Tuesday, January 7, 2014

On Diversity, Multiculturalism and Exploding Heads

~On Diversity and Multiculturalism~

Simpson says my answers about diversity, found here, "betray an eagerness to warp reality to serve one’s own agenda."

Ah, no. The primary ones warping reality are the progressive cultural elites, who do indeed embrace white inferiority by claiming it is falsely superior -- exactly the same way feminists embrace male inferiority by claiming it is falsely superior. And, no, I did not immediately equate diversity with race -- though that is usually what it usually refers to in general discussions online. What I did was change subject from diversity to multiculturalism.

Simpson attempts to equate diversity and multiculturalism, but, based on my observations, they are not the same thing. Multiculturalism is a a political and social doctrine of the progressive left, held and promoted for a distinct political and cultural end.

What Simpson and his minions fail to understand (or what they ignore) is that when I discuss things like race, feminism, and other cultural concepts, I am usually not talking about my views but about the views of progressives -- or, at least, the views they promote, whether they actually believe them or not -- i.e., the views they are pushing in order to bring about the radical transformation of society.

Simpson says, "One wonders how she would define 'white culture,' given the ethnic and religious diversity inherent in that culture."

One also wonders how he would. He just indirectly defined it as a culture ("that culture").

However, my definition of white culture is not the subject of my comments to Mr. Young. The progressive concept of white culture is the subject. Ask the progressives what they mean by it.  Ask LibertyLamprey what he means by it.  He and his ilk are the ones who conceptualize white culture as monolithic with no distinct components -- at least, in their criticism of it they do.

Simpson further says, "To say that an acceptance of diversity or multiculturalism is designed to eradicate “white” culture is simply bizarre … but it does betray the fears, insecurities, and anxieties of the questioner."

Actually, no, it betrays the fears, insecurities, anxieties -- and I might add the jealousy and hatred -- of race-focused cultural elites who wish to eradicate white culture, however they conceptualize it. Those who accept and champion multiculturalism -- at least, the elites and leaders -- do indeed aim to eradicate white culture -- or, again, their concept of it. This is the reason for fabricating "white privilege," most starkly manifested in the Un-Fair Campaign; seen also in Noel Ignatiev's call to abolish the white race.  Sez  Ignatiev: "When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category....whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages." (Wikipedia)

I might take exception to the blanket charge of "unearned advantages" but that's a discussion for another time. For now, I will say that this myth of "white privilege" is parallel to a very common feminist myth about male power. Yes, most positions of power are held by men; that does not mean all men are powerful (most aren't).

The world of superiority and inferiority -- i.e., inequality -- is conceptualized, fostered and promoted by the cultural elites. Perceived racial and gender inequality is as much a progressive view as a white supremacist one. The primary difference is what each group thinks the response to the inequality should be.

Simpson concludes Part I, "Moreover, anyone looking at the world from a global perspective would understand that 'white culture' is a minority culture. If demography is destiny, then so is diversity, and that destiny dooms our critic to a lifetime of bitter complaining."

Um... who has claimed that demography is destiny? Not me. The ones claiming that are the ones trying so hard to radically alter demography -- but only, or primarily, in what they perceive to be "white cultures" -- Europe and its offshoots around the world.

As usual, LibertyLamprey has some inane observations on this subject. Sez he, "Diversity has always been the bases of progressive thought. To join together cultures, races and nations to unify in progression in the arts, music, literature, peaceful societies, science and engineering and other areas that will advance humanity."

Obviously, few progressives are trying to infuse "progressive thought" in these tribesmen: http://www.theworldgeography.com/2010/11/most-backward-tribes-in-todays-world.html

And we all know what a cultural backwater the United States was -- hardly any progress at all in arts, music, literature, science and engineering -- until Ted Kennedy's 1965 enlightened immigration policy opened up the US to, um, culturally diverse immigrants in huge numbers....

And not just here. Some of the most ethnically diverse countries on the planet are in Africa -- not known for its progress in arts, music, literature, science and engineering

My point is that the leftist progressive worldview and goals are flawed -- as much or more than those of  people they so vociforously criticize-- which is only to be expected of anything hatched by the mind of fallen mankind.

~On Exploding Heads~

It's truly fascinating (sometimes) to contemplate the flogger/floggerette mentality. Apparently my novel excerpts did make some heads explode, in a manner of speaking.

