← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 4253 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2002-12-30
2002-12-30 20:55 | User Profile
[url=http://www.patriotist.com/cantrell.htm]PC-Style Nobles and Peasants[/url]
by Jimmy Cantrell
Three years ago, Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article titled "A Privileged Underclass". It is, if we are to begin the process of turning the Politically Correct multicultural tide before it tsunamis virtually all of what is left of Western Christian Civilization, required reading.
Roberts notes that in much of feudal Europe [and similar law would have been in force in most of the rest of the world] the nobles were a legally privileged class deemed too important, too good, too precious, to have their feelings hurt by what non-nobles might say about them. It was not a matter either of nobles being unjustly smeared and thus wrongly destroyed or possessing china doll sensibilities that could shatter due to true, harsh words. Rather, if the middle class and peasantry could openly challenge and condemn the actions of nobles as failures, perhaps as immoral, then the status quo of social and political power, and the economic power controlled significantly by those persons wielding special legal status, would be in doubt. Roberts uses the case of then Atlanta Braves ace reliever John Rocker to show how American society has degenerated into a kind of flip side of the coin of the worst of feudal era class-based law.
Today, in place of law that prevents the masses from uttering things disliked by the hereditary nobles, we have PC hyper-sensitivity. Some of it is monetary class focused [the rich and the upper middle class are evil victimizers, while the poor are innocent victims who require socialist redress,] but the preponderance of it is race and gender focused. Quite simply, it would be 'racist,' according to this age in which a man who plagiarized and played adulterously throughout his life and favored race-based socialism [including reparations and the double standards that define Affirmative Action is held up as a sainted role model even by most who fashion themselves conservative, to label rich blacks as oppressors of poor whites.
That shift marks the movement of the Left from classical Marxism and bleeding heart, simple do-gooder socialism to postmodernist multiculturalism that sees the inherent victim groups requiring preferred status and restrictive programs as non-white races, non-Christian religions, women, and homosexuals, while the most egregious, perhaps only relevant, victimizer group is that of white male Christians - with Southerners, the most conservative demographic group in America, relegated to the status of worst of the worst who must perennially apologize to and placate PC determined victim groups: rather like feudal era peasants forced to offer their virgin daughters as sport to the most demanding of the warlord class.
The Marxist link to what is dogmatically preached from our mass media and university pulpits as tolerance of diversity and respect for other cultures is, as Roberts emphasizes, something that we cavalierly dismiss, or that we naively tolerate and with which we make deals, at our own peril: "The baseball commissioner drew on the defunct Soviet practice of sending dissidents who criticized the regime to a mental institution - the presumption being that anyone who found fault with communism must be insane - and sentenced Rocker to report to a hospital to have his sanity tested."
The second most important sentence in Roberts' article is this: "Members of the hegemonic class [white male Christians] are repeatedly forced to punish one another in order to assuage the underclass [non-whites, non- Christians, etc.]"
The furor over Trent Lott's attempt to honor Strom Thurmond by praising his 1948 Dixiecrat [States' Rights Democrat] candidacy for the White House is proof positive that Roberts told a terrible truth: PC is so widespread, and so deeply ingrained in virtually all non-heartland mavens of political/social/journalistic power [including those who call themselves conservative,] that many victims of PC double standards and objects of PC devotee intense hatred [heterosexual white males, white Christians, Southerners, Republicans, etc.] willingly participate in perpetuating and spreading it by maiming and destroying those who fail, accidentally as well as intentionally, to pay reverent homage to postmodern Leftist dogmas and taboos on race and gender, history and culture. As nothing is ever isolated, I assume that this particular furor is also significantly about Lott's statement that troops may be needed on the Mexican border to prevent additional mass illegal entry into the nation. To all Leftists and apparently the majority of neoconservatives, serious opposition to illegal migrants flooding the country and to mass immigration of non-whites, most of whom over the past 30 years have refused to assimilate more than minimally, equals the unforgivable 'racism' of not damning the Confederacy and Southern culture.
As Roberts explains in his article on the chickens pecking blemished pretend-rooster Lott to death while the chicken hawks salivate, the acceptance of cultural Marxism's worldview, in somewhat diluted form, by the movers and shakers of the Republican Party, particularly - and increasingly with a gleeful self-righteous viciousness - the neoconservative pundits and consultants, has guaranteed that "the land of the free is a lost civilization."
I am not attempting to defend Lott categorically. His career proves that he is a mere typical politician ever ready to forego principles - providing he has any - in order to move up the ladder of power and then secure his grip. He has demonstrated that most obviously in his response to the attacks on him by the Left and by fellow Republicans: he has groveled before the PC crowd and promised to support more socialism to benefit its pet groups. Lott is unfit to be Senate majority leader not because he attempted to honor a wheel- chair bound centenarian whose 1948 race for the White House began the process that ended the Yellow Dog Democrat political South [without which the Republicans would have remained the definite minority party]; Lott is unfit for the office because he is not conservative enough and because he lacks the character to stand his ground and slug it out against both the Left and the neocons who parrot a kinder, gentler, strained take on almost everything the Left whines and threatens regarding race.
