"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right
"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right
I'm working on a couple of Laura-related pieces, including the one you previewed.
The tone of the post pasted below reveals a repugnant side of Laura - her (unwitting?) belief in White Supremacy.
Or if Laura is not a White Supremacist, she's a pragmatist who thinks white guys are more likely to restore the kind of authoritarian world required by her "vision."
When Obama won re-election, I remember that Laura and one of her correspondents commiserated over the fact that "the liberals had won" and would now create a new world in which their children would necessarily drift away from "the faith of their Fathers."
In the thread pasted below, "ALAN" gets the supremacist ball rolling before receiving Paul's enthusiastic endorsement.
Then "Earl" makes a genuinely interesting postulation - that conservatives "want to live peaceful and quiet lives..." until he blurts out: "at least until somebody needs killing."
Earl continues: "Until then (i.e., until somebody needs killing), they focus on career and family, praying for their leaders and pursuing a peaceful and quiet life instead of agitating for social change & control."
The trouble with Earl -- and it is an uncontrollable contagion on "the right side of the aisle" -- is that "conservatives" constantly conjure "fanciful idylls" and "Golden Ages" whereas, in their "real" lives, they are "the original-and-enduring dirty tricksters" who can't satisfy themselves fucking people in peacetime, so they sniff about for excuses to kill them in war. (Here's what the sons-o-bitches did last time. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/costly-withdrawal-is-price-to-be-paid.html)
To the extent that conservatives seem more dedicated to their families, it is (often) because they are an avaricious lot who can't be bothered with The Common Good. And so, having little social life outside the home, they have more time to take their kids to gun shows.
Lacking any nitty-gritty encounter with people who are hurting, they immerse themselves in the abstractness of "pure" ideology from whose well-defended parapets they never descend long enough to actually meet any Muslims, black people or latinos.
By default, they fall into a roiling stew of frustrated, angry, persistently racist "white people" who see themselves under attack by dark-skinned n'erdowells.
This is no secret:
Earlier today, I wrote about the incalculable hatred that constantly deluges Obama. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/obama-addresses-pending-government.html
As a group, modern "conservatives" are corrupted by a set of impeccable principles that are too "true" to be good.
Compendium Of Best Pax Posts On "Too Pure Principles" And The Collapse Of Conservatism
"The terrible thing about our time is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice. The more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their realization. We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations, imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is not the ideal. Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good. The best, imposed as a norm, becomes evil.”
"Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,” by Thomas Merton
Pax on both houses,
The Disappearance of the “Strict” Man
The supine surrender of their legitimate authority by American white men is one of the most sickening spectacles I have witnessed in my life.
One day not long ago my cousin and I were reminiscing about our grandfather, who died many years ago at age 89. “He was strict,” my cousin remarked when remembering him from our boyhood years. I imagine he meant that remark not as a criticism but simply as an observation.
When I was young, I too probably imagined him to be strict. But “strict” in comparison with what? Was he ever a petty tyrant? Never. Not even remotely. He was “strict” in the sense of being disciplined and principled. He lived by firm moral standards of behavior, speech, and apparel. He knew that such standards were necessary, not optional, because neither reality nor responsibility can be evaded. He would never have been deceived by the pretentious claptrap of “tolerance”, “openness”, non-discrimination, and moral relativism that Americans today imagine make them superior to those previous generations of “strict” American white men.
