Post-America

Mar 17, 2020 by

by Sidney Secular

“All notions of security are  superstitions.” —Helen Keller

“When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — You may know that your society is doomed.” —Ayn Rand

Cultural Marxism has always involved the effort to destabilize societies in order to redistribute their wealth and to impose political tyranny, and, when successful, it has always resulted in totalitarian regimes that ended up killing more than just national economies.  In the past, Cultural Marxism generally built up a head of steam by exploiting  class conflicts inside of societies, but it found that effort to be unsuccessful in U.S., because here the poor always aspired to become like the rich, rather than wanting to kill off the rich to grab their money.  Stymied by this mindset, the Marxists diligently searched for other societal fault lines to exploit, and they settled on a campaign to inflame the race and gender divides in America.

This attack plan began with modest demands that women and minorities have equal access to institutions, integration into them, and an equal status in all venues.  After making headway for several decades in those contexts, the attack then predictably moved forward to more aggressive attempts to control institutions and extort reparations from them.  Ultimately, however, the end goal can be expected to become an effort to completely reinvent the institutions and impose authoritarianism in them. We know this, because Cultural Marxism doesn’t seek partnership with those in power, it instead seeks to depose and obliterate the powers that be.

As an example, the American Civil Rights Movement, which began with polite requests for social equality for Negroes and equal access to institutions like schools, trade unions, and government agencies.  Those goals were largely achieved, and have now evolved into frequent and strident demands for reparations,  institutional control, and wealth redistribution.  When the modern demands are impeded at any point, invariably there are now zealous charges of racism and shrieks that historical grievances that must be righted.

Few concessions and confessions decrease the loudness of the shrieking, and in all of this, little mention is made of the fact that 600,000 overwhelmingly white soldiers gave their lives in the American Civil War, at least in some part to emancipate Negroes.  When we add civilian deaths, some scholars suggest a figure of closer to one million fatalities may have occurred.  Likewise, little mention is made of the trillions of dollars spent in social welfare benefits in the last half century to raise blacks to parity with whites, or the 60 years of reverse discrimination to which white Americans have been subjected in the guise of something called “Affirmative Action.”  Instead there is the snarling rabidity of Spike Lee, telling his kinsmen in awards ceremonies that it was “black Americans who built America.”  Odd, this exaggeration, coming from a representative of a relatively small American subgroup that once constituted less than one-tenth of America’s population, and was primarily kept busy scrubbing chamber pots.  Ironic,  this vitriol, coming from modern purveyors of discontent, insisting that it was actually their group that founded and built a society that would never have existed if history had waited for them to do the job.

In blood and cash and self-negation, any debt owed Black America has already been paid in full.  Yet instead of any remotely humble acknowledgement of this, we are bombarded by a narrative insisting that America’s primary identity stems from a relentless victimization of people of color.  And this is a narrative promoted by both the Left and the Media, the latter of which in recent decades has generally functioned as the Left’s mouthpiece.  In this role, the smallest of micro-aggressions perpetrated against blacks is fodder for the Media narrative.  A white swimming pool manager, failing recently to recognize a black family as members, requested identification and received coast-to-coast TV vilification for that sin.  A white drugstore manager refused to accept a black shopper’s coupon, and received similar coast-to-coast media scorn.  In a notorious incident, two black men were asked to purchase something at a Starbucks or to leave.  They refused to do so, even when the police were summoned and made the same request.  They were arrested, with seismic hoopla resulting.  The incidents that were “reported” do not yet meet the threshold of being qualified as “hate crimes,” but hang onto your hat, because such times are soon coming.  And in the meanwhile, entire households of the melanin-impaired may be slaughtered in their sleep by people of color, and those incidents receive only local media attention, or get designated as unexceptional run-of-the mill crime, and/or get promptly flushed down the public’s memory hole.

The sin of these distorted narratives is greatly compounded by the Media’s insistence that there is a war by the police on people of color.  It does not matter one wit that this “war” is statistically impossible to substantiate.  In essence, if people of color are numerically more likely to die in encounters with the police, it is only because people of color are more likely to be involved in the crime occurring in our streets.  There is nothing mysterious about this equation, yet the Media has seldom been accused of being encumbered by an obligation to pursue something called “The Truth.”

Similarly, the “war between the sexes,” a largely nonexistent conflict throughout most of human history, has been fueled and exploited by our adversaries to create societal divisions  with the purpose of destabilizing the existing status quo and replacing it with a new one.  Here, too, the Media agenda is relaxed in its inability to perceive certain realities, like the unequal life spans of men and women.  American women on average live five or more years longer than American males, and this is at least in part a sad testimonial to the greater burdens borne by men in the struggle for survival.  If life itself is the most precious of human commodities, then how are men not being profoundly shortchanged?  The Left’s gender warfare agenda also ignores other realities:   despite the endless screeching for complete equality, women do not demand that half of our wars’  body bags be filled with females.  Perhaps it’s because that would constitute a true equality whose price they have no real wish to pay:  99.9 percent of all combat deaths continue to be males.  Similarly, they have no problem with the fact that the vast majority of workplace deaths are males, because men are performing the most dangerous jobs.  They also have no problem with the fact that females are sentenced to vastly less jail time when they commit the same crimes committed by males.  Unsurprisingly,  many recent studies have revealed that half of all domestic violence is perpetrated by females, so women should also insist that women constitute half of all domestic violence arrests.  They do not do so;  instead, the vast majority of arrestees are males, primarily because males often do not report assaults made on them by their female partners.  And as a final example, to reiterate a point slightly, women should very rationally demand that Affirmative Action quotas be created for hard labor professions like coal mining and highway construction, following the logic that if small or petite men can do these jobs, then women can help serve the cause of justice by filling them and shortening their own life spans.