Judging by a few comments, novels that depict deep love and a strong sexual bond in marriage are trashy. Novels that depict marital faithfulness and the rejection of adultery are trashy.

Southern Man is primarily about a virtuous but flawed man who makes some mistakes as he tries to overcome personal weaknesses.The story does deal with sexual themes; it's an indictment of the Sexual Revolution and it incorporates a look at the effects of false accusations of sexual harassment -- and it is difficult if not impossible to explore those subjects without sexual themes. But it's not erotic romance, or erotica, which s what I consider trashy.

What's fascinating is to discern what "trashy" means in the liberal view. Having learned over the years about the liberal/progressive view of sex and marriage, and how they fit into the overall leftist worldview, I don't find the exploding heads suprising at all.

Clearly (to borrow an overused Levinism), a huge reason for designating Southern Man as trashy is because it was written by a conservative, traditionalist, Christian white Southerner who defends Confederate heritage. People critical of, or opposed to, those traits will deem trashy anything I might write, whatever the genre -- action adventure, sci-fi space opera, suspense/thriller, chick lit, etc. 

But beyond that, the criticism just gets bizarre. The progressive stance on traditional marriage -- one man, one woman, married for life, and that it is the relationship for which sex is made -- is perfunctory tolerance to outright scorn, and the agenda is to radically transform it. I.e. if two men or two women love each other, why should they be discriminated against re: marriage? sez the progressives  Yet,the recent progressive reaction at the Crossroads peanut gallery to the Phil Robertson video betrays extreme prejudice and lack of tolerance among the progressive, tolerant crowd, particularly ageism. If an older man and younger woman (or an older woman and younger man) love each other, what's wrong with their marrying -- even if the younger ones are minors, if the law and their parents/guardians permit it? If love is love, why is age difference important, but gender difference -- rather, sameness -- isn't?

But oh-so-progressive and tolerant LibertyLamprey defines older grooms as "dirty old men."

Obviously, the limits of liberal tolerance are, or can be, defined by personal whim....

Speaking of LibertyLamprey and Phil Robertson -- I have to note the former's bizarre claim that duck hunting is "mass murder." Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. You can't murder animals. That doesn't justify the suffering of animals by cruelty and neglect, although animals are, or certainly can be, cruel to each other. The stewardship of the earth, including its animals, is the responsibility of man, given to him by God -- one of the responsibilities man obviously does not take seriously enough, and which he often grossly violates.

I have to admit that LibertyLamprey's criticism of duck hunting is at least consistent with his vegan views. As a vegan, he likely knows that the treatment of animals, including chickens, raised on factory food farms is appallingly cruel. I believe it is the antithesis of Biblical good stewardship -- and I believe we will be held accountable for such as that.

At the same time, I know (does Lamprey know? and if he does, does he care?) that the abundant population of ducks, abundant despite hunting, remains so largely due to the efforts of one of the most successful wildlife conservation organizations the country, Ducks Unlimited, and similar groups.
http://www.ducks.org/  About 90 percent of DU members are hunters. These folks are a fine example of good stewardship.

There is more to observe On Diversity, Multiculturalism and Exploding Heads, so I may return to this later.


  1. Simpson's reply to Billy Bearden's observations in the "Diversity" comment thread illustrate his (Simpson's) propensity for fudging the truth. It's either that, or he's incapable of recognizing the truth, and I don't think he is.

    Billy posted:

    Well, I’ll start by stating that those who proclaim they are for “diversity” always seem to speak out against the inclusion of those who honor Confederate soldiers. They make a special effort to bring the Hispanics, the multi-ethnics, the LBGT, most anything and anybody not a straight white Christian and claim “look at the diversity” while excluding a sizable segment of the population.

    In my experiences, ‘diversity’ is Animal Farm code for announcing “We are more equal than you”. If you are having to pull certain individuals out of society while excluding another part, to hold them up as the example of ‘diversity’ – you have lost your own argument. Diversity is what is when you open your front door and step outside into the world – and it includes ALL God’s children – not just the specially selected Hispanics, multi-ethnics, and LBGT.

    From what Star Chamber did the people who do the selection of ‘diversity’ come from?

    Simpson replies:

    Yes, Billy, now you are whining that you are a persecuted minority. When will your self-pity party end?

