Friday, January 21, 2011

The Left’s Message to Everyone to the Right of Mugabe: ‘Surrender … and Die’

By Nicholas Stix

In “What Can the Right Say?,” Ziel at Your Lying Eyes lays out the problem of the totalitarian Left’s control of public discourse.

While the President's words at the Tucson memorial rally were welcome, as they certainly seem to have defused - for now, at least - the unbridled anger on the left, there is nevertheless a discernible degree of disingenuousness in his message*. For nothing the President said contradicted the prevailing understanding that civility is defined for the left by how the message is delivered, but for the right it is the message itself. In other words, entire arguments on the right are out of bounds, but on the left only violent language can be uncivil.

For example, could a conservative make the following argument regarding immigration?

Immigration from Mexico and Central America should be discouraged as the track record of Americans with ancestry from these countries is typically sub-par. Mexican-Americans have low rates of high-school graduation; have incomes significantly below average; have higher crime rates; have very high rates of illegitimacy; and have poor measures of civic responsibility (e.g., low voting rates, high rates of gang membership).

No, I don't believe any conservative could make that argument in any kind of mainstream forum - only in unaffiliated blogs could such an argument be made, despite its dispassionate tone and reliance on published facts.

On the other hand, could a liberal make this kind of argument?

Opposition to immigration is rooted in xenophobia. Immigration opponents are motivated by nothing more than hatred - hatred for anyone who threatens their imaginary Leave-it-to-Beaver world. But that world is a fantasy, and these racists will eventually find themselves fossils in a changing world that will have no patience for their demented, hateful intolerance.

Yes, I think they could - and have quite often, and this kind of argument is perfectly acceptable in mainstream venues, despite it's completely fact-less content and its vituperative tone….

And so this is the quandry the right finds itself in - it cannot communicate its message to voters since the message itself is verboten.

Read the whole thing.

This guy should be a famous columnist. Nah, forget it. Too honest.

My response follows:

[Comment from another reader:] “Unfortunately, FAIR wound up being called a ‘Hate Group’ by the SPLC. Roy Beck was described as being a man who has a ‘crazy uncle’ (referring to other immigration restrictionists), because the left is simply, virulently, anti- white, and in essence, anti- western civilization.”

True. I call the white Left the New White Racism, but unlike the old white racism, the new version supports genocide against its own race…as long as leading anti-white racists (Frank Rich, Noel Ignatiev, Tim Wise, et al.) are themselves spared.

[Comment from the same reader:] “I'm afraid that until there is an even larger amount of interracial violent crime that directly affects the elite and their children, to the point that it can simply no longer be ignored, the situation will not improve- and then there will be a sudden, violent change in opinion, with all that that might entail...”

For 50 years, people have been waiting for that “worse is better” argument to bear fruit. But during that time, most whites have instead had their will worn down. Deviancy has continually been defined down anew. The New White Racists and their black and brown supremacist allies have gotten stronger in numbers, and in methods of soft totalitarianism (outlaw judges; de-policing towards black and brown criminals; hyper-policing towards whites; criminal justice affirmative action; diversity training in all institutions; anti-white propaganda from pre-K through graduate school; the MSM’s war on white America; etc.).

And the totalitarianism is hardening. Whites like Jeremiah Munsen are being imprisoned simply for engaging in symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Meanwhile, non-whites who engage in the same symbolic speech are not being prosecuted, or even named by authorities who cover for them.

[Comment from the same reader:] “The elite can, for the moment, isolate themselves. Heck, the elite in countries like Brazil can isolate themselves from crime, and Brazil's crime rates are much higher than ours. True change may only happen once we're on the brink of anarchy!”

See above.

I can’t say what must be done, because it would get you shut down, Ziel, and might even get me arrested.

Until now, I’ve always been able to say what’s on my mind online, but the other day a supportive reader pushed one of my buttons in a personal e-mail, and forced me to confront where things are headed. He talked about what it would take to stop America’s slide to a situation like that of South Africa or Zimbabwe. I had to admit that he was right. I’ll have to leave the particulars of our correspondence to your imagination.

And then I heard a non-racially oriented economist talk about the coming anarchy, when the dollar ceases being the world’s reserve currency, and inflation here spirals out of control. The speaker was that Stansberry guy, who is selling his financial services, but I’d read about the problem for a few years now, from Good Craig Roberts. (That’s as opposed to Bad Craig Roberts, who seems to have meanwhile taken over Roberts’ personality, and has him sounding like Kevin MacDonald, which is why I almost never read him anymore.)

Seeing more racist atrocities is not going to gradually bring about a change in the consciousness of 200 million whites. During the 1960s and ‘70s, whites got to see enough black racist atrocities for a lifetime. Now the national media suppress stories they once told, and any white who publicly complains about them experiences terrible things, and/or is silenced.

I haven’t been published under my own name for pay in New York City since 1996. (I had nine pseudonymous articles published in New York dailies in 1998-99. I didn’t dare tell the editors who I really was. I used to find fliers in my CUNY college’s English Department denouncing me.) I haven’t had a letter published under my own name in the NY Times since 1997. (From 1990-1997, the paper had published my letters prominently in the Sunday Magazine and the Week in Review. In 2006, after wasting my time for nine years on a score or so of letters under my own name, I finally sent a pseudonymous letter on immigration, and it was immediately published in the Sunday Magazine.)

A couple of months ago, I sent a pseudonymous letter complaining about black racism to a little local newspaper. The editor wrote back, saying “I think I know who you are” (I’m sure he did!), that my letter was “too racist” as written (never mind that he’d published psychotically racist letters from blacks), and that in order for him to publish it, I would have to tone it down, present myself in his office, and prove my identity.

I kid you not.

Take Oregonian “reporter” Betsy Hammond. Please. Two years ago, she tried to get a VDARE reader fired from his job. The man had written to her about the violent black racism he had experienced in Atlanta using his real name, and mentioning the firm he worked for. That same day, she contacted his employer and sought to whitemail the latter into firing the reader!

Some whites are going to have to see other whites doing things, and choose sides. Like I always say, You may not be interested in race war, but race war is interested in you.

Ziel responded,

Nicholas - true, I didn't even go into what a private citizen might safely say - loss of one's livelihood being a very real possibility as a result of impolitic pronouncements. Which is why anonymity is so important in the blogosphere, and why there are those who are so eager to take it away.

1 comment:

Hirsch said...

It seems to me that the left's worst double-standard is in the guilt by association department. Consider: Imagine if Jared Loughner had a relationship with Sarah Palin as close as that Obama shared with Jeremiah Wright. He met with her once a week for years, she was a notable guest at his wedding, and the title of one of his online screeds was lifted directly from a speech the Governor of Alaska gave. Would Loughner have been given any latitude?

People forget that the serial killer John Wayne Gacy worked closely on mayor Daley's campaign, and was active in Chicago's democratic machine. Should we infer that the climate the dems fostered in the 60s and 70s led a man to dress up like a clown and go on a killing spree?