Note to Readers:

Please Note: The editor of White Refugee blog is a member of the Ecology of Peace culture.

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Are Blacks Addicted to Liberalism's Victimhood; because they Fear the Concept of Conservative Merit?






What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue. This meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good. It could be above moral vanity. And so it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom. Until my encounter with conservatism I had only known the racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other -- two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior.

The appeal of conservatism is the mutuality it asserts between individual and political freedom, its beautiful idea of a free man in a free society. And it offers minorities the one thing they can never get from liberalism: human rather than racial dignity. I always secretly loved Malcolm X more than Martin Luther King Jr. because Malcolm wanted a fuller human dignity for blacks -- one independent of white moral wrestling. In a liberalism that wants to redeem the nation of its past, minorities can only be ciphers in white struggles of conscience.

Conservatives believe that in each and every one of us there is the ability to achieve our wildest dreams. In America there are no limits but those we impose upon ourselves. We believe that regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation there is the opportunity to realize success. We believe that if left to our own devices we can do anything, achieve anything and surpass every expectation.

Liberals believe that certain groups are incapable of success on their own and therefore must be protected through discriminatory legislation in order to succeed. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary this mindset persists.






Why the GOP Can't Win With Minorities

Shelby Steele, Wall Street Journal
March 16, 2009



Today conservatism is stigmatized in our culture as an antiminority political philosophy. In certain quarters, conservatism is simply racism by another name. And minorities who openly identify themselves as conservatives are still novelties, fish out of water.

Yet there is now the feeling that without an appeal to minorities, conservatism is at risk of marginalization. The recent election revealed a Republican Party -- largely white, male and Southern -- seemingly on its way to becoming a "regional" party. Still, an appeal targeted just at minorities -- reeking as it surely would of identity politics -- is anathema to most conservatives. Can't it be assumed, they would argue, that support of classic principles -- individual freedom and equality under the law -- constitutes support of minorities? And, given the fact that blacks and Hispanics often poll more conservatively than whites on most social issues, shouldn't there be an easy simpatico between these minorities and political conservatism?

But of course the reverse is true. There is an abiding alienation between the two -- an alienation that I believe is the great new challenge for both modern conservatism and formerly oppressed minorities. Oddly, each now needs the other to evolve.

Yet why this alienation to begin with? Can it be overcome?

I think it began in a very specific cultural circumstance: the dramatic loss of moral authority that America suffered in the 1960s after openly acknowledging its long mistreatment of blacks and other minorities. Societies have moral accountability, and they cannot admit to persecuting a race of people for four centuries without losing considerable moral legitimacy. Such a confession -- honorable as it may be -- virtually calls out challenges to authority. And in the 1960s challenges emerged from everywhere -- middle-class white kids rioted for "Free Speech" at Berkeley, black riots decimated inner cities across the country, and violent antiwar protests were ubiquitous. America suddenly needed a conspicuous display of moral authority in order to defend the legitimacy of its institutions against relentless challenge.
'Compassionate conservatism' was clever -- as a marketing ploy. [Associated Press]
This was the circumstance that opened a new formula for power in American politics: redemption. If you could at least seem to redeem America of its past sins, you could win enough moral authority to claim real political power. Lyndon Johnson devastated Barry Goldwater because -- among other reasons -- he seemed bent on redeeming America of its shameful racist past, while Goldwater's puritanical libertarianism precluded his even supporting the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Johnson's Great Society grandly advertised a new American racial innocence. If it utterly failed to "end poverty in our time," it succeeded -- through a great display of generosity toward minorities and the poor -- in recovering enough moral authority to see the government through the inexorable challenges of the '60s.

When redemption became a term of power, "redemptive liberalism" was born -- a new activist liberalism that gave itself a "redemptive" profile by focusing on social engineering rather than liberalism's classic focus on individual freedom. In the '60s there was no time to allow individual freedom to render up the social good. Redemptive liberalism would proactively engineer the good. Name a good like "integration," and then engineer it into being through a draconian regimen of school busing. If the busing did profound damage to public education in America, it gave liberals the right to say, "At least we did something!" In other words, we are activists against America's old sin of segregation. Activism is moral authority in redemptive liberalism.

