 |
 |
City lilacs downtown, and only ten minutes away in a residential area.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Like Clockwork
Writers at Vdare show us something of their true nature
Here is a post at the immigration reform website Vdare, where my suspicions about the vanity of writers are, if not confirmed, at least supported.
The editor and founder of Vdare, Peter Brimelow, posted this observation about him on Vdare's blog a few days ago:
Sorry, but Mr. Brimelow has nothing on him, light brown hair and piercing blue eyes notwithstanding (even in later years) .
But, as tempting as it is to go on about this, although it seems that readers are being goaded by Brimelow himself, I am not really interested in this. I am more interested in the content of Vdare, and what has it accomplished in the past ten years.
According to its copyright stamp at the bottom of its website, Vdare has been around since 1999. That is ten years.
So, it begs the question: What has Vdare achieved in the ten years that it has been publishing information and articles about immigration? Let me start by comparing it to another site.
Numbers USA has been around since May 2008 (at least according to their blog archives – although it seems much longer to me). They have divided their website into various categories:
- In depth articles
- Regular blogs
- Links for taking action – for political or grass-roots activities
- Other sources of practical information, including the latest immigration news, policies, governmental actions, election results, etc…
- Several ways in which to contact congressmen, including faxing or emailing them
- Updates on Numbers USA members in their grass-roots or political action, including testifying before various Senate committees.
Throughout the time I’ve been reading Numbers USA, they urge their readers (now well-informed about the issues through the blogs and articles) to actively participate in the immigration fight, including contacting their congressmen, or specific congressmen when the issues are more definite.
I’m not saying that a politics-oriented website has to enter directly into the field of politics. But Numbers USA has done an incredible job of posting researched articles, daily blogs, policy oriented information, grass roots action, and much more, for their readers. And they make things happen.
The only thing I would hope Numbers USA address with equal insight, information and action, is Muslim immigration. They are so focused on Hispanics and Indian IT workers, that they have neglected this most dangerous group of immigrants.
There is no doubt that Peter Brimelow has gone through great lengths to build his website. It really is a fountain of information, with some cutting-edge, factual, empirical, research on immigration and its costs to American society.
Yet, the writers have a tendency to use the site as a grievance center, Brimelow included.
The writers seem more interested in dredging out the most horrific news, statistics, and anecdotes. Some abandon completely their grass-roots involvement with immigration (such as Joe Guizzardi, a candidate in California’s gubernatorial recall election in 2003, who fled California - according to a blog entry in Vdare - for Pennsylvania).
Vdare could have been the powerhouse which Numbers USA is slowly becoming. Vdare has the man-power and the intellectual capacity. It apparently also has a loyal following, which nonetheless might be not so loyal if recent fundraising drives are anything to go by. People don’t want to send money to a movement which has no…motion!
I will conclude with one more point.
At a recent, very important, inaugural conference, Preserving Western Civilization, Brimelow gave the following speech: "Immigration, Innumeracy, And The Case For Impeaching Judges." Well, this is the title he gave his speech on Vdare, post conference. At the conference, it was simply called: "Problems Caused by Immigration."
Brimelow started his speech – in front of an expectant audience – with an unnecessary jibe (a tradition at Vdare) at the SPLC, and only after he got that in did he thank his host, who should have had the honors at the onset. Angry retaliation at one’s perennial enemy seems to take precedence over acknowledging the hard work and enterprising spirit of one individual who managed to get an important group of people together for an action oriented meeting, something which Brimelow so far has been unable to do.
But, beyond that breach of courtesy (anger and bitterness makes you awfully self-centered), and a flippant reference to a one-man-show website, and its author’s dedication with time spent on the internet, without complaint, to get his insights and information across to thankful readers (Brimelow always seems to be complaining about how much time his website takes to run), Brimelow gave a rambling speech on immigration in general, much of which his adroit audience probably already knew. And he provided an odd ending.
Brimelow’s final suggestion (solution to problems in immigration?) was to: impeach the judges. That was it. As an immigration expert of many years, who has all the data and information under his belt, this was all he could come up with.