Men Who Make St. Louis the City of Opportunity is the title of a book published in St. Louis in 1927. It includes full-page formal portraits of 83 businessmen. All of them are white. Like my grandfather, they were “strict” in comparison with the lowered standards that Americans today are foolish enough to imagine are proper or sensible. There are no Asians, Latinos, Arabs, Indians, or Africans pictured in the book. St. Louis had more than 800,000 residents in 1927, but they did not suffer from the astronomical rates of crime and lawlessness that St. Louisans must endure today while applauding themselves for their “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”
A few questions that loom are:
If American white men had not agreed to stop being “strict” by surrendering their moral and political authority over the past half-century, how would our nation look today? Would those men welcome millions of trespassers and reward them with citizenship, education, and welfare handouts? Would they welcome “immigrants” whose avowed goal is to conquer America and remake it? Would those men permit the feminization of the armed forces? Would they agree to celebrate “affirmative action” policies and “same-sex marriage”? Would they make excuses for incompetent public schools and unaccountable school boards? Would they take pride in a police department that pursues parking violations with militant zeal but allows free-lance thugs to rule the streets? Would they celebrate the amplified noise and profanity of rap “music” on the streets and in city parks? Would cities like East St. Louis, Camden, New Jersey, Gary, Indiana, and Detroit look as they do today?
— Comments —
Will G. writes:
“If American white men had not agreed to stop being “strict” by surrendering their moral and political authority over the past half-century, how would our nation look today?”
They apparently dropped the ball at some point. My father-in-law would be considered a “strict man” in many ways. He is 72, an ex-marine, retired executive from Anheuser Busch. A very driven and successful man. Give him a project and he is all over it and it will be done well. They now live in a gated community in St. Louis and in Florida and they just tune out the rest of the world. I respect him for his accomplishments but his insularity is troubling. It feels like an abdication of duty. A lot of men like him picked up their marbles and went home. What would I do if I were in his shoes? I don’t know. I am spending the second half of my life detoxing from the liberalism that infested the first half. I am angrier than he is.
It may not be insularity so much as quiet approval. He was prepared for all this, as was most of his generation.
Alan hits the nail on the head with his eloquent essay. I don’t think I have ever read a more succinct, accurate description of what the thinking was like in the fifties and mid-sixties (maybe longer) with my father. Notice he distinguishes between superficial lay authority, which I usually rebel against, and morality. My ex-combat Marine Dad was no saint, but my beautiful mother charmed him and calmed him. My Dad knew exactly what has been going on as Alan remarkably lists.
One of the traits of mature and strict conservative (and even libertarian) men is the desire to live a peaceful and quiet life where each is accountable to his own, where the greater passions of politics are able to be set aside in the various “pursuits of happiness.” These men can still be strict about themselves and their own, but would rather live in a society where they don’t have to babysit federal bureaucrats 2,000 miles away. It is a fundamental property of many mature conservative men to want to just let things be, once things are generally fair and just in their minds.
It is also a fundamental property of young undisciplined liberals to always be looking for the next liberation, pushing for more security, more equality, more “awareness raising campaigns” driven by every little wind of doctrine. Conservatives, even the strict ones, are seemingly hard wired to be wary about politics- at least until someone needs killing, anyways. Until then, they maddeningly focus on career and family, praying for their leaders and pursuing a peaceful and quiet life instead of agitating for social change & control. It took many years of offense (cataloged in the Declaration) before the “strict men” of colonial America finally threw in with the Sons Of Liberty.
Over the last 10 years I have watched the Internet debates develop from a place run almost strictly by college age liberals on Digg.com (for example) to a more fairly balanced debate where seniors and family men are catching up to these kids in their dorms with their fancy smartphones who have nothing better to do. But the Internet is still dominated by liberals. It is my belief that the strict men just don’t have the time or the desire to compete in the online political debate, and beyond. The Internet is a shadow of the greater sphere of the public debate, reflecting the same traits of mature conservatives and crusading ignoramuses.
Will G. writes:
Well said, Earl. At what point do they put down the golf club and throw in with the Sons of Liberty?
Jane S. writes:
It reminds me of a past discussion on VFR:
“To put it another way, Republicans represent the remnant of America’s old Anglo ethos, and the keynote of that ethos is the imperative not to make a fuss. As Hemingway’s narrator Jake Barnes in The Sun Also Rises says, ‘I try and play it along and just not make trouble for people.’ The Anglo ethos can work well in a traditional society formed and guided by that ethos. In a society that has already been half radicalized and is threatened with destruction, it is a formula for helplessness and surrender.”