But conservatism sees moral authority more in a discipline of principles than in activism. It sees ideas of the good like "diversity" as mere pretext for the social engineering that always leads to unintended and oppressive consequences. Conservatism would enforce the principles that ensure individual freedom, and then allow "the good" to happen by "invisible hand."

The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race In America, by Shelby Steele
[*Amazon**Kalahari*]

And here is conservatism's great problem with minorities. In an era when even failed moral activism is redemptive -- and thus a source of moral authority and power -- conservatism stands flat-footed with only discipline to offer. It has only an invisible hand to compete with the activism of the left. So conservatism has no way to show itself redeemed of America's bigoted past, no way like the Great Society to engineer a grand display of its innocence, and no way to show deference to minorities for the oppression they endured. Thus it seems to be in league with that oppression.

Added to this, American minorities of color -- especially blacks -- are often born into grievance-focused identities. The idea of grievance will seem to define them in some eternal way, and it will link them atavistically to a community of loved ones. To separate from grievance -- to say simply that one is no longer racially aggrieved -- will surely feel like an act of betrayal that threatens to cut one off from community, family and history. So, paradoxically, a certain chauvinism develops around one's sense of grievance. Today the feeling of being aggrieved by American bigotry is far more a matter of identity than of actual aggrievement.

And this identity calls minorities to an anticonservative orientation to American politics. It makes for an almost ancestral resistance to conservatism. One's identity of grievance is flattered by the moral activism of the left and offended by the invisible hand of the right. Minorities feel they were saved from oppression by the left's activism, not by the right's discipline. The truth doesn't matter much here (in fact it took both activism and principle, civil war and social movement, to end this oppression). But activism indicates moral anguish in whites, and so it constitutes the witness minorities crave. They feel seen, understood. With the invisible hand the special case of their suffering doesn't count for much, and they go without witness.

So here stands contemporary American conservatism amidst its cultural liabilities and, now, its electoral failures -- with no mechanism to redeem America of its shames, atavistically resisted by minorities, and vulnerable to stigmatization as a bigoted and imperialistic political orientation. Today's liberalism may stand on decades of failed ideas, but it is failure in the name of American redemption. It remains competitive with -- even ascendant over -- conservatism because it addresses America's moral accountability to its past with moral activism. This is the left's great power, and a good part of the reason Barack Obama is now the president of the United States. No matter his failures -- or the fruitlessness of his extravagant and scatter-gun governmental activism -- he redeems America of an ugly past. How does conservatism compete with this?

White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (P.S.); by Shelby Steele
[*Amazon**Kalahari*]

The first impulse is to moderate. With "compassionate conservatism" and "affirmative access" and "faith-based initiatives," President George W. Bush tried to show a redemptive conservatism that could be activist against the legacy of America's disgraceful past. And it worked electorally by moderating the image of conservatives as uncaring disciplinarians. But in the end it was only a marketer's ploy -- a shrewd advertisement with no actual product to sell.

What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue. This meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good. It could be above moral vanity. And so it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom. Until my encounter with conservatism I had only known the racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other -- two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior.

The appeal of conservatism is the mutuality it asserts between individual and political freedom, its beautiful idea of a free man in a free society. And it offers minorities the one thing they can never get from liberalism: human rather than racial dignity. I always secretly loved Malcolm X more than Martin Luther King Jr. because Malcolm wanted a fuller human dignity for blacks -- one independent of white moral wrestling. In a liberalism that wants to redeem the nation of its past, minorities can only be ciphers in white struggles of conscience.

