Film/music combo

Isn’t it refreshing to find a youtube music video that doesn’t include ‘orrible air brushed art clips!

Subconscious racism – the eastern front of the modern left

Subconscious racism – the eastern front of the modern left

Having made conscious racism legally and socially verboten, left liberals are increasingly turning their attention to subconscious racism. Among their wackier ideas include treating it with drugs and discouraging whites from listening to rock music (apparently it implicitly promotes white identity).

There are however some pretty big stumbling blocks.

Firstly if something is only recognised subconsciously, then it’s hard for most people to accept that it exists. People can be persuaded that explicit things such as legal statutes may be racist, but how do you expect for example, to persuade a staunch white fiscal conservative that fiscal conservatism is sub-consciously racist because it indirectly benefits white people ? The liberal left relies for much of its power on shaming its opponents, but you can only shame someone into changing their views if you can appeal to their conscious. The sub-conscious has no shame.

Hence as the liberal left sends its panzers of political correctness across the vast steppes of the white subconscious, they’re likely to find a stubborn and bemused opponent that’s unwilling to surrender ground.

Secondly, they may well unravel a lot of information that’s just as useful to the right as it is to the left. For example, in trying to show that whites have sub-consciously racist voting practices they will also end up revealing that non-whites are just as sub-consciously racist (if not more so).

Thirdly they may end up alienating many of their own kind.

As Kevin Macdonald pointed out in his excellent essay on white ethnocentrism, liberals may not be quite as ethnocentric as conservatives, but they’re a lot more hypocritical. For example, they publicly promote egalitarianism and anti-racism, but in private they avoid sending their kids to multicultural schools, support restrictive housing regulations (making housing more expensive for the poor) and engage in the gentrification (or whitetification) of non-white inner city neighborhoods.

Similarly, liberal musicians in white dominated genres like rock and folk are hardly likely to appreciate having their funding and publicity undermined by over-zealous anti-racist campaigners.

As the recession-driven Occupy movement has demonstrated, liberal whites quickly start to lose interest in helping non-whites once their own economic interests are on the line.

Theme songs options for the Iraq War era

Uber cool early 90s art rock:

 

Or maybe Borat meets epic prog rock:

 

 

Militia groups on the rise in the US

The MSM in the US is reporting another rise in various types of militia groups, including some with white nationalist views. Since these figures are provided by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, they’re likely to be exaggerated, but there probably is some substance to these claims.

The last time there was a significant increase in such groups was during the recession of the early 90s.

It does seem there’s a link between economic downturns and the growth of militia movements, but you have to wonder why there weren’t more such groups during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when economic conditions which much tougher than today.

The difference may be cultural change. The US today is a much more culturally divided society than it was in the 1930s. So it seems that as the economy declines, underlying cultural conflicts that are patched over by economic prosperity reassert themselves, and an increasing percentage of the population express their sense of alienation by joining separatist groups.

Are left liberals bigoted?

In an article on the Sarah Maid of Albion blog David Hamilton makes the point that left liberals who like to use the word bigot are actually bigots themselves since a bigot is someone who won’t listen to other opinions and many leftists refuse to listen to non-liberal opinions.

Hamilton argues that leftists misuse the word bigot to make it seem that it only applies to right wingers with negative opinions of things like ethnic diversity, while ignoring the word’s original meaning.

I looked up the term bigot in a couple of dictionaries.

According to a 1981 New Webster’s Dictionary a ‘bigot’ is defined as:

“a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion or practice, a person blindly attached to any opinion system or party and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently”

A 2004 Chambers dictionary defines a ‘bigot’ as:

“someone who is persistently prejudiced, especially about religion or politics, and refuses to tolerate the opinions of others”

The Chamber’s Dictionary defines ‘prejudice’ as:

“a preconceived and irrational opinion”

Now clearly a bigot is not simply someone who is intolerant of something. A bigot is someone who is unreasonably and irrationally intolerant, and won’t change their views if new information comes to hand. And bigotry doesn’t just apply to issues of race and religion it applies to all opinions and belief systems. Therefore it’s just as easy for a secular leftist to be a bigot as it is for say, a religious conservative or ethno-nationalist, and given that many leftists wish to deny rightists freedom of expression, Hamilton can make a strong claim that leftists are today’s biggest bigots.

Interestingly the original French meaning of the term bigot is “a suspicious hypocrite” which suggests that bigots are likely to dismiss rational arguments they disagree with and accuse those who make them of bigotry – a trait which is rampant on the modern left.

Why anti-racist drugs probably won’t work

A research story about a drug having anti-racist effects is currently getting a lot of mileage on the Internet.  Apparently some Oxford researchers have found that the beta blocker drug propranolol reduced sub-conscious racist responses in a recent study.

