Culture, or the lack thereof: January 2012 Archives

Some times great minds think alike.

In this case Gerard Vanderleun attacks one of the "insidiously deceptive lines of the socialist-liberal agenda" which is "Violence doesn't solve anything." As the story he links to states:

Pacifism is a sickness, an actual moral perversity, and dangerous when its effects spread to anyone else beside the pacifist. You may choose to walk to the cattle car, but damn you if you let your children be led up the ramp. You must never allow any group or government to steal your right to exercise armed lethal force in a just situation.

This is a subject I've covered in the past, showing the old leftist saw to be nothing more than a pipe dream.

Violence does solve things. It has ended brutal dictatorships, saved citizens from the predation of criminals, prevented injustices on a small and large scale, and prevented wars.

Perhaps the old saying needs to be modified. Instead, it should be "Violence never solves anything if it is used at the wrong time in the wrong place." Violence in and of itself solves nothing. It is the proper use of violence under the right circumstances that solves problems.

Indeed.

"You Use That Word A Lot..."

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
"...but I do not think it means what you think it means."

And what word would that be but the favorite accusation hurled by the Left at the drop of a hat whenever someone dares disagree with someone from one minority group or another?

Racism. The Left bandies that word around like a bludgeon, figuring that by making the accusation they'll be able to stifle any disagreement with their agenda. Of course they'll claim that they're merely protecting an oppressed minority from the depredations of white people, but what it really is is a tool for a subtle form of extortion.

But first we have to ask "What is the real definition of the word 'racism'?" The Left's definition is too skewed and has little, if anything, to do with reality. So what is a definition that reflects the true meaning of the word? Let's try this one:

Racism is not thinking you are better than others. It is thinking that you are innately and forever better, that others cannot better themselves for reasons eternally set by biology. Racism is not thinking your society is superior. It is in failing to understand that others can take the elements that have worked for you, adapt them for themselves, and combine them with the best indigenous elements.

By that definition, it is the Left who are the racists because they do not believe their favorite minorities can succeed without their 'help' or 'protection' because they are incapable of doing so. And those who do succeed without 'help' from the Left are seen as "race traitors" who betrayed their cultural heritage by becoming something other than what the Left wanted them to be: dependent and subservient to their betters. After all, who knows what the minorities want or need better the the Leftist elites? (Not that they've ever actually asked them. They just assume they do.) They also assume that it is only whites who can be racist, when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary (think Sheila Jackson Lee or Reverend Jeremiah Wright).

In case you're wondering where that definition came from, it's from here. Seems apropos.

Expatriate New Englanders

Other Blogs We Like That Don't Fit Into Any One Category

Categories

Sitemeter

    -->
Powered by Movable Type 4.1