Picture this: A classic line-up, like
in the old crime movies. The witnesses: A motley assortment of
cultural “agents of change”, including one representative each
from Hollywood, the mainstream media, TV, Broadway, the Democratic
Party, and of course the SPLC. The accusation: The “hate crime”
of being a “white supremacist”. And the line-up includes one
each from the following: (1)
Neo-Nazis/skinheads/officially-white-supremacist groups; (2) a
representative of the “alt-right” (might or might not be a
Breitbart staffer); (3) a member of the Republican Party; (4) a
member of the Trump administration; (5) a representative of the
high-tech Valhalla called Silicon Valley; and (6) a representative of
the international financial cartel (banks, brokers, and various and
assorted money changers).
Obviously, with no further information,
the witnesses will unanimously declare the members of groups 1 and 2
to be, unambiguously, white supremacists. And, after a bit of
hesitation and perhaps with some qualifications, they won't fail to
declare members of groups 3 and 4 likewise. As for groups 5 and 6,
some good-natured chuckling will be heard – surely those groups are
just fillers, just brought in to make the proceedings seem fair and
impartial. It would be the most ridiculous thing in the world for
anyone to seriously suspect our moguls of the digital and Internet
age, or members of the international financial cartel (who are, after
all, globalists by definition, and hence to be counted among the
anointed elite before whom we should all bow at every opportunity),
of anything as nasty, atavistic, and primitive (not to mention
testosterone-laden) as white supremacy.
And yet those last two groups are, in
fact, the supreme white supremacists on the planet; no one else even
comes close.
Here is my argument. While the
Neo-Nazis/skinheads/officially-white-supremacist groups may talk the
the talk... and while the “alt-right” may say the same thing on
occasion, but in a more gentlemanly manner, the ones walking the walk
are those with global reach – politically and economically (and
therefore militarily as well). And they, in turn, have the resources
to pressure the very groups that whine endlessly about “white
supremacism”, and bend them to their will. In other words, the
“progressives” are doing the white supremacists' work for them.
How does this happen? Well, first we
have to think about what white supremacism is and what it is not. It
is, basically, the notion that the white race is superior, period –
not based on history or current marks of achievement, but “just
because”. And this -- let's say primitive -- point of view is
little more than simple cohesion that can be found in any racial
group – or, let's say, any racial group that has a will to survive.
It's the ancient paradigm of Us vs. Them – of my group (race,
ethnic group, tribe) vs. The Other. And as such it's human nature –
or at least human nature before it is reshaped by the “agents of
change” (such reshaping being, of course, notoriously ineffectual,
and serving mainly to drive formerly normal and acceptable attitudes
underground).
But more than one outcome can come from
this basic attitude. One is the feeling that “we're the best”,
but along with it comes a benign, even paternalistic (or
condescending, if you like) attitude toward other races – thus the
nearly-forgotten memes like “the noble savage” (referring to
Native Americans) and “our little black brothers”. The point is
that those other races, although considered inferior, are not only
tolerated and wished no harm, but may actually be the object of
charity (as they, in fact, are). But they are objects of charity
precisely because they are
considered inferior – and hopelessly so. But – and so the
implicit logic goes – because they are perennial objects of
charity, that constitutes further evidence of their inferiority. (If
this rings a faint bell it's no accident.)
But then there is the other main branch
of the white supremacy tree, which is more like a zero-sum premise.
In order for us (the white race) to prosper, the other races have to
be subdued, and there are many ways this can be expressed –
political discrimination, economic exploitation, devaluing in
general, unequal application of laws, and, in the extreme, slavery or
even outright genocide. And history is replete with examples of all
of these, and more besides. And the decision, by the dominant race,
as to which of these options to elect – or which combinations to
elect – varies according to economic circumstances, above all. The
root of what is called “racism” is fear, certainly – but the
paramount fear is nearly always the fear of The Other – the alien
-- “taking over” in some way, the expected result being that “I”
will wind up having less of what I have, and “They” will have
some, if not all, of what I should have had. In other words, in
boils down, more often than not, to issues of property, resources,
income, and wealth, with other factors like skin color, cultural
habits, language, religion, etc. being secondary, or reduced to mere
window dressing. (Another way of putting it, in the case of
African-Americans, is that skin color is a simple, easily-detected
surrogate for other factors which are less visible and more complex.)