In contrast, look at the leap of imagination, and a hope for something concrete and even possible, that the afore-mentioned and slightly, perhaps affectionately, mocked website author, Lawrence Auster, presented in eloquent fashion: "A Real Islam Policy for a Real America."
I have written that many writers these days, who are trying to fight the liberal world, get caught up in their own anger, bitterness, and eventual vanity (may as well be pleased with oneself – and one’s "eloquence" – if all else fails). This is what I think Vdare, despite its many good services, has become.
I think Brimelow is better off considering what his real impact on the immigration problem has been, besides giving rambling, and not so eloquent speeches at important conferences.
 |
Here is a post at the immigration reform website Vdare, where my suspicions about the vanity of writers are, if not confirmed, at least supported.
The editor and founder of Vdare, Peter Brimelow, posted this observation about him on Vdare's blog a few days ago:
Peter was strikingly handsome, with light-brown hair and piercing blue eyes.Yes, it is a quote from an article by another writer – from the Vdare nemesis National Review. But who quotes from someone else how "strikingly handsome" one is?
Sorry, but Mr. Brimelow has nothing on him, light brown hair and piercing blue eyes notwithstanding (even in later years) .
But, as tempting as it is to go on about this, although it seems that readers are being goaded by Brimelow himself, I am not really interested in this. I am more interested in the content of Vdare, and what has it accomplished in the past ten years.
According to its copyright stamp at the bottom of its website, Vdare has been around since 1999. That is ten years.
So, it begs the question: What has Vdare achieved in the ten years that it has been publishing information and articles about immigration? Let me start by comparing it to another site.
Numbers USA has been around since May 2008 (at least according to their blog archives – although it seems much longer to me). They have divided their website into various categories:
- In depth articles
- Regular blogs
- Links for taking action – for political or grass-roots activities
- Other sources of practical information, including the latest immigration news, policies, governmental actions, election results, etc…
- Several ways in which to contact congressmen, including faxing or emailing them
- Updates on Numbers USA members in their grass-roots or political action, including testifying before various Senate committees.
Throughout the time I’ve been reading Numbers USA, they urge their readers (now well-informed about the issues through the blogs and articles) to actively participate in the immigration fight, including contacting their congressmen, or specific congressmen when the issues are more definite.
I’m not saying that a politics-oriented website has to enter directly into the field of politics. But Numbers USA has done an incredible job of posting researched articles, daily blogs, policy oriented information, grass roots action, and much more, for their readers. And they make things happen.
The only thing I would hope Numbers USA address with equal insight, information and action, is Muslim immigration. They are so focused on Hispanics and Indian IT workers, that they have neglected this most dangerous group of immigrants.
There is no doubt that Peter Brimelow has gone through great lengths to build his website. It really is a fountain of information, with some cutting-edge, factual, empirical, research on immigration and its costs to American society.
Yet, the writers have a tendency to use the site as a grievance center, Brimelow included.
The writers seem more interested in dredging out the most horrific news, statistics, and anecdotes. Some abandon completely their grass-roots involvement with immigration (such as Joe Guizzardi, a candidate in California’s gubernatorial recall election in 2003, who fled California - according to a blog entry in Vdare - for Pennsylvania).
Vdare could have been the powerhouse which Numbers USA is slowly becoming. Vdare has the man-power and the intellectual capacity. It apparently also has a loyal following, which nonetheless might be not so loyal if recent fundraising drives are anything to go by. People don’t want to send money to a movement which has no…motion!
I will conclude with one more point.
At a recent, very important, inaugural conference, Preserving Western Civilization, Brimelow gave the following speech: "Immigration, Innumeracy, And The Case For Impeaching Judges." Well, this is the title he gave his speech on Vdare, post conference. At the conference, it was simply called: "Problems Caused by Immigration."
Brimelow started his speech – in front of an expectant audience – with an unnecessary jibe (a tradition at Vdare) at the SPLC, and only after he got that in did he thank his host, who should have had the honors at the onset. Angry retaliation at one’s perennial enemy seems to take precedence over acknowledging the hard work and enterprising spirit of one individual who managed to get an important group of people together for an action oriented meeting, something which Brimelow so far has been unable to do.
