Friday, August 14, 2015

On fighting the Good Fight, and Defeatism

The following is a comment I left at Steve Sailer's iSteve blog, in reply to another commenter on the Informed Consent post:

This is going to sound like a smart-ass comment, for which I apologize, but it isn't meant to be.
"For a tangible example, after leaving the comment on the @IlanBrat post I sent him a few tweets. Did anyone here attempt to contact him or help with my attempts to contact him? Did anyone here do anything similar? If not, then you aren’t in their league and they’re going to keep doing what they’ve been doing and they’re going to keep winning."
What difference, at this point, would it make if we had commented, either on the post or on Twitter? The comments may or may not be 'disappeared', but getting blocked and muted on Twitter is almost a certainty. It's not like these folks don't know of the intensity of the feelings of the majority on this issue.

For example, the NYTs ran an article on Disney and SCE dumping IT workers in the USA and replacing them with H-1B imports. The comments were extremely passionate, very anti-H-1B and anti-corporate, and largely anti-immigration in general. The NYTs even ran an article a few days later, on page 1 of the print edition, I believe, reporting on the reaction in the comment section to the first article. Has the NYTs changed its position on open borders even one lick since then? Are they ever likely to do so?

I will confess to defeatism on this issue. I've been following politics for 35 years now, and as I've grown older I've realized that there are two factions in the country: the rulers and their minions, aspirants, and useful idiots; and the rest of us. There is infighting amongst the rulers as to how to divide up the spoils, but when it comes down to it that ruling class is uniformly against the majority of the country and exclusively for their own benefit - and THEY see it as a zero sum game.

I've seen political insurgencies come and go. Reagan looked like an insurgency, once, but it turns out he was just in favor of Wall Street raping the country financially while opening up the borders a bit more.

Perot WAS an insurgency. He made a splash in 1992, but by 1996 and 2000 the ripples had died away. (Wasn't it discussed here that Romney lost in 2012 precisely because he did worse than expected in counties which had shown strong Perot support in 1992?)

The Tea Parties were, at their core, insurgent against the ruling class, but they've been so easily co-opted that it isn't even funny. (And it was pretty obvious from the get go that they would be easily co-opted.) The Occupy Movement was a joke.

And now, The Donald and Bernie Show. A look at the records of each shows that if they somehow do get elected President they're likely to go back to being the open borders guys everyone else in The Establishment.

So I don't think adding my voice, or even a few voices, or even a huge numbers of voices to the online din will make a difference. If Perot, with his billions and his desire and the support of 19,743,821 voters couldn't make a difference, what hope have we now, after 23 years of additional, and accelerated, rot?

Again, apologies for the sour tone.

No comments:

Post a Comment