(And if white people are so innately afraid of dark skin, why do they
spend so much time and money getting deep tans each summer, hmmm?)
One can see this very clearly when it
comes to the issue of immigration, which is styled a “racism”
issue by the open-borders crowd, but which is, more than anything
else, a matter of economics – although crime and lifestyle issues
have some relevance as well, as does the “changing the face of
America” notion, although I would be willing to bet that that is,
again, more window dressing than anything else. (For, after all,
America has, and has always had, more than one face, which is easy
enough to discover if one is willing to venture more than a few miles
from one's birthplace.)
I'll go further than that. I've always
felt that slavery (of blacks by whites in the American South) was not
an example of racism, although it was certainly the essence of white
supremacy. The whites didn't hate the slaves for being black; in
fact, I doubt they hated them at all. Blacks were a commodity and a
resource; they were bought and sold, not unlike livestock or land or
farm equipment or real estate. The fact that they also happened to
be human beings was briefly noted by some, ignored by others, and
made into a political movement by Northern activists. And here was,
of course, a great political divide, but it was more subtle than the
current wisdom would recognize. Among Southerners who considered
blacks to be an inferior species, there were no regrets about slavery
(other than, perhaps, the same kind of regret one might feel about
mistreatment of horses or other livestock). Among those who
recognized the humanity of the slaves, but also recognized that they
were essential to the Southern economy, there was considerable
ambivalence and regret – and this has been extensively documented.
And I'm sure there were Southerners who refused to own slaves on
principle (and not because they were too expensive), but who more or
less kept their opinions to themselves. In the North, on the other
hand, I can't believe that all was lily-white (so to speak). For one
thing, it was Northern merchants who had a vital role to play in the
slave trade; they may not have owned slaves (although many did in
colonial times) but they were perfectly happy to ship them between
Africa and the South. And I imagine there were Northerners who would
have been perfectly happy to own slaves if the opportunity was there.
As always down through history, the activists – the anti-slavery
movement – were a minority, at least at the start, and possibly
right up to the Civil War. If the citizens of the North were
anything like citizens these days, the most common attitude was
probably along the lines of “I don't want to get involved”, “It's
none of my business”, “It's a Southern thing”, “I don't know
any black people”, or even “They're probably better off than they
would have been if they'd stayed in Africa” -- that last being a
notion that persists to this day when it comes to the descendants of
the slaves.
Now, having said all that, I also
imagine that there was a more or less instantaneous attitude change
among Southern whites after the war was lost (the Emancipation
Proclamation only having made the end of slavery official).
Suddenly, blacks were a threat – politically, economically, and in
many other ways – so if “racism” didn't exist prior to that
date, that would be when it began in the South. (Some insight into
this phenomenon can be gained from viewing the D. W. Griffith
classic, “Birth of a Nation” -- assuming one can even find it
these days.)
The point I'm trying to make is that
racism is not only about skin color. In fact, it may not even be
primarily about skin color; there is always more to it. But skin
color does, obviously, have symbolic significance and is an easy
marker – a bit of perceptual shorthand, if you will. In any case,
any form or degree of racism, since it represents fear of The Other,
also represents a preference for one's own group, and an at least
implied feeling of the superiority of one's own group – in short,
white supremacy, even if it's not called that or if that is not a
major theme in the debate. It could even take the form of believing
that blacks are equal in pretty much every way – beyond mere legal
equality – but that they're still alien in some sense, and
therefore deserving of no more than second-class citizenship. There
are as many nuances to this issue as there are people concerned with
it, I suppose – since of all the political and social issues of our
time, this is the one that permeates all areas of society the most,
and about which it is the most impossible to be neutral, apathetic,
or ignorant. (The announcement that the election of Barack Obama in
2008 reflected that we had become a “post-racial” society was a
masterpiece of propaganda, or naiveté, or both. If anything,
positions have hardened since then.)