But, beyond that breach of courtesy (anger and bitterness makes you awfully self-centered), and a flippant reference to a one-man-show website, and its author’s dedication with time spent on the internet, without complaint, to get his insights and information across to thankful readers (Brimelow always seems to be complaining about how much time his website takes to run), Brimelow gave a rambling speech on immigration in general, much of which his adroit audience probably already knew. And he provided an odd ending.
Brimelow’s final suggestion (solution to problems in immigration?) was to: impeach the judges. That was it. As an immigration expert of many years, who has all the data and information under his belt, this was all he could come up with.
In contrast, look at the leap of imagination, and a hope for something concrete and even possible, that the afore-mentioned and slightly, perhaps affectionately, mocked website author, Lawrence Auster, presented in eloquent fashion: "A Real Islam Policy for a Real America."
I have written that many writers these days, who are trying to fight the liberal world, get caught up in their own anger, bitterness, and eventual vanity (may as well be pleased with oneself – and one’s "eloquence" – if all else fails). This is what I think Vdare, despite its many good services, has become.
I think Brimelow is better off considering what his real impact on the immigration problem has been, besides giving rambling, and not so eloquent speeches at important conferences.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Despot...Hmmm
No analogies here
Yes, I have corrected it. I was pronouncing the "s" as a silent one. But in French it is also “despote” – and the “s” is pronounced. So I have no idea where the error came from.
In any case, I just realized that my image of the Ivory Coast city may be misconstrued as analogous to one in the U.S. (or what Obama may do to the U.S. in the future).
Not likely. Obama is already off the wall. Just look at Gitmo, and his awful "the Muslims built our tallest building" thing - well yes, they also destroyed two other tall ones. Won't people of all stripes and orientations begin to realize what a mediocrity he is, and a dangerous one at that (and I would add insulting, too)?
No, the photo was to show how ludicrous President Félix Houphouët-Boigny was, spending all that money and time for a pretentiousness that doesn't fit his city or his people. All for show.
That's the part where Obama comes in. All show. Maybe I should have just called him nouveau riche, and be done with the whole de[s]pot thing. I don't even think he has it in him to be a despot.
 |
Yes, I have corrected it. I was pronouncing the "s" as a silent one. But in French it is also “despote” – and the “s” is pronounced. So I have no idea where the error came from.
In any case, I just realized that my image of the Ivory Coast city may be misconstrued as analogous to one in the U.S. (or what Obama may do to the U.S. in the future).
Not likely. Obama is already off the wall. Just look at Gitmo, and his awful "the Muslims built our tallest building" thing - well yes, they also destroyed two other tall ones. Won't people of all stripes and orientations begin to realize what a mediocrity he is, and a dangerous one at that (and I would add insulting, too)?
No, the photo was to show how ludicrous President Félix Houphouët-Boigny was, spending all that money and time for a pretentiousness that doesn't fit his city or his people. All for show.
That's the part where Obama comes in. All show. Maybe I should have just called him nouveau riche, and be done with the whole de[s]pot thing. I don't even think he has it in him to be a despot.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama As Third World Despot
Or is it nouveau riche?
Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire.
Built in the late 1980s at a cost of $300 million.
It is listed as the largest church in the world.
Third World despot, or is it just nouveau riche? But isn't that the curse of Third World despots, who get all agog in the face of their new power, and all the things they can do with it?
Here is a short, but by no means complete list (it will stretch over the years), of some of Obama's over-the-top behaviors:
- An 850 mile pizza delivery. Obama has a St. Louis pizza restaurant owner fly to the White House with a suitcase of dough, cheese and pizza pans make pizzas for him and his guests. He had sampled the chef's specialties while in St. Louis during his campaign. Now, what person remembers a deep-dish pizza while in the midst of a tumultuous traveling and speaking whirlwind to secure the most important post in the country?
- Michelle Obama* was wearing designer sneakers (really ugly, I might add) while volunteering at a D.C. foodbank. Wearing $500 sneakers at a food bank is like saying, "let them eat cake."