As Michelle Malkin has observed, the result of this fiasco may well be that Republicans dutifully sign on for even more race-based socialism in a futile attempt to prove to the PC crowd that they are neither racists nor insensitive to the special needs, fears, and desires of the postmodern version of feudal nobles happy to cut out tongues to prevent non-nobles from spreading dissent that could lead to any decentralizing of political and/or economic power, that could lead to rule of law sans special status for feudal nobles.
The fault is far from Lott's alone. Had his fellow Republicans, especially neocon journalists who are largely socially acceptable in the 'best circles' in both liberal New York City and the Beltway, not attacked him with fury equaling that of campus radicals desiring to stop the teaching of dead white men while also eradicating all non-negative references to Southern culture and history, Lott likely would not have continued to apologize and then offer bribes to the Left and its constituencies to get them and the neocons off his back. The absurdity, ultimately self-defeating, of the neocon position [and thus the position of establishment, mainstream Republicans, who pander desperately to get more than 10 percent of blacks to vote for them] is evidenced in David Horowitz' call for Lott's head. To Horowitz, whether Lott is or was a racist [which is never defined] or was sincere in his apologies is utterly irrelevant. Lott must be demoted because "at the very best, he is tone deaf to the most important domestic issue of our time."
No proudly professed Leftist, not even a PC multiculturalist professor, could have said it better than did this former Marxist. Actual guilt [of a charge never defined but obviously a 'thought crime'] is no more the issue to Horowitz than it is to Melville's Captain Vere; proper deference to the felt needs and sensitivities of the Left's sacrosanct pet groups is the issue. If a rose by any other name smells as sweet, then Leftist philosophy or attitude or emphasis or praxis remains Leftist no matter how confidently its practitioner labels and believes himself to be a conservative [or, for that matter, a centrist or a libertarian.]
It gets worse if you consider the implications inherent in Horowitz's assertion. If the unforgivable political sin of our time is to be "tone deaf" to issues of race as perceived and pontificated by the Left, then all actual conservatives deserve to be demoted and banished just as most contemporary academics and journalists believe, for actual conservatives will have been equally tone deaf in opposing Affirmative Action and run- away welfare and the militant liberal biases of the media and educational bureaucracies. They will have been equally tone deaf in opposing Leftist calls to rename for black radicals and Marxist fellow travelers the schools, buildings, and roads named for the 'racists' George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Robert E. Lee. They will have been equally tone deaf in opposing the lies, romantic fictionalizing, and endless exaggerations that constitute virtually the whole of Afrocentrism. They will have been equally tone deaf in opposing reparations for slavery paid to people who were never slaves [some of whom had no ancestors who were slaves in these United States, many others of whom had ancestors, black ones, who themselves owned slaves in these United States and/or in Africa,] reparations paid by people who were never slave owners [the vast majority of whose ancestors never owned slaves here or in Europe.]
That realization may well explain why Republicans talk a much better game in the cultural-moral arena then they ever start to play. The talk is to keep true conservative Americans, the vast majority of whom have deep roots in fly-over country and want a Republic that honors states' rights and the moral and political visions of America's Founding Fathers, voting for the party that claims to be more conservative. The Lott lynching is merely the latest proof that the contemporary party of Lincoln intends not to act to reverse the path of cultural decadence and centralization of government, which each serve to redistribute wealth and political power to PC preferred groups while further debilitating Western cultural, moral, and intellectual values; rather, the Big Government Republicans are dead set on being the catch-up partner in the long march through the institutions toward a multicultural, race-based socialist Reich bestriding the globe as imperator, prepared to swiftly punish all who transgress PC dictums on race.
Could Marxists, and virulently anti-Western Civilization 'civil rights' heroes, W. E. B. DuBois, Herbert Marcuse, and Che Guevara really have hoped for more?
Mr. Cantrell may be reached at jandkc@bellsouth.net.
2002-12-31 00:49 | User Profile
TD,
Sure Jimmy would like to hear your comments on his article. Consider a post and on to the BATR Group.
JC is a favorite . . .
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-12-31 01:00 | User Profile
Busted! :lol:
Of course I got the head's up on this one from your BATR group, SARTRE. Indeed, I thoroughly enjoy Mr. Cantrell's work and wish he would register and mix it up here.
2002-12-31 02:45 | User Profile
TD,
Will pass on a recommendation to JC.
SARTRE