Let us now shift gears and talk about
that erstwhile progressive movement called eugenics, of which the
sainted heroine and leader in this country was none other than
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and still held in the
highest esteem by liberals, progressives, environmentalists,
Utopians, and all right-thinking citizens. This concept and movement
was based on the premise that, contrary to the Declaration of
Independence and the Gettysburg address, all men are not created
equal – that there are many points of superiority of the white race
over other races, and of the healthy over the handicapped, and of the
dim-witted over the clever. And no one, please note, objected to
this premise in strident tones, or in any tones at all as far as I'm
aware, with the possible exception of the Catholic Church.
From this basic premise flow a number
of possible consequences. One – the most benign – would be to
provide adequate prenatal care and nutrition, and procedures to
maximize the chances of a healthy birth, combined with enlightened
infant care (including, most obviously, breast feeding – and we
forget that in former times that was considered nasty, primitive, and
unsanitary – and a habit of the lower classes). These measures
might (and have been proven to) reduce the incidence of handicaps
both physical and mental. And this may very well have been part of
the eugenics movement, at least at the beginning.
But this, sadly, was not good enough to
insure a happy, healthy society on the road to Utopia – so sterner
measures had to be adopted, starting, of course, with “family
planning”, which is another word for birth control, which is the
same as contraception (again, at first). And this was all presented
as “education” -- i.e. of the racially, ethnically, and
economically inferior classes – and as a way to free women from the
tyranny of men and their unbridled lusts, and from the burden of
bearing and raising children – at least more children than someone
in polite society should have, which is generally considered two,
i.e. “replacement level” (but not quite). (And, please note,
there was plenty of implicit and not-so-implicit religious bigotry at
work here, which was a natural extension of the anxiety – already
nearly a century old – about various ethnic immigrant groups, most
of which were Catholic, invading our shores. Catholics – then as
now (mistakenly) – were notorious for having “all those children”
because the Pope ordered them to. And once again, it's the fear of
The Other on the surface, but really the fear of aliens flooding in
and “taking over”.) So all across the land, bourgeois (and
Protestant, if that) women in big flowered hats were getting together
of an afternoon over tea, and regretting how the populations of
various alien elements (starting with the Irish, I guess) had gotten
out of control, and pledging both time and money to rescue their less
fortunate sisters from squalor. One of the pillars of
“Americanization” was to get these new arrivals to “control
themselves” and have smaller families – again, to deal the the
threat of them “taking over”.
And on the professional medical side,
the campaign took other forms, including mass sterilization of black
women and of the “feeble-minded”, among others. Science saves
the day! But of course it didn't end there. Eventually, crude
methods of contraception were replaced (but not entirely) by “the
Pill” -- and we can debate far into the night as to the overall
impact of the Pill on women's health. But there were plenty of other
techniques as well, all receiving the seal of approval from medical
and public health entities, which were almost unanimously "progressive" in their orientation.
And, as we all know, the culmination of
all of this was the legalization of abortion, which was commonly
presented as a last resort -- “when all else fails”, including
abstinence (always a dead letter), non-pharmaceutical methods like
spacing or “rhythm”, and contraception. So in a sense, legalized
(and often free) abortion is the end game, or the reductio ad
absurdum, of progressivism; the road to Utopia, it turns out, must
run through a vast graveyard.