Shelby Steele

Liberalism's glamour follows from its promise of a new American innocence. But the appeal of conservatism is relief from this supercilious idea. Innocence is not possible for America. This nation did what it did. And conservatism's appeal is that it does not bank on the recovery of lost innocence. It seeks the discipline of ordinary people rather than the virtuousness of extraordinary people. The challenge for conservatives today is simply self-acceptance, and even a little pride in the way we flail away at problems with an invisible hand.

Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

» » » » [Wall Street Journal] [Shelby Steele Biography]



Liberals Just Don't Understand

The Silent Majority
Sunday, June 21, 2009


For some unexplainable reason I frequently subject myself to the insane ramblings of the liberal bloggosphere. I guess it has something to do with maintaining and even keel, maybe just getting a little perspective. What puzzles me most is the inability of liberal elites to digest the concept of conservatism.

The left claims to have providence over everything that is fair and equitable; they claim to be the party of truth and justice while practicing prejudice and discrimination. When I read the writings of liberal bloggers and hear the speeches of liberal elites I can’t help but wonder how they can make such claims with impunity. It seems to me that they should lay claim to the realm of bitter diatribes and tyranny.

Before I go any further I would like to clarify this point: When I speak of liberals I do not speak of the average Democratic voter. I most certainly allow for the fact that the Democratic Party is a diverse organization with beliefs and goals as varied as the people who comprise the party. I fully understand that that the party is comprised of individuals who may or may not subscribe to the liberal dogma as stated by liberal elitists. If the generalizations I make do not apply to you as an individual then it is safe to assume I am not speaking of you.

Where conservatives have failed is in identifying themselves with the festering pustule that is the Republican Party. They have failed in conveying why conservatism is different, at a fundamental level, than liberalism. They have failed because they have allowed liberals to define conservatism.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to be cast as the party of the rich; the party of prejudice; the party of corporate corruption. These mischaracterizations have never been effectively addressed by conservative leaders. Conservatives have sat by and watched their beliefs cast in a light most unfavorable without so much as a whimper of opposition.
We have allowed the Republican Party to wither and die on the vine. It has become nothing more than a convenient symbol for liberals to rally against. The current incarnation of the Republican Party is worthy only of reproach. The stereotypes attributed to conservatives are mostly true of the Republican Party; they are absolutely true of the Democratic Party.

Liberalism seems to be defined as everything antithetical to conservatism. It is an ideology that ceases to exist in the absence of conservatism. Much as shadows ceases to exist in the absence of light.


What is conservatism?

Conservatives first and foremost believe in the undeniable force of individualism. The individual is the foundation upon which this great country was built.

Conservatives believe that the government is the antithesis of individualism. When government grows and prospers individual rights necessarily whither and die. We believe government has an important but very limited role; protector of our constitutional rights.
Liberalism sees the government as the arbiter of equity and dispenser of rights.

Conservatives see successful businesses large and small as the backbone of a strong economy and a strong nation. We see business as an extension of the rights guaranteed by the constitution and the government’s taxation and regulation of business as an impingement on those rights.

Liberals see successful businesses as malignant blights hoarding resources and attaining wealth at the expense of the proletariat. Liberals believe that the government should control and distribute wealth so as to insure fairness.

There will be winners and losers but when individuals are left to succeed or fail on their own there is true freedom; when the government is left to decide who succeeds and who fails there can be no success only parity.

Without the promise of success there is no impetus for innovation. Ideas are the fruit of dreams and dreams grow only in the fertile soil of freedom. You can only remove the specter of failure by denying a path to success. For with every opportunity to succeed there is necessarily the possibility of failure.

Liberals believe in parity over freedom. They see a world where everyone is the same where there are no losers because there are no winners. They see a utopia where the government provides for all of our needs. They aspire to create a perfect society where everyone is happy and equal.

This is a noble cause to be sure but fails to take into account human nature. When such power is wielded by a few elites there is the looming possibility of tyranny.

When the wealth of an entire nation is entrusted to a handful of men the temptation for corruption is all but irresistible. The founders understood this all too well as they revolted against that very thing.