Not surprisingly, this has generated a lot of semi-serious comments about the possibility of liberal-fascist authorities popping such drugs in the water supply. However, just because ethnocentric people show more fearful responses to questions about racism does not mean (for better or worse) that beta blockers are going to make them less racist.

For a start, beta blockers don’t actually reduce fear per se, they only reduce the physical symptoms of fear. In other words, if say, a white guy who doesn’t like Black people sees a Black man with a machette, he’s still going to be just as fearful.

Beta blockers are popular for performance anxiety, because  those who are concerned about showing their fear through blushing, tremors, etc, have one less thing to worry about.  But this also means that blockers could potentially make people who are sub-consciously racist better at hiding their racial discomfort, which in some cases could actually make them more, not less racist.

Beta blockers also have negative side effects like fatigue and insomnia. Whatever, liberals say about racist whites, they still need whites as cash-cow taxpayers and indiscriminate use of such drugs would undermine white productivity – which is the same reason why they don’t want to  legalise marajuana – it’s bad for capitalism, and in a modern liberal society money is the only thing holding society together.

 

 

Why can’t you just accept the empirical evidence!

 

A modest proposal

In 1918 the German Army revolutionised warfare with the introduction of storm troopers – small units of highly trained elite troops who could carry out carefully coordinated attacks on enemy positions to clear the way of a general advance.

Here at Commonwealth Contrarian our far-seeing boffins have come up with a new type of combatant for the 21st Century – the reactionary invective trooper (RIT).

Instead of using small arms or artillery, RITs employ the psychological weapon of politically incorrect verbal abuse. Armed with powerful megaphonic equipment and the latest in protective clothing, the RIT can engage non-western combatants from a range of several hundred metres with lethal phrases such as “rag head,” “dune coon”, and “camel humper”. Prior to going out into the field our invective troopers will be intensively trained as trolls on anti-racist internet blog sites, and baited by lesbian Marxist drill instructors to get them ready to go into battle in peak mental condition.

One of the great advantages of using RITs, instead of more costly options like drones and cluster bombs, is the minimum amount of collateral damage incurred. Exhaustive studies at Belarus State University (the only academic institution politically incorrect enough to carry out these tests) have shown that children under 16 and adults over 65 are largely immune to abusive ethnic slurs delivered at moderate decibels .

Unfortunately as with any new innovation, our RIT programme has its Luddite detractors. Critics at UCLA and Minnesota State University have called it “grossly inhumane” and “a grave threat to global peace”. As one sociology professor at UCLA lamented:

“Before the era of hate speech laws, ethnic slurs caused untold psychological damage in the western world. Now these people want to unleash such hateful material on developing nations – they’re insane”.

Certainly there is potential for this technology to be misused. But don’t dismiss ethnically abusive language because of its negative past. In the 1920s the Thompson sub-machine gun was a popular choice of gangsters and hit men, but it went on to play a vital role in defeating the Axis during World War Two.

Going forward, we believe the path to global democracy and prosperity will be assured if RITs are responsibly employed in troublesome combat zones.

Binary politics

One of the features of living under an ideological hegemony is that there is no ideological middle ground.

In today’s liberal hegemony, people either have the correct views or they have the wrong views and if they have the later, they’re labeled as “extremists” or simply backward idiots who are beyond the pale.

Take racism for example. Racism basically means favouring those of your own race over those of other races. A more scientific, and less emotionally-loaded term for racism is ethnocentrism.

Now ethnocentrism may or may not be a bad thing, depending on your view point, but most people would at least agree that it exists in varying degrees.

However, within the official ideological straitjacket of modern liberalism, there are no degrees of ethnocentrism, you can’t be slightly or moderately ethno-centric, you’re either are ethnocentric or you aren’t.

This is why you hear people making saying statements starting with “I’m not racist, but….”

Since it’s not acceptable to admit to being even slightly ethnocentric, you have to deny you’re ethnocentric before you can make any kind of ethnic observation or judgement. Thus today’s liberal society creates an ideological “no man’s land” within which no one admits to having any opinions.

Not only does this suppress debate, but it also undermines people’s ability to actually come up with workable solutions to social problems.

Take the recent issue of women serving in the front lines in the military. In practice the debate has taken place between those who promote the “correct” liberal view that women should be able to do whatever men do, and a small number of conservative dissidents who argue that this is dangerous and impractical. Naturally, the liberals have won the argument and women can now serve with men in front line roles.

However, there were other possible alternative that weren’t even discussed. For example, girls and boys tend to do better in single-sex schools. So you could make a good case that if you’re going to have women in the front lines, you should get them to serve in women’s only units. This would get around a lot of the problems associated with men and women living next to each other in arduous battlefield conditions, while still allowing atypical women to serve in the front line.

I’m not necessarily saying this is the best solution to the issue, it may be, but it does demonstrate that when you have a binary form of politics, few options outside of the mainstream paradigm will raised and given due consideration.