- And of course the famous "date night", in the middle of the recession and while GM was preparing to file bankruptcy, to New York for dinner and a Broadway show.
I have a feeling that such strange, disconnected (with ordinary people) behavior will continue. And each time it happens, people will be outraged, and writers will find renewed energy to pen their ineffective pieces.
* I had promised not to write about Michelle Obama's fashion sense. But, this isn't really about her shoes...
|
Built in the late 1980s at a cost of $300 million.
It is listed as the largest church in the world.
Third World despot, or is it just nouveau riche? But isn't that the curse of Third World despots, who get all agog in the face of their new power, and all the things they can do with it?
Here is a short, but by no means complete list (it will stretch over the years), of some of Obama's over-the-top behaviors:
- An 850 mile pizza delivery. Obama has a St. Louis pizza restaurant owner fly to the White House with a suitcase of dough, cheese and pizza pans make pizzas for him and his guests. He had sampled the chef's specialties while in St. Louis during his campaign. Now, what person remembers a deep-dish pizza while in the midst of a tumultuous traveling and speaking whirlwind to secure the most important post in the country?
- Michelle Obama* was wearing designer sneakers (really ugly, I might add) while volunteering at a D.C. foodbank. Wearing $500 sneakers at a food bank is like saying, "let them eat cake."
- And of course the famous "date night", in the middle of the recession and while GM was preparing to file bankruptcy, to New York for dinner and a Broadway show.
I have a feeling that such strange, disconnected (with ordinary people) behavior will continue. And each time it happens, people will be outraged, and writers will find renewed energy to pen their ineffective pieces.
* I had promised not to write about Michelle Obama's fashion sense. But, this isn't really about her shoes...
Calling the Bluff of "Conservative" writers
They have no desire to cure their anger
As I read the conservative commentators over the past few months, one thing I notice is that their ire with Obama gets more high-pitched by the day.
I don't know why they're spending their energy this way. Obama has consistently acted in ire-inducing ways, and gave us a sample of this even before he became president. Some incidents include:
- His church and Jeremiah Wright
- His grandmother
- His reaction on blacks and crime
- His silence after his wife’s atrocious words
And after his election, it just continued to spiral, or at least continue in the same direction.
There is just too much anger going on in conservative writing in general. An anger that allows them to wax eloquent.
In other words (pun intended), all those angry words the angry conservatives wrote have added up to zilch. I maintain that much of conservative writing (although it must be writing in general) is a kind of vanity. Look how angrily I write. How eloquently, how wittily, how profoundly I can write. What a tool for my writing my anger is.
I'm saying all this after an interesting interaction with David Yeagley's blog, who like all the rest, uses this anger as his crutch.
The discussion there was about the female non-liberal writers (I don't even know what to call them) [1, 2, 3], who have offered us reams of their indignations. And what are we left with? A mediocre president, who bustles around the world and around the country as he pleases. Who ignites the anger of these writers! How convenient.
My solution to their anger, which of course they would never want to let go of, is:
At the moment of the Hussein debacles, the Wright atrocities, the insult on whites, the demeaning of the grandmother, Michelle’s horrific words, writers should have just left their comfortable desks and high speed internets to do some...ground work.
- Have people sign petitions
- Do marches around D.C.
- Sit in hunger strikes
- Overtake radio stations
- Get arrested for civil disobedience
- Team up with the Minute Men
- Go to the heartland and learn to shoot
- Build an army of the unemployed (victims of out-sourcing) of Ohio
Often writers are scorned for having no effect. There is nothing truer than that at this point.
As I read the conservative commentators over the past few months, one thing I notice is that their ire with Obama gets more high-pitched by the day.
I don't know why they're spending their energy this way. Obama has consistently acted in ire-inducing ways, and gave us a sample of this even before he became president. Some incidents include:
- His church and Jeremiah Wright
- His grandmother
- His reaction on blacks and crime
- His silence after his wife’s atrocious words
And after his election, it just continued to spiral, or at least continue in the same direction.
There is just too much anger going on in conservative writing in general. An anger that allows them to wax eloquent.