Is there any likelihood that any of these blatant inequalities will be remedied?  Dream on, ladies and gentlemen.  It will not happen because such remedies will not advance the agenda of the juggernaut that joyfully grinds men — and especially white men — into their graves.

The gender narrative is thus in some regards as one-sided as the aforementioned racial narrative.  The gender narrative allows women to aggressively demand all of the perks of parity, while retaining most of the perks of being sheltered as “the weaker sex.”  Take, for example, the FBI’s discriminatory physical requirements for newly hired Special Agents.  In order to become an agent, men are given ten points in the physical examination if they can run 1.5 miles in 8.59 minutes or less time, and women receive ten points if they can run the same distance in 10.34 minutes or less.  In effect, women are given more than one and a half additional minutes to run the same distance(!).  In the same manner, a male applicant gets ten points if he can do 71 or more push-ups, while a woman gets the same number of points for doing 45 push-ups.   These and similar lesser physical requirements for women beg an obvious point:  if the aforementioned ten and half minutes qualifies female agents to chase bank robbers down a street, how is it anything other than blatantly discriminatory to hold males to a more demanding requirement?  These unequal requirements are blatant sex discrimination on their face, discrimination no one has the necessary cahones to litigate.

The bottom line, while pontificating about equality, many women remain sheltered from much of the heavy lifting in our society.  They still expect to be first in the lifeboats when a passenger liner sinks, because they expect to have their cake and eat it too.  Clarity, justice, true equity — these are finer points that make no impression on many fevered Liberal minds, minds unaware that they are shaped and herded by agendas that are hardly interested in anything resembling genuine fairness.

Like many forms of evil, Cultural Marxism disingenuously appeals to our higher ideals regarding justice, equality and freedom.  We are told that our destiny involves achieving  a state of complete equality in a post-racial and post-gender society.  But Cultural Marxism, like many ideological cancers, has merely waged its warfare by cloaking itself in disguises intended to exploit our most noble and humane aspirations.  In reality, its appeals are merely a means to an end; it promotes divisions to destabilize and deconstruct societies and thus create a more fertile ground for itself.

To rehash one primary thought, the pattern of initially demanding access and equality is a pattern that ultimately ends in institutional control and oppression.  This is exemplified nowhere better than in the nation of South Africa, a once First World, modern, industrialized society that is now rapidly devolving into a violent and dysfunctional nightmare.  The once bright promises of socialism there are now sand in the mouths of ordinary South Africans.  Water and electricity are routinely rationed in cities that were once on par with those in any other Western nation.   Racial and gender relations have worsened, despite promises that the fall of Apartheid would lend itself to utopian levels of racial and gender equality.  Just as important, for our analysis, the society in a matter of three decades has devolved from being an orderly and stable one to being one characterized by some of the highest rape, crime, and poverty statistics on the planet.  It has gone from being a First World nation that was founded and built and dominated by whites to one in which whites are now largely banned from the labor market and white real estate holdings are being forcibly confiscated.  And it has devolved into a place where women of all races frequently exist in economic and physical peril.  What emerged from the settling dust of post-white rule was a hyper-violent, repressive, conflicted, balkanized, and disintegrating community, a community in which survival itself has become problematic.

This is no environment conducive to genuine racial and gender equality, and if such descriptions strike some familiar chords with Americans, they should reflect that in South Africa such a metamorphosis was unthinkable only a few decades ago.  A society that South African Europeans spent four centuries building — and which would not have existed without their presence — went quickly from a national mindset of “It can’t happen here,” to “It will inevitably happen here.”  Imperfect as the old South Africa may have been, today it barely operates.

America is very unlikely to escape the same disaster.  As we have mentioned, a very short time ago, as the European desendants of the founding populations of the U.S. and South Africa, our status and safety in these countries were considered divinely ordered certainties.  Even so, as rapidly as a society can create sacred cows, it can just as quickly create scapegoats and pariahs to render up as burnt offerings to the gods.  We assumed our homelands to be invincible, and our places in them to be secure, but notions of such security are on some level purely imaginary.  As the wise Benjamin Franklin once said, “Even when we think ourselves secure, we are not truly safe.”

It can be speculated that tomorrow’s America, very much like South Africa, will be neither post-racial nor post-gender.  It will merely be a “post-America” society, in that the original America will be permanently dead.  Racial and gender conflicts will still abound, because racial and gender realities will continue to exist, all of the vaunted and extensive social engineering notwithstanding.  The conflicts will merely have been successfully manipulated as part of a divide and conquer strategy that places the barrel of a gun squarely in our faces  and then pulls the trigger — obliterating everything once familiar to us.

The fools and traitors and cowards that lead us will have merely ushered us into dark and dangerous byways, under the pretense of illuminating those places.  Instead, rather than creating light, they will simply herd us toward the terminus of the road that ends in extinction.

© 2020 Sidney Secular – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Sidney Secular: Success_Express@yahoo.com

Source: Post-America – News With Views

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.