At
this point it bears mentioning that abortion has now gone
beyond alleged economic necessity or convenience, and morphed into a
hard-core eugenicist agenda, namely the elimination of the
handicapped (and those deemed likely to be handicapped). And what is
presented as “merciful” for the parents (mainly the mothers) is,
clearly, nothing more than an economic consideration for those in
charge; why should anyone who will inevitably be handicapped, and
thus a burden to society, be allowed to live, i.e. be born?
Please note that this argument is made
by the very same people who campaigned for the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and who are unwavering in their support for
“accommodations” for every sort of physical, mental, and
emotional disability, regardless of the economic and social cost.
What it boils down to is that the progressives have claimed for
themselves the right to determine who is, and who is not, a human
being and thus deserving of life. The unborn have no rights because
they are not human, but the born have rights no one ever dreamed of
up until recently.
Except! There is also a quiet but
growing movement in favor of, let's call it, retroactive abortion,
another word for infanticide. Simply being born is no longer enough;
now there has to be a kind of trial period during which the
individual's fitness is determined by “experts” -- which is
another way of saying how well they will fit into society with the
minimum expense and inconvenience. (Whoever is afraid of “death
panels” as an inevitable facet of socialized medicine has to start
here.)
To give credit where credit is due,
these progressives are more consistent than those for whom the mere
technicality of birth is the great divide. If the powers that be can
declare that the unborn are not (yet) human, they should certainly be
able, and entitled, to declare born children not yet human, until
certain factors are checked off on a list. In other words, if the
definition of life is political rather than medical, then let us make
the most of it – and this includes, by the way, the “brain dead”
and other hopeless cases resulting from injury or disease, and of
course the elderly. Value to society becomes paramount, and anyone
deemed of no, or negative, value can be justifiably eliminated. If
this sounds like a page out of the basic text for Nazism, it is, and
not coincidentally because the Nazis were great fans of Margaret
Sanger (as were others of like mind in Europe as well as the U.S.).
All of the above points could be
expanded on at greater length, but I want to get back to the main
theme, which is “white supremacism”, real or alleged. Surely, if
one is the more vicious sort of white supremacist, they will have
absolutely no problem with birth control/abortion programs that
always seem to be aimed at minorities. (Whether there is conscious
racism involved can be debated, but what is called in other contexts
“adverse impact” cannot. The numbers are there, and they are
striking.) In fact, if I were a white supremacist I would donate
every spare dime I had to Planned Parenthood. And for all I know,
that is what some skinheads/Neo-Nazis do with money they don't spend
on beer, junk food, and motorcycles.
And what about the “Alt-Right”?
Are they in favor of eugenics? Because there is, after all, a
considerable overlap between the alt-right and conservatism, and
conservatives are reliably opposed to any progressive/liberal
programs, including free abortion on demand for any reason. What I
suspect is that some members of the “Alt-Right” are secretly not
all that upset about the abortion industry's focus on people who are
likely to become wards of the state and/or troublemakers. Others are
willing to accept those costs in order to adhere to pro-life
principles. I would not want to be the one calling for a “show of
hands” on this question at an Alt-Right gathering – not that
there would be any guarantee of honest answers.
Charity is where you find it – and
it's an odd thing when charity is selectively directed at certain
categories of the powerless but not at others. The same can be said
of “humanism”; which humans are deserving and which ones are not?
What I will call “radical” or “heroic” charity can be found
– or so it appears – primarily among seriously religious people,
with Catholics leading the way more often than not. It's a mindset
that is also found among traditional missionaries – to honor all
life, regardless of physical or mental status or potential – and
regardless of religious convictions, for that matter. Do the good
works of missionaries stop at the church door? Not that I'm aware.
I doubt very much if St. Teresa of Calcutta quizzed the sick and
destitute as to their belief systems prior to accepting them for
care.