In other words (pun intended), all those angry words the angry conservatives wrote have added up to zilch. I maintain that much of conservative writing (although it must be writing in general) is a kind of vanity. Look how angrily I write. How eloquently, how wittily, how profoundly I can write. What a tool for my writing my anger is.
I'm saying all this after an interesting interaction with David Yeagley's blog, who like all the rest, uses this anger as his crutch.
The discussion there was about the female non-liberal writers (I don't even know what to call them) [1, 2, 3], who have offered us reams of their indignations. And what are we left with? A mediocre president, who bustles around the world and around the country as he pleases. Who ignites the anger of these writers! How convenient.
My solution to their anger, which of course they would never want to let go of, is:
At the moment of the Hussein debacles, the Wright atrocities, the insult on whites, the demeaning of the grandmother, Michelle’s horrific words, writers should have just left their comfortable desks and high speed internets to do some...ground work.
- Have people sign petitions
- Do marches around D.C.
- Sit in hunger strikes
- Overtake radio stations
- Get arrested for civil disobedience
- Team up with the Minute Men
- Go to the heartland and learn to shoot
- Build an army of the unemployed (victims of out-sourcing) of Ohio
DO something about this candidate, and now president, who flames their indignation so (too) easily.
But no. If I were a psychoanalyst, I would have concluded that these writers didn’t want to lose their anger. They didn’t want things to change. I would have called their bluff.Often writers are scorned for having no effect. There is nothing truer than that at this point.
The Barriers That Hide Truth From Us
Can they be surmounted?
David Yeagley, on his webstite Bad Eagle posted this article: "Malkin, Mercer, and Schlussel on Sotomayor". I never read conservative, or non-liberal writers these days, since their whole being has morphed into liberal bashing. I don't think they inform me, or provide for me any insightful commentary that would help elucidate the world around me. This is how I responded to his article:
Now, for some reason, this really irritated me. I responded a little hastily:
I base my speculations on a purely intuitive premise, and that, I base on religious truth.
If one claims that certain groups of people cannot get at Truth, one is claiming they cannot get at the Truth of God. That is a pretty stiff condemnation to make.
Everyone has the ability to see the light of that Truth. If everyone can see that Truth, how about the mundane truths of everyday life, choosing between truth and falsehood, right and wrong? Those too.
The barrier that gets in the way of truth, I think, is our ego. In response to David Yeagely's article, I call that vanity, for women at least. Some women are affected by it, others less so. And perhaps women are affected by it more so than men, which makes their barrier harder to surmount.
Rather than the inability to see, or tell, the truth, it is some kind of barrier which can come between the truth and us knowing or practicing it. Maybe that what David Yeagley is talking about.
So, the secret to truth-telling or truth-seeking might just be this barrier. And the task is how to prevent it from overshadowing our reception of truth.
David Yeagley, on his webstite Bad Eagle posted this article: "Malkin, Mercer, and Schlussel on Sotomayor". I never read conservative, or non-liberal writers these days, since their whole being has morphed into liberal bashing. I don't think they inform me, or provide for me any insightful commentary that would help elucidate the world around me. This is how I responded to his article:
There are some really interesting women writers, who don’t have their snarkiness. Diana West is one, and with a successful, non-snarky, informative and insightful book out called "The Death of the Grown Up"... Another is more of an academic - Christina Hoff Summers. She’s the one everyone quotes for ideas on what’s happening to young boys.One of his reactions to my comments was : "The Sword of Amhara has arrived. (I knew it!)".
Your trio (or more) of women pundits are really just followers, David. They don’t bring original insights, and almost all of their writing is a quote of a quote of a quote.
Now, for some reason, this really irritated me. I responded a little hastily:
David, I know it is really your style to categorize people in terms of their tribal groups, but these days, even the Amhara don’t really find much similarity with me. I grew up in England, France, in complete isolation of Ethiopians. When I came here, it was rather a culture shock to find so many Ethiopians.A little later, and a little calmer, I posted this:
Whatever I say, I say as a Westerner. That is how my mind thinks.