    Another angry white person.

    Whining? Persecuted minority? Nothing in Billy's comments indicated either one. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

    What Billy did was point out the hypocritical nature of leftist diversity-pushers who exclude some people -- i.e., those who do not embrace a leftist progressive worldview and agenda.

    Frankly, I suspect Billy doesn't give a plug nickel about being part of the cultural left's "diversity" population. I sure don't. But, since their agenda is so destructive of our society, it behooves us traditionalists and conservatives to point out their foibles.

    What Billy said is true. That means there is no successful arguing against it, so Simpson avoids it with a lie.

    You want to see an angry person? Read some of LibertyLamprey's comments, or these from BParks: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-tolerance-and-graciousness-of-bparks.html

    I wonder how often she has to replace her poor keyboard....

  2. ...from the comments section of the referenced post at Simpson's Flog-

    Jimmy Dick:
    "Going through American history we can see how whites shoved all other races and cultures out of their way in establishing a white dominated culture AND one that placed some whites over others within that culture.

    Recent American history has been about the struggle to rebalance and change that culture to one where equality, the main principle of the American Revolution, exists for everyone of all races, creeds, religions, and classes."

    Maybe Jimmy could give some diversity training in his hometown.


  3. BR, they don't really care about their own shortcomings. They're all about fault-finding.

    But it would be interesting to hear them explain why, if all cultures are equal, how any of them could be shoved out of the way. Weren't they able enough to withstand, or shove back? If not, why not -- I mean, if they're equally strong, smart, knowledgeable, innovative, etc., etc., etc....

    I suspect we'll hear a cricket chorus from now until doomsday waiting for an explanation....

  4. Speaking of Jimmy Dick, BR., he wants a foreign policy built on "mutual respect." Doesn't that just double you OVER? We're supposed to be all about "diversity," right? Does that include accommodating countries and cultures that stone women for adultery -- because they were RAPED? The progressive left in the west is supposed to be such champions for women's rights and equality, but they are deafeningly mute about the civil rights abuses in Islamic countries. The terrorist groups who behead people, video it with their phones, broadcast it on the world wide web, and suffer no justice whatever -- we are really supposed to RESPECT that?

    Terrified of change? Terrified of THAT kind of barbarism, sure enough, and if that is being terrified of "change" -- so be it.

  5. The comment thread a Crossroads, as of this writing, is a jaw-dropping example of people being willing to shrink their own intelligence in order to denigrate someone.

    The subject is cultures -- multiple cultures -- not individuals. Billy Bearden's comment is right on point. Christian culture and Confederate heritage are indeed excluded from "multicultural" recognition. The leftist cultural elites perceived that white Christian culture is too lofty, and the point of multiculturalism is to "elevate" other cultures to the same level. If white Christian culture is acknowledged, its loftiness will be exhibited, perhaps even reinforced, which is the very opposite of what the elites want. So, it's excluded by the includers....

    Despite the obvious subject matter -- multi-CULTURES (or cultural groups), Al Mackey jumps on the individual discrimination interpretation -- which Billy did not even mention. Billy was talking about those who champion cultural groups refusing to see Confederate heritage advocates as an identifiable group. Many of said advocates are descendants of Confederate soldiers and are thus an group at least as identifiable and as viable as LBGTs. But they are not afforded recognition as such.

    That is obvious point in Billy's statements, but Al would rather assassinate his own brain and ignore that in order to accuse Billy of complaining about something he didn't even mention, and present Brooks with an intro for bringing up "white supremacy," which is completely irrelevant to the subject matter, but dear to flogger hearts.

    And Simpson is equally eager to assassinate his intellect by portraying Billy as pouting because he's not getting his own way when, in fact, what Billy was doing was showing the gross hypocrisy of those claiming to be multiculturalists. Exactly how leftist hypocrisy is a "threatening difference" Simpson doesn't say.

    Then, LibertyLamprey takes the cake for shriveling one's own intelligence by asking, "In her response to this article, why is Connie talking about ducks?"

    Well, I explained it. Do we really think Lamprey's reading comprehension skills are so deficient that he couldn't follow the explanation? He ends with, "Again…I’m hearing the theme music for Twilight Zone…"

    Accompaniment maybe for the voices in his head....

  6. I truly believe that these people are simply that obtuse.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.