But moving right along, we now come to
Republicans and “Trumpists”, and here I suspect that many, if not
most, are pretty much convinced that the white race is superior –
or that, at the very least, it has contributed more on the plus side
to humanity and to world history than other races. The more
intellectual among them will defend the “Western tradition”, and
point to Europe (historic, not current) as the exemplar. But at the
same time, I don't think that premise keeps them from maintaining a
basically charitable attitude toward other races... and I certainly
don't think it has convinced any of them to give up the pro-life vs.
pro-choice fight. If you want to say, well, it's all just politics
and cynicism, I will point to cases where political futures have been
threatened, or terminated, because a politician was insufficiently
“pro-choice”. They were willing to pay the price for their
inconvenient beliefs.
I'll go further than that. I suspect
that many of our conservative (of whatever variety) politicians,
being believers in God, fear that the triumph of abortion has put our
(presumed) privileged status as a nation and as a society at risk.
In other words, if America is, in any sense, “God's country”, how
much longer can it remain so if abortion is not only legal but, by
and large, tolerated? One can find testimonies to this effect in
many speeches and writings by conservative politicians... and again,
I think there's more going on there than base politics. Personally,
I'm willing to accept what they say as their actual beliefs until
proven otherwise. So if they are, nonetheless, white supremacists,
it's white supremacism of the softest, most benign sort.
Now we come to the true villains of the
piece – the titans of American industry and their colleagues across
the water. If you like to follow the money, then by all means let's
do so. American high-tech moguls may not be unanimous in this
respect, but they are nearly so – they provide tremendous financial
as well as political support for... well, you pick the term. “Family
planning”... “reproductive rights”... “population control”...
and so many other bloodless terms for what is, in actuality, a very
bloody business. And what is the focus of all their support? Why,
the “third world”, of course, which, oddly enough, seems
populated (or over-populated) almost exclusively by persons of a
non-white persuasion.
So what is their motive? Granted, they
are all Utopians to some degree or other – and they dream of a
perfect world... not the “next world”, which I suspect never
crosses their minds, but making this
world perfect... in their own image, if you will. The whole world
ought to be like Silicon Valley. But there are things standing in
the way. One is, of course, religion, which they like to call
“superstition”. Others are nasty old things like traditions,
customs, ethnic identity, and of course the great mantra of our time,
“racism/sexism/homophobia”. “Why can't these people just... I
don't know... get their act together? What's wrong with them? But
we can help!” (Do I hear echoes of colonialism, and of the “white
man's burden”? Freakin' right I do!)
And thus begins the
next long march. First it was humanism (with the French Revolution
as the key energizing event), then “Manifest Destiny” (a polite
term for genocide against the American Indians), then international
communism, then the long march through American institutions (which
has resulted in, among other things, the nice library lady now being
an “agent of (radical social) change”), and now the
eugenics/population control continuum, which is championed and
enforced by allegedly benign entities like the United Nations.
And of course there
is an economic component to all of this; in fact it's the single
biggest component. Nary does one head of a Silicon Valley titan fall
upon the pillow after a hard day's work than he will be jolted awake
in the dark of night by visions of numberless hordes of
darker-skinned people than he forming a bridge across the ocean like
army ants and surging up the California coast with nothing else in
mind but invading his palatial gated estate and taking his stuff.
The invading armies have already taken over great swaths of Europe
(wherever not seriously resisted), but the Rio Grande is a lot
closer. Military action (which they could procure if need be) is too
crude and ham-handed – at least for the time being. So the problem
has to be attacked at the root – namely reproduction (one blushes
to think upon this, but one must press on). And so we have plane
loads of contraceptives being parachuted onto dusty third world
fields... and agents of change under the U.N. flag trying to convince
women (and men, if need be) that this family and children thing is
overrated... and, as usual – and not even as a last resort –
abortion for all, and don't worry about what those silly old priests,
pastors, and witch doctors say. Sterilization is the future! (When
actually it's a non-future.) And this has gotten to the point where
third world leaders are, basically, bribed by the U.N. and other
entities to accept what amounts to the soft genocide of their own
people, in exchange for a panoply of “benefits”. (Oh, wait –
hasn't the same deal been worked out with the “black leadership”
in this country? Or am I just imagining things?)