I think I understand what irritated me about this. It is as though if I (as an example) get angry or voice a slightly controversial opinion, in your eyes (sorry to put you on the spot), it could be a relative truth as in "This is how an Amhara says it, or reacts to it" as opposed to: "this might be a possible truth."Now, this is a really interesting problem. If truth seeking, or truth recognition is only privy to certain groups, what does this mean?
As though truth is a relative thing, with some more approachable to it, and others not.
I’ve noticed you use the same analogy with women.
I base my speculations on a purely intuitive premise, and that, I base on religious truth.
If one claims that certain groups of people cannot get at Truth, one is claiming they cannot get at the Truth of God. That is a pretty stiff condemnation to make.
Everyone has the ability to see the light of that Truth. If everyone can see that Truth, how about the mundane truths of everyday life, choosing between truth and falsehood, right and wrong? Those too.
The barrier that gets in the way of truth, I think, is our ego. In response to David Yeagely's article, I call that vanity, for women at least. Some women are affected by it, others less so. And perhaps women are affected by it more so than men, which makes their barrier harder to surmount.
Rather than the inability to see, or tell, the truth, it is some kind of barrier which can come between the truth and us knowing or practicing it. Maybe that what David Yeagley is talking about.
So, the secret to truth-telling or truth-seeking might just be this barrier. And the task is how to prevent it from overshadowing our reception of truth.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Legacy of the Likes of the Human Rights Commissions
And how it affects our designs
I've spent of good deal of time on the HRCs in Our Changing Landscape. As an antidote, I posted on another type of legacy, a positive and constructive one (in the literal sense, in that it builds rather than destroys), on an immigrant Danish textile designer.
Design suffers under the stifling climate of the HRCs, which I maintain are fueled by the multicultural society that immigration fosters. I posted an earlier blog titled, "How Multiculturalism Infantilizes Design", relating to Diana West's book Death of the Grown Up, and a lecture where she equated multiculturalism with the infantilization of our society. Here is the quote from the lecture:
So, out of fear of insulting, offending or hurting the feelings of the myriad of groups, whose cultures genuinely may not accept the kinds of imagery and logos you design, you are forced to take the true character out of your creations, and come up with atrocities like these instead.
How multiculturalism, and the HRCs, can affect our design
Diana West's multicultural infantalization is a direct result of our immigration policies.
To regain our mature and truly vibrant styles, (and to dismantle the HRCs), it appears more and more necessary that we pay attention to immigration, which lets this juvenile multicultural world to escalate, while diminishing our own complex world.
I've spent of good deal of time on the HRCs in Our Changing Landscape. As an antidote, I posted on another type of legacy, a positive and constructive one (in the literal sense, in that it builds rather than destroys), on an immigrant Danish textile designer.
Design suffers under the stifling climate of the HRCs, which I maintain are fueled by the multicultural society that immigration fosters. I posted an earlier blog titled, "How Multiculturalism Infantilizes Design", relating to Diana West's book Death of the Grown Up, and a lecture where she equated multiculturalism with the infantilization of our society. Here is the quote from the lecture:
During one lecture on The Death of the Grown-Up, I took a question from a man who wondered, in a rather agitated way, if I were actually saying that multiculturalism is juvenile. I hadn’t phrased things that way, but, on quick reflection, I told him that, yes, that was indeed what I was saying. The fact is, buying into multiculturalism — the outlook that sees all cultures as being of equal value (except the West, which is essentially vile) — requires us to repress our faculties of logic, and this in itself is an infantilizing act.On more practical terms, if someone (a Muslim, say), doesn't like the kind of design you put up for your company or business, he can go to the HRCs and complain that his feelings have been hurt, and the sign has got to go.
So, out of fear of insulting, offending or hurting the feelings of the myriad of groups, whose cultures genuinely may not accept the kinds of imagery and logos you design, you are forced to take the true character out of your creations, and come up with atrocities like these instead.
 |  |
Diana West's multicultural infantalization is a direct result of our immigration policies.
To regain our mature and truly vibrant styles, (and to dismantle the HRCs), it appears more and more necessary that we pay attention to immigration, which lets this juvenile multicultural world to escalate, while diminishing our own complex world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)