Conservatives believe that in each and every one of us there is the ability to achieve our wildest dreams. In America there are no limits but those we impose upon ourselves. We believe that regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation there is the opportunity to realize success. We believe that if left to our own devices we can do anything, achieve anything and surpass every expectation.

Defining the Problem, by Shelby Steele; Mother Jones, 1993


Liberals believe that certain groups are incapable of success on their own and therefore must be protected through discriminatory legislation in order to succeed. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary this mindset persists. With the election of a black president it should be readily apparent that no goal is unattainable with hard work and persistence.

What has earned conservatives the dubious title of “racists” is the fact that we believe everyone is equal and therefore no one deserves to be given a leg up over another based on race, sex or sexual orientation. Everyone should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. This is not the argument of a racist, simply a statement of common sense.

Conservatives are not anti-immigration we are anti-illegal immigration. We fully understand that this is a nation of immigrants and celebrate the diversity of this nation with great pride. It is not however a nation of illegal immigrants.

Everyone is welcome here but we ask that they abide by our laws, learn our language and contribute in an equitable fashion. Nothing worth having is free and that includes membership in this great nation.

Defining the Problem, by Shelby Steele; Mother Jones, 1993

Conservatives are not mind numbed robots who receive their marching orders from FOX News or conservative talk show hosts. We have arrived at our beliefs through diligent introspection and valuable life lessons.

Our beliefs are not subject to negotiation and polls do not determine where we stand on an issue. Compromise does not mean abandoning our core principles to make someone else happy. We will not go along to get along.

Liberals paint us as partisan and rigid. They are right. We refuse to submit to the theory that acting in a bipartisan manner means agreeing with them. Sorry.

Conservatives believe that we should be good stewards of this planet that God has given us. We believe in protecting the environment and using our resources wisely. We believe that Global Warming is at best unproven science and that no legislation should be passed based on unproven science.

Liberals believe that Man is a blight upon the earth and that all earth's ills would be cured if we just stop using oil. Liberals view Global warming as settled and are willing to destroy our economy and tax us into oblivion on nothing more substantial than a theory.

Conservatives believe that America is the greatest nation on earth and a beacon of freedom that other nations aspire to emulate.

Liberals believe that America is the cause of the world's problems and that if we were only more like Cuba everything would be alright.

Conservatives believe that doctors know best how to treat their patients and that healthcare should be the left to hospitals and private industry.

Liberals believe that the government knows best how to treat the sick and that healthcare is best left to Congress and the Senate.

Conservatives believe that this nation was founded under God and that God should be glorified. We are not ashamed of our beliefs and do not begrudge others if their beliefs differ.

“Obama's Plan to Enslave Blacks - A cartoon created for the NBRA by Brett Noel provides a chilling look at the future of black Americans under a Barack Obama Administration as "Socialist Slaves" dependent on government handouts on the Democratic Party's economic plantation. As a corrupt Chicago "Community Organizer" for 20 years, Obama produced unlivable slums and wants to repeat his failure for the rest of America.”
» » [National Black Republican Association]

Liberals believe that a moment of silence in a class room is a violation of the establishment clause but invoke the name of God on the campaign trail in the hopes of garnering votes.

They believe that God should be stripped from our government while paying to provide the Koran and prayer mats for terror suspects at taxpayer expense.

Liberal leaders deny the fact that we are a Christian nation while pandering to Islamic nations.

Liberals regularly refer to conservatives as the religious right as if it were an epithet. If they only understood us they would know we wear it as a badge of honor.

But the fact is they do not understand conservatives. They cannot understand us. We stand for something and that is a concept that is simply beyond the ability of a liberal to understand. They stand against, stand in the way, stand back and stand by but the do not stand for America.

» » » » [The Silent Majority]


No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]
FAIR USE NOTICE: The White Refugee blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the Canadian Immigration & Refugee Board's (IRB) ‘White Refugee’ ruling. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to White Refugee Blog at: [jmc.pa.tf(at)gmail(dot)com]