A
further irony – why is the Third World suddenly showing not only a
striking ability to reproduce, but an equally striking ability to
have most of those who are born survive to adulthood, and thus to
reproductive age? A lot of it has to do with advances in medicine,
sanitation, and nutrition... and those are, in turn, by and large
products of guess who, the Western, i.e. white, powers – America
and Western Europe. So we invested heavily in the welfare of the
Third World – in an act of charity, at least to some extent – and
now we seem to be plagued by regret. “Oh, wait – you mean that
if you provide improved medical care, sanitation, and nutrition, you
wind up getting more people? More than you want, in fact? More than
are “sustainable”? Well golly gosh, who'd a thunk it?” So in
that sense, we created a monster – a well-nourished one – and
said monster is now taking over considerable chunks of Paris (cue
Mickey Mouse as “The Sorcerer's Apprentice”). Another way of
putting it is that the road to Utopia has, as its goal, enhancement
of “quality of life”, while at the same time suppressing quantity
of life. Any Utopian vision you can name (and there are many) paints
a picture of, basically, an all-middle class world ruled by an elite
– or, failing that, a massive slave army ruled by an elite, with a
middle class remnant populating the bureaucracy. And this vision
has, in fact, been realized more than once in the 20th
Century, most prominently by totalitarian regimes, but to a less
extent by “soft” socialistic regimes. But their work is not yet
done.
Finally we turn to
the global elite, AKA The Regime (as opposed to national regimes,
which come and go at an alarming rate). And actually, all that I
said about the high-tech/media/entertainment/political regime in this
country can be applied on a global basis as well, since our
home-grown elites have become (assuming they weren't always) a
subsidiary of the global entity. Their world views are the same,
their goals are the same, and their techniques are, basically, the
same. If there are uneasy heads among the elite in this country,
then there are equally uneasy heads among the global elite –
perhaps even more so since the tide of humanity they dread is already
lapping at their doorstep. Utopia is on their mind, make no mistake
– a perfect world with them in charge and with anything that
threatens it in the cross hairs. And the Europeans are no amateurs
in this matter; all we have to do is recall the vision of “The New
Soviet Man” in the USSR, or “the Master Race” in Nazi Germany.
They showed the way; their mistake was in being too obviously radical
and ham-handed about it. They could not harness the propaganda
potential of the world-wide media, “entertainment”, and the
Internet because those things didn't exist up until recently. But
all of these difficulties have been overcome, not in small part
because of the influence of the United Nations, but also aided by the
global reach of the banking and “securities” industries. Plus,
the USSR and Nazi Germany still held out for their respective brands
of nationalism, whereas “nationalism” has now become a dirty
word, and something to be avoided and suppressed whenever and
wherever found. This is why Brexit has caused such an uproar, and
why resurgent nationalism in Europe is subject to perpetual criticism
and indignation – and why, needless to say, the Trump phenomenon
has caused the globalists to come out of the woodwork. Based on the
reactions of the elite and of their unthinking robotic army of flying
monkeys, it is clear that globalism is the new world religion, with
all other liberal/progressive causes being subordinate. You name the
liberal/progressive cause or obsession, and I'll show you its
intimate connection with globalism, and thus with Utopianism on a
world scale. And lest the “check engine” light labeled
“conspiracy theories” on your dashboard has come on, I will
merely point out that none of this is the least bit secret; it's an
open agenda which is pursued openly, in broad daylight – such is
the confidence that those in charge of pursing the agenda have in its
success. But the Achilles heel of all of this is in that little
phrase, “demographics are destiny”. As secure as the elite are
in their fortresses (and yes, they do believe in walls after all)
they are having as hard a time dealing with human nature as the
Soviets and Nazis did. Most of the human race is still (without
necessarily knowing it) obeying the command given to Noah and his
sons: “Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth.”
