tolerated chaplains to the triumphant secular religion of their social and political masters? To me, they merely echo the Liberal line, following every new egalitarian trend; when do they ever challenge it? 

I hesitated to comment here at all, since I have no “solutions” to offer. I appreciate your taking my rambling seriously and with gentlemanly courtesy.

---

Virginia Woolf, lite, with a surprise

Adopt a Sailor (2008) - IMDb:

Kinda sentimental and unreal, but with a brutal takedown of Upper West Side NYC types. The sailor, Ethan Peck, though too angelic to be real, is charming, with the dignity of a humble man. And for once his character's Americana is not an object of ridicule but a source of judgment. Peter Coyote, himself an arch lefty in real life, plays out the shadow of all his highmindedness. The surprise is Frasier's wife Lilith --actress Bebe Neuwirth--who shows a great range and warmth, even as she enacts yet another mankiller spouse.

'via Blog this'